AM Tuning steps (9 vs. 10khz)
Mel3k
Europe/Asia tune in 9khz steps while North American AM goes by steps
of 10khz? Also, why did some countries like Australia switch from
10khz to 9khz steps some years back?
Thanks for your insights:)
Dan Seur
and opinion when the law was written. [Not sure if this answers your
real question.]
John Higdon
Easy. You can get more stations with shorter spacing. Didn't happen here
because the NAB managed to nix it. It was one of the many elixirs that
was going to save AM radio (along with the NRSC mask re-design, AM
stereo, and now digital). But broadcasters wanted neither the frequency
shake up nor the added competition, so the 9 KHz separation was scuttled.
Sidebar: Broadcasters have never seemed interested in the one thing that
would save AM radio.
--
John Higdon | Email Address Valid | SF: +1 415 428-COWS
+1 408 264 4115 | Anytown, USA | FAX: +1 408 264 4407
David Eduardo
"Mel3k" <ph...@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:b0kihe$ol$1...@xuxa.iecc.com...
It is a world standard to use 9 kHz except in the Americas. I don't know
when Europe standardized, but by the end of W.W. II stations were on the
9's. In the 70's, I think, they shifted channels but still on the 9 KHz
separation.
Australia changed to standardize with SE Asia and to avoid heterodynes form
high power stations in the region.
Obviously, 9 kHZ allows more channels on the band... about 12 more in fact.
John Byrns
<no-...@amadeus.kome.com> wrote:
> In article <b0kihe$ol$1...@xuxa.iecc.com>, ph...@yahoo.com (Mel3k) wrote:
>
> > I'm not sure if this has been asked before, but why does AM radio in
> > Europe/Asia tune in 9khz steps while North American AM goes by steps
> > of 10khz? Also, why did some countries like Australia switch from
> > 10khz to 9khz steps some years back?
>
> Easy. You can get more stations with shorter spacing. Didn't happen here
> because the NAB managed to nix it. It was one of the many elixirs that
> was going to save AM radio (along with the NRSC mask re-design, AM
> stereo, and now digital). But broadcasters wanted neither the frequency
> shake up nor the added competition, so the 9 KHz separation was scuttled.
>
> Sidebar: Broadcasters have never seemed interested in the one thing that
> would save AM radio.
And that one thing is?
Regards,
John Byrns
Surf my web pages at, http://www.enteract.com/~jbyrns/index.html
Mark Roberts
|
| It is a world standard to use 9 kHz except in the Americas. I don't know
| when Europe standardized, but by the end of W.W. II stations were on the
| 9's. In the 70's, I think, they shifted channels but still on the 9 KHz
| separation.
1975 Geneva agreement, fully in effect by 1979. That agreement also
put Australia on 9 kHz spacing.
The FCC was talking about it but it was scuttled in 1980 or 1981.
--
Mark Roberts | "Man, you're everywhere, aren't you? :) tvbarn, ba.*,
Oakland, Cal.| it's hard to escape you!" -- e-mail to me based on
NO HTML MAIL | a misc.transport.road post, 1-18-2003
Peter H.
>>
Australia changed to standardize with SE Asia and to avoid heterodynes form
high power stations in the region.
>>
Australia and New Zealand were 10 kHz spaced in 1980, but went to 9 kHz shortly
thereafter.
Some hetrodyning tests were conducted with KFI/640 and KNX/1070, with their
Australian and New Zealand counterparts changing frequency by 1 KHz, and
running tests in the mid-pacific.
The results were such that Australasia went with 9 kHz and we stayed with 10
kHz (but at that time many U.S. digitally tuned radios were made with both 10
kHz and 9 kHz), and we expanded the band from 540-1600 upwards. Previously, the
band was 550-1500.
Sven Franklyn Weil
that time many U.S. digitally tuned radios were made with both 10 > kHz
and 9 kHz), and we expanded the band from 540-1600 upwards. Previously,
the
Problem is a lot of digitally-tuned (particularly the ones used in cars
and the cheaper ones sold in drug stores) are not. This would render them
useless.
However, these are the same radios that can tune either "even" or "odd" FM
frequencies -- e.g.: 97.6, 98.8, 100.4, etc.
There are some radios that can't tune in such FM frequencies. The GM Delco
car radios I've seen are guilty of that.
--
Sven
Don Forsling
--
John Higdon" <no-...@amadeus.kome.com> wrote in message
news:b0kuri$7n0$1...@xuxa.iecc.com...
> In article <b0kihe$ol$1...@xuxa.iecc.com>, ph...@yahoo.com (Mel3k) wrote:
(snip)
>
But broadcasters wanted neither the frequency
> shake up nor the added competition, so the 9 KHz separation was scuttled.
>
> Sidebar: Broadcasters have never seemed interested in the one thing that
> would save AM radio.
>
> --
Why would anybody, including broadcasters, be interested in saving a
particular technology (unless of course they owned an AM station _and_
lacked imagination)? Ah, I recall the days, say about 1966, when CATV (we
called it CAT-FIVE) was just getting started, and I was totally uninterested
in it. I also recall telling coworkers something like, "If I wanted to
distribute programs through wires, I'd join the telephone company." What a
visionary I was--not.
That said, what _is_ the one thing that would save AM radio?
Best,
Don Forsling
R J Carpenter
"Peter H." <peter...@aol.comminch> wrote in message
news:b0m4c7$4ce$1...@xuxa.iecc.com...
John Edwards
time. That is irrelevant to the current discussion of course!
I do recall listening at midnight one night for a 1kHz heterodyne from a
staton in LA but heard nothing
john E.
"Peter H." <peter...@aol.comminch> wrote in message
news:b0m4c7$4ce$1...@xuxa.iecc.com...
>
> >>
Sven Franklyn Weil
>
> That said, what _is_ the one thing that would save AM radio?
A SERIOUS revamp of programming and a big marketing push.
We need to shift AM from the jibber-jabber, excessive right-wing talk
bastion that it's (mentally) become.
When most people think AM they think: oh it's just talk-talk-talk and
religious freaks.
Move it to more middle-of-the road, general entertainment formats
appealing to a regional audience (a huge metro area and surrounding
suburbs and small towns). A few popular music formats catering to the 20-
to 40-something demographics wouldn't hurt.
Sports-talk is OK for one or two signals since it does also encourage
younger listeners (and it seems to be a good biller in huge cities -
witness WFAN-AM 660/New York).
Also, AM stations should be limited to a few SUPERPOWERED signals in each
major city (50 to 100,000 and up). Then widen the bandwith of these
existing stations a bit (to help the music formats) - get rid of, or
change the NRSC mask?
Most of the tiny daytimers and "local" stations in most large cities are
just cluttering the band up and causing more noise. They should be either
moved to FM if space permits or the owners should be given tax writeoffs
to encourage them to turn these signals off.
--
Sven
RandyP
1600 all of my life (which doesn't go back to 1940).
"R J Carpenter" <rca...@erols.com> wrote in message
news:b0mema$99i$1...@xuxa.iecc.com...
Mark Roberts
| The expansion from 1500 to 1600 was in 1940, wasn't it?
As standard-band stations, yes (actually 1941). However,
there were high-fidelity stations in the 1500 to 1600 band,
first on an experimental basis in 1934 and later as full-fledged licensees,
See <http://www.cosmos-monitor.com/hist/kc/w9xby.html> for the
history of one such station.
Michael Black
>
> > I'm not sure if this has been asked before, but why does AM radio in
> > Europe/Asia tune in 9khz steps while North American AM goes by steps
> > of 10khz? Also, why did some countries like Australia switch from
> > 10khz to 9khz steps some years back?
>
> Easy. You can get more stations with shorter spacing. Didn't happen here
> because the NAB managed to nix it. It was one of the many elixirs that
> was going to save AM radio (along with the NRSC mask re-design, AM
> stereo, and now digital). But broadcasters wanted neither the frequency
> shake up nor the added competition, so the 9 KHz separation was scuttled.
>
> Sidebar: Broadcasters have never seemed interested in the one thing that
> would save AM radio.
Of course, to the consumer it never mattered very much what the spacing
was. It only comes into play in the past twenty years or so (and since
it was a slow development, less than that), as digitally tuned radios
became commonplace. With an analog dial, most people wouldn't notice
that if they moved away from their home country, the stations were
tuned closer together or further apart; it was easy to compensate.
But once digital tuning came into play, that caused problems because
a radio set to one standard did not tune the other standard.
Once digitally tuned radios became common, it probably was too
late for North America to move to a 9KHz standard, even if there
were good reasons for doing so. Making everyone switch radios
would have impossible. If the switch had happened in the days
of analog tuners, it would have been relatively easy, other than
convincing people that they had to retune their radios for
their favorite stations.
Michael
John Higdon
jby...@enteract.com (John Byrns) wrote:
> And that one thing is?
Something worth listening to for programming. FM may suffer the same
fate if it doesn't look out. And digital won't help.
Ruud Poeze
>
> "Mel3k" <ph...@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:b0kihe$ol$1...@xuxa.iecc.com...
> > I'm not sure if this has been asked before, but why does AM radio in
> > Europe/Asia tune in 9khz steps while North American AM goes by steps
> > of 10khz? Also, why did some countries like Australia switch from
> > 10khz to 9khz steps some years back?
>
> It is a world standard to use 9 kHz except in the Americas. I don't know
> when Europe standardized, but by the end of W.W. II stations were on the
> 9's.
There was a 9 kHz seperation but not on all of the band. On top there
was 8 kHz spacing.
The problem with Europe is a huge demand for frequencies by state owned
broadcasters using immense powers to cover the nations. We also still
have LW which has even larger coverage, and even higher powers (up to
2000 kW) are being used.
In the 1975 Geneva convention it was agreed to change the roster by a
consequent spacing of 9 kHz for all channels on N x 9 kHz, to allow
synhesizer tuners.
This came into effect AFAIR in 1978. In a sort of big bang all
frequencies were shifted by 1 or 2 kHz.
Also Afric has this system, but until this day some stations are on the
"old' frequencies.
Ruud
R J Carpenter
"Sven Franklyn Weil" <sv...@gordsven.com> wrote in message
news:b0mem9$996$1...@xuxa.iecc.com...
> However, these are the same radios that can tune either "even" or "odd" FM
> frequencies -- e.g.: 97.6, 98.8, 100.4, etc.
>
> There are some radios that can't tune in such FM frequencies. The GM Delco
> car radios I've seen are guilty of that.
I've never seen a car radio sold in the USA that could tune the "even"
frequencies. That includes the US "big three", VW, Hyundai, ... ...
Peter H.
>>
The expansion from 1500 to 1600 was in 1940, wasn't it?
>>
Signed in 1939; took effect in 1941.
The same city channel spacing was also changed from 50 kHz to 40 kHz; 540 kHz
was added as a new Canadian clear channel; the U.S. clears on 1460-1490 were
moved to 1500-1530; new clears were added on 1540-1580 [ * ] ; and 1590 and
1600 became new regionals.
All locals on 1500 were moved to 1490; 1460-1480 became regionals.
In general, all stations were changed by either +0 kHz, +10 kHz, +20 kHz, +30
kHz, +40 kHz or -10 kHz in accordance with a "table"; and out of about 860
stations then licenced in the U.S., only about 80, give or take, were changed
as exceptions to the "table".
[ * ] 1540: Bahama Islands Class I-A, U.S. Class I-B; 1550: Canada/Mexico Class
I-B; 1560: Cuba Class I-A, U.S. Class I-B; 1570: Mexico Class I-A; 1580: Canada
Class I-A.
R J Carpenter
"Michael Black" <blac...@cam.org> wrote in message
news:b0oktm$41r$1...@xuxa.iecc.com...
>
> Once digitally tuned radios became common, it probably was too
> late for North America to move to a 9KHz standard, even if there
> were good reasons for doing so. Making everyone switch radios
> would have impossible.
Of course a two-step switch of the MW band from analog to IBOC to
all-digital would be easy - NOT!!
Jim Burgan
> > That said, what _is_ the one thing that would save AM radio?
> Sven Franklyn Weil replied:
> A SERIOUS revamp of programming and a big marketing push.
>
> We need to shift AM from the jibber-jabber, excessive right-wing talk
> bastion that it's (mentally) become.
That jibber-jabber, excessive right-wing talk is about the only thing that
is keeping AM radio alive these days.
If you look at the #1 AM station in each market (both ratings and billing),
you'll usually find the station at the top of the heap is the one running
Rush or Sean Hannity or one of the 'right-wingers'.
I can't stand to listen to Rush Limbaugh but you have to respect what he did
for AM radio.
What kind of programming would you use to replace this 'jiber-jabber'?
WBRW
> 9 kHz
A friend of mine has an early '80s receiver with digital tuning that
uses 9 and 10 kHz channel spacing *simultaneously*. As far as I know
it is a regular U.S. model tuner, that was designed this way. As it
scans the dial, it will stop on a station and then decide which
frequency step is more appropriate -- and not necessarily the
"correct" frequency! For example, it will stop on a local station
that broadcasts on 710 kHz, and after flipping back and forth between
710 and 711 kHz a few times (as you can see happening on the LED
display), it will "settle" on 711 kHz because this provides slightly
better treble response.
It's an odd animal to be sure, and may either just be a really weird
design, or may have been purposely designed to support simultaneous 9
and 10 kHz AM channel spacing in the event that North America did make
the transition to 9 kHz spacing.
Shawn Mamros
>Move it to more middle-of-the road, general entertainment formats
>appealing to a regional audience (a huge metro area and surrounding
>suburbs and small towns). A few popular music formats catering to the 20-
>to 40-something demographics wouldn't hurt.
Those 20- to 40-somethings grew up listening to FM for their music,
if they listened to radio for music at all. The common belief is
that music just doesn't sound good on AMs, plus you have static
(something that can never be eliminated completely on AM, as
Major Armstrong found out oh-so-many decades ago, and if anything,
static sources are even more numerous these days).
If you give them the same music on AM that they can find on FM,
there's no good reason for them to switch. Even if you give them
something "different", something compelling that they can't find
elsewhere (and, with music tastes being so fragmented, you're
only likely to get a small slice of the pie at best), they still
might tune away (or, more likely, go right to CD) at the first
hint of static.
-Shawn Mamros
E-mail to: mamros -at- mit dot edu
Chuck Gustafson
=====some deleted for brevity=====
>Most of the tiny daytimers and "local" stations in most large cities are
>just cluttering the band up and causing more noise. They should be either moved to FM if space permits or the owners should be given tax writeoffs to encourage them to turn these signals off.
>
>--
>Sven
>
>
>
You've got to be kidding. Right?
In a large city there's no space for another FM station. If there were
the AM daytimer would have already applied for it and moved to FM.
As for 9 kHz spacing in the U. S. I do remember that it was nixed due to
the existing (at that time) base of digital tuners which were set up for
10 kHz spacing only.
Chuck
A1MC
here in America and Canada and South America there are people that can =
not afford new radios and still have the old and rely on them for news =
and weather information, one might note you might find a real =
collectable radio in some of these areas.
"Ruud Poeze" <radioc...@wxs.nl> wrote in message =
news:b0oktd$3vv$1...@xuxa.iecc.com...
> David Eduardo schreef:
> >=20
> > "Mel3k" <ph...@yahoo.com> wrote in message =
news:b0kihe$ol$1...@xuxa.iecc.com...
> > > I'm not sure if this has been asked before, but why does AM radio =
in
> > > Europe/Asia tune in 9khz steps while North American AM goes by =
steps
> > > of 10khz? Also, why did some countries like Australia switch from
> > > 10khz to 9khz steps some years back?
> > It is a world standard to use 9 kHz except in the Americas. I don't =
know
> > when Europe standardized, but by the end of W.W. II stations were on =
the
> > 9's.=20
>=20
> There was a 9 kHz seperation but not on all of the band. On top there
> was 8 kHz spacing.
owned
> broadcasters using immense powers to cover the nations. We also still
> have LW which has even larger coverage, and even higher powers (up to
> 2000 kW) are being used.
> In the 1975 Geneva convention it was agreed to change the roster by a
> consequent spacing of 9 kHz for all channels on N x 9 kHz, to allow
> synhesizer tuners.
> This came into effect AFAIR in 1978. In a sort of big bang all
> frequencies were shifted by 1 or 2 kHz.
the
> "old' frequencies.
> Ruud
>=20
>=20
> In the 70's, I think, they shifted channels but still on the 9 KHz
> > separation.
> > Australia changed to standardize with SE Asia and to avoid =
heterodynes form
> > high power stations in the region.
> > Obviously, 9 kHZ allows more channels on the band... about 12 more =
in fact.
>
Ruud Poeze
This radio might do search in 1 kHz steps.
In Europe LW receivers also do this to facilitate reception of 177 en
183 kHz, two channels (or better a split for 180) that are apart from
the 9 kHz spacing system.
Ruud
.Bithead.
>> at that time many U.S. digitally tuned radios were made with both 10 kHz and
>> 9 kHz
>
>A friend of mine has an early '80s receiver with digital tuning that
>uses 9 and 10 kHz channel spacing *simultaneously*. As far as I know
>it is a regular U.S. model tuner, that was designed this way. As it
>scans the dial, it will stop on a station and then decide which
>frequency step is more appropriate -- and not necessarily the
>"correct" frequency! For example, it will stop on a local station
>that broadcasts on 710 kHz, and after flipping back and forth between
>710 and 711 kHz a few times (as you can see happening on the LED
>display), it will "settle" on 711 kHz because this provides slightly
>better treble response.
Well, yes and no.
Likely, that settle out has to do with the audio being tilted positive
at the transmitter. Long story.
-->
_____________________________________________________________
/BitHead's Place: Political commentary from the REAL world. /\
/ http://greysanctuary.com/columnists/bithead/index.asp _/ /\
/ http://home.rochester.rr.com/bitheads/ / \/
/ Before you preach tolerance, THINK. \ /
Those who tolerate *everything*, stand for *nothing*. /\
____________________________________________________________/ /
____________________________________________________________\/
\ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \\ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \
John Higdon
"Jim Burgan" <j...@burganHORMEL.com> wrote:
> If you look at the #1 AM station in each market (both ratings and billing),
> you'll usually find the station at the top of the heap is the one running
> Rush or Sean Hannity or one of the 'right-wingers'.
KGO (AM) in San Francisco is the undisputed #1 station in the market. It
has none of the hosts mentioned in this thread. In fact, it only has two
nationally sydicated hosts (Dean Edell, which is done from the KGO
studios, and Bob Brinker). All the rest of the time is done by local
talent, none of which can hardly be classified as "right wing".
> What kind of programming would you use to replace this 'jiber-jabber'?
One might ask KGO.
Jeff Adams
"WBRW" <wb...@radiomailbox.com> wrote in message
news:b0v32u$m14$1...@xuxa.iecc.com...
The old factory analog scan radios used to do something similar. They would
go past the station and then go backward to lock on the station. Most of the
time they would only do it once.
The scan on FM radios, after they went digital, never worked much better. My
first digital with a scan worked poorly in New Jersey. I thought it was
because of all the short spacing. For example, if it was going down, it
would lock onto WIFI/WXTU at 92.5. Then you would push the button again to
stop on WOBM at 92.7. This was in areas that the 92.5 station was not
listenable. Later, when I moved to Florida, when short spacing wasn't the
problem it was up north, I realized the radios just had the scan as a
selling point and another button to confuse the kids who were buying them.
Jeff in Sa-ra-so-ta
Sven Franklyn Weil
> Plus one needs to remember that not just in countries overseas but right =
> here in America and Canada and South America there are people that can =
> not afford new radios and still have the old and rely on them for news =
> and weather information, one might note you might find a real =
> collectable radio in some of these areas.
I collect old radios.
Old radios in Colombia (at least in the city of Cali) are very hard to
find. They die, they get repaired, they die again...they eventually get
trashed when they get too expensive to repair.
My cousin had a huge Colombian-made Sharp tube TV console set. When it
One taxi driver there who drove me whome with one of my finds (too big to
take on the city bus) told me he used to have an old tube radio - but he
sold it and traded it for a modern stereo with cassette player.
Cheap no-name transistorized electric radios (like medium sized portables,
boomboxes and clock radios) can be bought from street vendors and any
numerous medium-to-large sized discount store. They pick up a few of the
higher-powered local top-40 FM stations and that's good enough for most
people.
I bought two such generic Chinese-made animals myself when I visited back
in 1994 and still have them. You want even cheaper, buy a pocket walk-man
style radio. :)
During my last trip to Cali (in 2001), I brought back a couple of old
radios from the 1950s - a large Grundig and a smaller British-made
Philco....in good, easily repairable shape.
Although I did pay a bit more than I would have wanted for the Grundig
since I bought it at an antique store (US$90 in 2001 money - for a radio
with no FM band) - the Philco was US$12 in 2001 money.
Of course, Cali is a major metropolitan area, very similar to New York
City where you can also find such cut-rate cheap stuff easily. Things
might be different in small remote towns (just like here in the USA) where
you're not close to any stores.
In New York, you can't go a block without finding a dollar store, and most
of these do sell radios (not at a dollar, of course).
A lot of people don't have money to pay the rent but they sure manage to
put themselves badly in hock to buy that new colour TV or fancy stereo
with the huge speakers. It's messed up priorities. :-/
--
Sven
Mel3k
I guess here in The Philippines we have an interesting combination
where we use North American odd-numbered tuning for FM (but using 50
microsecond pre/de-emphasis) and 9khz tuning for AM. As an aside, The
Philippines may turn out to be the next country after the US to use
IBOC for digital broadcasts (which i hope doesn't happen)
--->Mel
pianocr...@gmail.com
> I'm not sure if this has been asked before, but why does AM radio in
> Europe/Asia tune in 9khz steps while North American AM goes by steps
> 10khz to 9khz steps some years back?
>
I think it's because of America's geographic position. Because it is locate
d between Europe and Asia the AM band has a tendency to cause interference
with other stations, which is why there is a lot of noise in the background
, so to overcome this problem they had to use different frequencies. If Ame
rica had switched to 9khz like the rest of the world it would be a mess bec
ause you would hear radio stations broadcasting from Europe and parts of As
ia.
pianocr...@gmail.com
> I'm not sure if this has been asked before, but why does AM radio in
> Europe/Asia tune in 9khz steps while North American AM goes by steps
> of 10khz? Also, why did some countries like Australia switch from
> 10khz to 9khz steps some years back?
>
> Thanks for your insights:)
z on AM, which was back in the days when the radios did not have digital di
splays on them. It was one of those old radios in which you had to fiddle w
ith the dial to find a particular station. In those days it was necessary b
ecause it required a much wider spacing. When they started making radios wi
th digital displays on them, that was when Australia, New Zealand, Asia, Af
rica and Europe began the switch-over to 9 kHz spacing. The purpose of swit
ching to 9 kHz on AM was to accommodate more stations in. For some reason N
orth, Central and South America was still stuck with 10 kHz, and I believe
it's because although they started making radios with digital displays, the
frequencies are still based on the old radios which had the tuning dial. P
robably another reason is because there were already too many stations on t
he AM band that it was not convenient to narrow the bandwidth from 10 kHz t
o 9 kHz. Plus back in the early 80's they had plans to switch to 9 kHz like
the rest of the world, but the changeover never really worked. These days
there are some American radios which allow you to switch between 9 kHz and
10 kHz simultaneously, in the likely event that the Americas made the trans
ition to 9 kHz spacing. I hope that answers your question.
hwh
> On Wednesday, January 22, 2003 at 9:45:02 AM UTC+11, Mel3k wrote:
>> I'm not sure if this has been asked before, but why does AM radio in
>> Europe/Asia tune in 9khz steps while North American AM goes by steps
>> of 10khz? Also, why did some countries like Australia switch from
>> 10khz to 9khz steps some years back?
>>
>> Thanks for your insights:)
>
> If you go back to the history of AM radio, the entire world was using 10 kH
> z on AM, which was back in the days when the radios did not have digital di
> splays on them.
end. In 1978 the switch was made to 9 kHz only, and in frequencies
dividable by 9. So there is no relation to the invention of digital
displays. The US not only has 10 kHz spacing, stations used up to 10 kHz
in their modulation while European stations used only 4.5 kHz. So in the
US 'neighboring' stations had to be separated geographically.
gr, hwh
Brian Gregory
There would be less interference if all stations were on the same channels.
A weak interfering signal 1, 2, 3, 4 or 5 kHz away from what you are
trying to listen too is much more of an annoyance than the same signal
would be on the same frequency because you hear a loud 1, 2, 3, 4 or
5kHz whistle rather than just quiet sound of the other station in the
background.
--
Brian Gregory (in the UK).
To email me please remove all the letter vee from my email address.
shum...@gmail.com
I would have thought otherwise. Finally one point to analog and a point against digital.
The so called digital technology has made my car radio defunct. I will never import anything from USA