NOAA Weather Radio

[RadioDaze]

I'm interested to know more about the history if this service, specifically, the logic behind and advantages of using 162 MHz for broadcasts as opposed to operating on a designated channel(s) in the FM (or even AM) broadcast band where a special, unique receiver wouldn't be required to hear the broadcasts.

[Darth_vader]

I've wondered that myself. I think it might have something to do with implementing support for it in marine-band VHF two way radios, since 162 MHz isn't that far away from that spectrum, even though the railroad band does fall in between.

I've been to areas where they do simulcast the local NOAA station over a regular mediumwave channel (e.g. Pendleton.) For many years KIG98 was also simulcast over KPXG's SAP subcarrier.

[eacalhoun1]

An engineer can verify or dispute my thoughts on this, but I think the current weather band frequencies are favored because of the following benefits:

- Not prone to interference (like from thunderstorms) on the consumer's receiver

- Larger coverage area from lower transmitter output, compared to the FM (broadcast) transmitters. I'm pretty certain that 1,000 watts is the maximum for NOAA Weather Radio stations.

Eric

[K6JHU]

I believe the rationale was more of the idea that NOAA started as a service for mariner's so they wanted a frequency close to the marine frequency. Also in places like NY and LA there was also no available FM frequency so that was another reason for having a defined frequency.

Since I live in an area prone to nasty weather, it is a real wake-up call (literally) when the NOAA radio goes off at 3:00 in the morning :-)

[anotherguy]

WCTA 810 in Alamo, TN is currently carrying NOAA weather radio. They're coming back on the air after having been silent for several years, and they're using it to stay legal until they're ready to go with a regular format.

This may be a dumb question, but why does NOAA weather radio sound like a squawk box? I know it has an automated voice, but even when there is a live voice it sounds that way. It looks like they could at least have a cleaner sounding voice even if it is automated.

[scanman1]

It's a narrow band FM broadcast. Low fidelity audio is the nature of the beast.

[bilco]

My guesses for what they are worth.
1. Near the Marine Band.
2. Narrow band FM is more effective with lower powered transmitters.
3. Lack of available broadcast frequencies in many areas.
4. That was the frequency area the NOAA techs were familiar with.
5. Lack of support on the receivers manufacturers
6. Smaller transmitters and antennas needed.
7. Site availablity
8. Unsuitability of AM during lightning activity.
9. Night time skip at AM frrequencies
Just some thoughts.
Bill
 

[Darth_vader]

"It's a narrow band FM broadcast. Low fidelity audio is the nature of the beast."

The sound quality of our NOAA stations is actually how I recall the OIRT band sounding when I first heard it in Russia many years ago. 5kHz bandwidth FM; nice and tinny. Especially so on the crappy radio that I'd brought with me!

[kenglish]

At KSL, we have a direct feed (Ma Bell) from the Weather Service. It sounds pretty good, but there is a ton of crosstalk from their other services.
It would be nice if their transmitters had a bit more low-end, since everything is voices.

[Darth_vader]

"We have a direct feed (Ma Bell) from the Weather Service. It sounds pretty good, but there is a ton of crosstalk from their other services."

*perks ears up* Mmmmm?

Might they still be on an analogue wire-trunk system, per chance? Any possibility of getting some audio samples for our perusal? *grins*