Re: AM spacing

[SteveOrdinetz <steveord@bit-net.com>]

  Dan.Strassberg@att.net wrote:
>The only explanation I know is, "that's just the way it is."
>
>Maybe 20 years ago an abortive attempt was made to bring the whole world into
>line by instituting 9-kHz spacing in the Western Hemisphere. Various 
>arguments
>were put forth. Of those, the one I found most compelling was that. even 
>then,
>a small number of car radios (as well as some stand-alone radios) would 
>have to
>be scrapped because they were designed to tune only in 10-kHz increments. 
>Other
>arguments included the the likely need for more bandwidth, not less, when a
>digital-audio-broadcast system was developed. Both arguments were valid.

9kHz seems an unusual spacing to begin with...with all the bleating about 
the US being the only major nation not using the metric system, it seems 
odd that we should be criticized for adapting AM channel spacing that is 10 
kHz spaced.  "683 WRKO" or "WMEX 1509" just don't have the same ring.

Isn't all international shortwave broadcasting on on 10kHz spaced 
channels...any stations I can think of use frequencies that are multiples 
of 5 (ie 14.075 mHz).