[Dave]

As it seems that you are at least reasonably sophisticated in your unders=
tanding of things-audio, I will withdraw my original caveat against tube tu=
ners and suggest, just for giggles, you obtain a decent Dynaco FM3, bring i=
t up to factory spec., go through the alignment process and see how it soun=
ds to you. Not the most sensitive unit on the block, nor the most endowed w=
ith features, but hands-down one of the better sounding beasts you might ex=
perience. For the last 25 years, including when we worked overseas, one or =
another example has been on active duty, even if not on the immediate front=
line.=20
=20
Peter Wieck
Melrose Park, PA

Thanks for revisiting your ideas. I thought about a Dynaco FM-3, like its =
simplicity, but it looks as though the price point for a good one goes beyo=
nd my requirement for reasonable cost. Given that most seem to need cap ch=
anges and alignment, the cost would quickly go well above reasonable. Tube =
(Hollow State Device) sourcing is also a bit problematic these days; a full=
new set could easily double the cost of the tuner. Tuner Information Cent=
er did not have kind words about the sound of an FM-3. I personally have n=
ot heard one in well over 40 years.

My issue with older tuners, those without PLL MPX decoders, is that they ha=
d 'birdies' from SCA signals. In my area, WCRB has (had?) SCA info that fo=
rced me to put a PLL MPX decoder in a Quad FM3 tuner to eliminate the whist=
les. No solid state tuners with PLL MPX decoders have had this problem in =
my experience.