Because I have a very limited amount of space, I now
use all rack-mount gear in my audio system. My rack
is 16U high, which you'd like to think, was plenty of
space. A photo of the stack can be seen at:

http://www.button.com/family/photos/...n/PIC00014.jpg

I'm not happy with the NAD tuner-preamp I'm running.
It is supposedly their best effort, but the phone section
is rather two-dimensional and a disappointment. The
switching is also intermittantly non-functional, which
is also a great annoyance. So I'm looking around for
something to replace it.

This really is all the space I have to stack this stuff
up, and if I can live with it, works out pretty well. My
Linn table is sitting on a Target wall mount and the rack
sits under it nicely, so this is a good situation if I
can find a way to live with it.

You'll notice that on the bottom of the stack, are four
1U high Hafler poweramp pancakes. They have 1U high
spacers in between to allow for cooling. Above the top
poweramp is a 1U spacer before it gets to the active
crossover for my Orion loudspeakers. Above the crossover
is a Tascam combo CD player and cassette deck. Not the
world's greatest CD player, but if you accept a lot of
the testimony here, it really doesn't matter.

There are rack shelves that could be used to support
a conventional SACD or DVD audio player, but then I'd have
to give up using cassettes. Of course I play cassettes
about once in a blue moon, so it may come to that. I
do not know of anyone making an SACD or DVD player that
rackmounts.

The topmost item is a 1U high Furman Rackrider. It is
essentially a glorified power strip and surge protector.
With all those components, I really need it because it
keeps the power cords all inside the rack space instead
of spaghettied all over the floor behind into a couple
of cheesy floor power strips.

So this leaves me with 3U of height for tuner and preamp
and this is where I ask for your opinions.

I'm partial to the sound of tube preamps and the only
ones I can find which rack mount in a space no more than
2U high are the Counterpoint SA3 and SA5 units. Has
anyone here heard either of them and wish to comment?

How do they compare to other well-known tube preamps?

Does anyone have any suggestions for a tube preamp which
comes in a pro style rackmount which is 2U high or less?

I'm also looking around for rack mounted FM tuners and
have found the following:


Name height approx price
================================================== =============
Crown FM3 1U $ 350 used
Sumo Charlie 2U $ 300 used
Belles 1U $ who knows?
Inter-M PT-9107-SD 1U $ 420 new


Any thoughts on this stuff?

Russ

On 27 Feb 2005 18:03:38 GMT, Russ Button wrote:

Because I have a very limited amount of space, I now
use all rack-mount gear in my audio system. My rack
is 16U high, which you'd like to think, was plenty of
space. A photo of the stack can be seen at:

Any thoughts on this stuff?

Hi Russ:
All my stuff is rack mounted. I just make brackets to rack mount
any components in the standard 19" space (18" on center mounting
holes). brackets can be easily made from 1" X 1" aluminum angle for
most any 17" wide equipment. For smaller widths, use 1 1/2" angle
trimmed to size needed.


-=Bill Eckle=-

Vanity Web Page at:
http://www.wmeckle.com

"Russ Button" wrote in message
...
Because I have a very limited amount of space, I now
use all rack-mount gear in my audio system. My rack
is 16U high, which you'd like to think, was plenty of
space. A photo of the stack can be seen at:

http://www.button.com/family/photos/...n/PIC00014.jpg

I'm not happy with the NAD tuner-preamp I'm running.
It is supposedly their best effort, but the phone section
is rather two-dimensional and a disappointment. The
switching is also intermittantly non-functional, which
is also a great annoyance. So I'm looking around for
something to replace it.

This really is all the space I have to stack this stuff
up, and if I can live with it, works out pretty well. My
Linn table is sitting on a Target wall mount and the rack
sits under it nicely, so this is a good situation if I
can find a way to live with it.

You'll notice that on the bottom of the stack, are four
1U high Hafler poweramp pancakes. They have 1U high
spacers in between to allow for cooling. Above the top
poweramp is a 1U spacer before it gets to the active
crossover for my Orion loudspeakers. Above the crossover
is a Tascam combo CD player and cassette deck. Not the
world's greatest CD player, but if you accept a lot of
the testimony here, it really doesn't matter.

There are rack shelves that could be used to support
a conventional SACD or DVD audio player, but then I'd have
to give up using cassettes. Of course I play cassettes
about once in a blue moon, so it may come to that. I
do not know of anyone making an SACD or DVD player that
rackmounts.

The topmost item is a 1U high Furman Rackrider. It is
essentially a glorified power strip and surge protector.
With all those components, I really need it because it
keeps the power cords all inside the rack space instead
of spaghettied all over the floor behind into a couple
of cheesy floor power strips.

So this leaves me with 3U of height for tuner and preamp
and this is where I ask for your opinions.

I'm partial to the sound of tube preamps and the only
ones I can find which rack mount in a space no more than
2U high are the Counterpoint SA3 and SA5 units. Has
anyone here heard either of them and wish to comment?

How do they compare to other well-known tube preamps?

Does anyone have any suggestions for a tube preamp which
comes in a pro style rackmount which is 2U high or less?

I'm also looking around for rack mounted FM tuners and
have found the following:


Name height approx price
================================================== =============
Crown FM3 1U $ 350 used
Sumo Charlie 2U $ 300 used
Belles 1U $ who knows?
Inter-M PT-9107-SD 1U $ 420 new


Any thoughts on this stuff?

Russ


The SA-3 and SA-5 are very good, fairly neutral but not particularly "quiet"
tube preamps. The good news is they can still be modified by the original
designer, who is in the business of doing so in CA. I'd rate the SA-5 's
updated version (SA-5000) on par with my ARC SP6Brc preamp, but more
neutral. I heard them together back in the late eighties or early nineties.

Of the tuners, I'd listen hard to the Crown before purchasing. I owned one
once, and sold it after a short period of time. Very sensitive, but a
strange sound. Very open, with wide soundstage at the top of the frequency
range, and very closed, undynamic, and constricted in the bass. I think of
the resulting sound as a "V" and I hated it. You might wish to consider a
Carver TX-11, 11a, or 11b. These have rack ears and are 2U in height. They
are some of the more sensitive and among the best sounding transistor tuners
ever widely available, and a readily available on eBay.

Hope this helps.

In article ,
Russ Button wrote:

I'm also looking around for rack mounted FM tuners and
have found the following:


Name height approx price
================================================== =============
Crown FM3 1U $ 350 used
Sumo Charlie 2U $ 300 used
Belles 1U $ who knows?
Inter-M PT-9107-SD 1U $ 420 new


Any thoughts on this stuff?

Pioneer made a few superb tuners that were fairly thin.
This includes the F-9 and the F-90. Both are often
available on E-bay for very little money. With FM, the
sound can only get so good, so this is a place where you
can save a few bucks so you can afford that rack mount
tube pre-amp. The F-9 and F-90 do not have rack kits.
They are very light units, so perhaps you know someone
who could make a set of metal brackets for your rack.
Two L-shaped pieces of heavy aluminum cut to the right
length and drilled (2 holes for the rack, 2 or 3 to mount
to the side of the tuner) would do the trick. Brush the
aluminum with a wire wheel and spray paint it. You can
get aluminum stock at Home Depot.

-john-

--
================================================== ====================
John A. Weeks III 952-432-2708
Newave Communications http://www.johnweeks.com
================================================== ====================

Russ Button wrote:
Because I have a very limited amount of space, I now
use all rack-mount gear in my audio system. My rack
is 16U high, which you'd like to think, was plenty of
space. A photo of the stack can be seen at:

http://www.button.com/family/photos/...n/PIC00014.jpg

I'm not happy with the NAD tuner-preamp I'm running.
It is supposedly their best effort, but the phone section
is rather two-dimensional and a disappointment. The
switching is also intermittantly non-functional, which
is also a great annoyance. So I'm looking around for
something to replace it.

This really is all the space I have to stack this stuff
up, and if I can live with it, works out pretty well. My
Linn table is sitting on a Target wall mount and the rack
sits under it nicely, so this is a good situation if I
can find a way to live with it.

You'll notice that on the bottom of the stack, are four
1U high Hafler poweramp pancakes. They have 1U high
spacers in between to allow for cooling. Above the top
poweramp is a 1U spacer before it gets to the active
crossover for my Orion loudspeakers. Above the crossover
is a Tascam combo CD player and cassette deck. Not the
world's greatest CD player, but if you accept a lot of
the testimony here, it really doesn't matter.

There are rack shelves that could be used to support
a conventional SACD or DVD audio player, but then I'd have
to give up using cassettes. Of course I play cassettes
about once in a blue moon, so it may come to that. I
do not know of anyone making an SACD or DVD player that
rackmounts.

The topmost item is a 1U high Furman Rackrider. It is
essentially a glorified power strip and surge protector.
With all those components, I really need it because it
keeps the power cords all inside the rack space instead
of spaghettied all over the floor behind into a couple
of cheesy floor power strips.

So this leaves me with 3U of height for tuner and preamp
and this is where I ask for your opinions.

I'm partial to the sound of tube preamps and the only
ones I can find which rack mount in a space no more than
2U high are the Counterpoint SA3 and SA5 units. Has
anyone here heard either of them and wish to comment?

How do they compare to other well-known tube preamps?

Does anyone have any suggestions for a tube preamp which
comes in a pro style rackmount which is 2U high or less?

I'm also looking around for rack mounted FM tuners and
have found the following:


Name height approx price
================================================== =============
Crown FM3 1U $ 350 used
Sumo Charlie 2U $ 300 used
Belles 1U $ who knows?
Inter-M PT-9107-SD 1U $ 420 new


Any thoughts on this stuff?

Russ
Nice setup. Check out this wonderful site dedicated to tuners;

http://www.fmtunerinfo.com/

Oh, and you really, really need to retire the cassette

CD

Harry Lavo wrote:

The SA-3 and SA-5 are very good, fairly neutral but not particularly "quiet"
tube preamps.

I keep an eye for one then. This sounds like a decent move.

Of the tuners, I'd listen hard to the Crown before purchasing. I owned one
once, and sold it after a short period of time. Very sensitive, but a
strange sound.

I've never been very fond of Crown gear. I can never figure how
they manage to keep their reputation for good quality. I remember
years ago knowing a lot of professionals in audio who always seemed
to have at least one Crown power amp down and in need of repair.

You might wish to consider a
Carver TX-11, 11a, or 11b. These have rack ears and are 2U in height. They
are some of the more sensitive and among the best sounding transistor tuners
ever widely available, and a readily available on eBay.

I thought of that. Carver has a reputation of being quirky
equipment. Remember the Carver Sonic Hologram? You gotta
wonder about someone who'd do something like that. I do
see the Carver tuners on EBay a lot.

What do you know about the Sumo Charlie tuner? I once read
that Jim Bongiorno thought it the equal of a Sequerra or
a Marantz 10B. But then Jim Bongiorno thought he was the
greatest audio engineer to ever walk the planet from what
I've heard.

Russ

On 27 Feb 2005 18:03:38 GMT, Russ Button wrote:


I'm also looking around for rack mounted FM tuners and
have found the following:


Name height approx price
================================================= ==============
Crown FM3 1U $ 350 used
Sumo Charlie 2U $ 300 used
Belles 1U $ who knows?
Inter-M PT-9107-SD 1U $ 420 new


Any thoughts on this stuff?

Russ
Parasound also made one, the TDQ-1600.
John

"Russ Button" wrote in message
...
Harry Lavo wrote:


snip


You might wish to consider a
Carver TX-11, 11a, or 11b. These have rack ears and are 2U in height.
They
are some of the more sensitive and among the best sounding transistor
tuners
ever widely available, and a readily available on eBay.

I thought of that. Carver has a reputation of being quirky
equipment. Remember the Carver Sonic Hologram? You gotta
wonder about someone who'd do something like that. I do
see the Carver tuners on EBay a lot.


Well, the TX-11's work well, including the somewhat gimmicky approach to
distortion and noise reduction. In wideband mode the only tuner I have
heard that sounds a good is a Fisher FM-90B, one of the last of their tube
tuners. And narrow band mode, with noise reduction switched in, is a pretty
good DX machine. I routinely pull in Boston stations from Western Mass from
the second floor, with just a folded dipole at ceiling height. I sit on a
slight but not very high hill.


What do you know about the Sumo Charlie tuner? I once read
that Jim Bongiorno thought it the equal of a Sequerra or
a Marantz 10B. But then Jim Bongiorno thought he was the
greatest audio engineer to ever walk the planet from what
I've heard.


I only know of this by reputation, which is good. Have never heard one.
But have heard a lot of Pioneers, Sansuiis, HK's, Crowns, Nikko's, etc. And
the Carver tops them all.

Codifus wrote:

Nice setup. Check out this wonderful site dedicated to tuners;

http://www.fmtunerinfo.com/


Take the reviews with a grain... They are a curious mixture of
uncritical subjectivism: "the tuner sounds 'dry' when compared to my
AudioBliss RF-Labs TunerMagic XYZ-10000", and the technical material is
usually a brief review of the circuit board with sometimes bizarre and
unqualified statements added--"the power supply looks like it came from
Radio Shack."


For instance, check out the Audio Critic/Richard Modafferi/David Rich
review of the Yamaha TU-950 and then compare what was done on a similar
unit at fmtunerinfo.com. You'll easily notice who is doing the better job.


The best advice for FM is to get a good antennae.


michael

Harry Lavo wrote:
"Russ Button" wrote in message
...
Harry Lavo wrote:


snip


You might wish to consider a
Carver TX-11, 11a, or 11b. These have rack ears and are 2U in height.
They
are some of the more sensitive and among the best sounding transistor
tuners
ever widely available, and a readily available on eBay.

I thought of that. Carver has a reputation of being quirky
equipment. Remember the Carver Sonic Hologram? You gotta
wonder about someone who'd do something like that. I do
see the Carver tuners on EBay a lot.


Well, the TX-11's work well, including the somewhat gimmicky approach to
distortion and noise reduction. In wideband mode the only tuner I have
heard that sounds a good is a Fisher FM-90B, one of the last of their tube
tuners.

That's interesting. Given that the Fisher is over 40 years old, how come
it sounded so good, when Mr. Lavo knows that it must have used those
terrible passive components from that era? Shouldn't the new tuners,
with the superior choice of passives, perform much better?

And the Carver TX-11 is a 20 year-old-design. How come the newer tuners
have not outperformed it, given the huge improvements in passives in the
last 25 years?

michael wrote:
Codifus wrote:

Nice setup. Check out this wonderful site dedicated to tuners;

http://www.fmtunerinfo.com/


Take the reviews with a grain... They are a curious mixture of
uncritical subjectivism: "the tuner sounds 'dry' when compared to my
AudioBliss RF-Labs TunerMagic XYZ-10000", and the technical material is
usually a brief review of the circuit board with sometimes bizarre and
unqualified statements added--"the power supply looks like it came from
Radio Shack."


For instance, check out the Audio Critic/Richard Modafferi/David Rich
review of the Yamaha TU-950 and then compare what was done on a similar
unit at fmtunerinfo.com. You'll easily notice who is doing the better job.


The best advice for FM is to get a good antennae.


michael
I beg to differ. A good tuner is like a good turntable or a good pair of
speakers in that some tuners sound clean and lifeless while others bring
the music to you in all its glory, even with a strong signal. Well made
FM Tuners are a dying breed, if they haven't died already. The consumer
just doesn't care/know/realize that a good tuner does make as much of a
difference as other components in a hifi system. Most systems today have
a receiver whose built-in tuner is just adequete, very sensitive and
selective, but as for sound quality?

I sometimes record my FM programs to my computer and burn a CD. If I
play that CD in the car or elsewhere, people are usually surprised to
find that it was just a regular FM broadcast.

That being said, I don't pay much attention to the technical merits of
fmtunerinfo, but that's because those guys know way more than I do!
Before I discovered them, I went through 3 tuners, the first one I
forget, a Kenwood, and finally an Onkyo. Comparing my observations with
their site, there was a very good correlation. Alot of Kenwood tuners
rate very well, but the model I had sucked, as they observed too, and
there were a few Onkyo tuners that rated quite nicely. I luckily
stumbled onto one.

CD

michael wrote:
Codifus wrote:

Nice setup. Check out this wonderful site dedicated to tuners;

http://www.fmtunerinfo.com/


Take the reviews with a grain... They are a curious mixture of
uncritical subjectivism:

Yeah. I noticed that. There's a wealth of information there,
but it is often incomplete. The one page with the tuner rankings
is rather odd in that they are comparing everything to their top
standard, the Kenwood L02. Still, it looks like a terrific
resource.

The best advice for FM is to get a good antennae.

Oh absolutely! I bought my house about 6 years ago and finally got
to achieve two of my audio dreams

1. Put up a roof mounted antenna on a rotor.

2. Put my turntable on a sturdy wall mount

Both have done wonders and are some of the best things to happen
to an audio system. My antenna is a modified Radio Shack antenna
and it's OK for now. I'm currently only partially employed, so
I can't justify to my wife the expenditure for a great roof antenna,
but the one I have is still light-years better than a dipole.

Now if I can just get someone to invest in my hi-tech startup
(any millionaires out there who want to be a billionaire?), and
get a salary out of it, one of those APS antennas will be one
of my next audio purchases.

Russ

chung wrote:
Harry Lavo wrote:

Well, the TX-11's work well, including the somewhat gimmicky approach to
distortion and noise reduction. In wideband mode the only tuner I have
heard that sounds a good is a Fisher FM-90B, one of the last of their
tube
tuners.


That's interesting. Given that the Fisher is over 40 years old, how come
it sounded so good, when Mr. Lavo knows that it must have used those
terrible passive components from that era? Shouldn't the new tuners,
with the superior choice of passives, perform much better?

It may well be a case of apples and bananas because the original
source material, being an FM broadcast signal, is so different from
the other sources we listen to, such as vinyl, CD or SACD.

Some day when you've got your FM tuner running and they put on a
recording that you have a copy of, quickly put it on your turntable
or CD player and try to queue it up in sync with the FM broadcast.
Then switch back and forth. No, it's not the best controlled
comparison, but the differences won't be subtle. Even with a good
FM tuner and antenna, there will be significant degradation of sound
compared to your primary source.

Consider all the detail we put into using good cables and interconnects,
as well as various tweaks and the like. Then consider that the music
signal from your FM station started with the station's pro-grade
turntable (not a Linn or Oracle) or CD player. Then it went through
the station's cabling, probably Mogami or such and through pro-grade
electronics, to a compressor, the FM modulator, the transmitter, through
the air and possible sources of distortion or interferance due to power
lines or whatever, to your site. Then throw in possible multi-path
distortion.

So there's a ton of possible degradation between the original signal
source and your electronics, which makes what a tuner does something
different than what a preamp/amp/speakers do. I think the question
of the effects of passive components in tuners is probably outweighed
by other considerations and circuit designs.

And the Carver TX-11 is a 20 year-old-design. How come the newer tuners
have not outperformed it, given the huge improvements in passives in the
last 25 years?

There's no reason that current manufacturers couldn't produce an
extraordinary tuner. But if you're Kenwood or whoever, are you willing
to invest the cost of an engineering staff to produce an item you'll
probably only sell in the hundreds of units per year? Two channel
stereo is a dying market. Hi-end two channel stereo is a very tiny
market. The people with the money to buy a hi-end FM tuner are more
likely going to buy a satillite XM radio or such.

The days of hi-end FM tuners are over. Those of us who care about
these things are a dying breed. How many two channel audiophiles do
you personally know under the age of 40? I don't know a single one.

Russ

Codifus wrote:

...Well made FM Tuners are a dying breed, if they haven't died
already. The consumer just doesn't care/know/realize that a good
tuner does make as much of a difference as other components in a hifi
system. Most systems today have a receiver whose built-in tuner is
just adequete, very sensitive and selective, but as for sound
quality?

Given the (lacking) quality in FM broadcasting in most areas of the
country, perhaps the manufacturers can be partly excused.

Dynamically compressed, peak-limited mass market album-oriented rock
isn't exactly going to make anybody feel good for spending a few hundred
dollars on a fine FM tuner.

-Gene Poon

chung wrote:
Harry Lavo wrote:

"Russ Button" wrote in message
...

Harry Lavo wrote:


snip



You might wish to consider a
Carver TX-11, 11a, or 11b. These have rack ears and are 2U in height.

They

are some of the more sensitive and among the best sounding transistor

tuners

ever widely available, and a readily available on eBay.

I thought of that. Carver has a reputation of being quirky
equipment. Remember the Carver Sonic Hologram? You gotta
wonder about someone who'd do something like that. I do
see the Carver tuners on EBay a lot.


Well, the TX-11's work well, including the somewhat gimmicky approach to
distortion and noise reduction. In wideband mode the only tuner I have
heard that sounds a good is a Fisher FM-90B, one of the last of their
tube
tuners.


That's interesting. Given that the Fisher is over 40 years old, how come
it sounded so good, when Mr. Lavo knows that it must have used those
terrible passive components from that era? Shouldn't the new tuners,
with the superior choice of passives, perform much better?

And the Carver TX-11 is a 20 year-old-design. How come the newer tuners
have not outperformed it, given the huge improvements in passives in the
last 25 years?

That's probably because FM stereo reached it's peak in development about
20 years ago. It's a slowly dying format that consumers and
manufacturers don't pay much attention to now, except for the cursory
effort. You'll find that alot of great tuners were made yesterday, not
today.

CD

"Codifus" wrote in message
...
michael wrote:
Codifus wrote:

Nice setup. Check out this wonderful site dedicated to tuners;

http://www.fmtunerinfo.com/



snip

I beg to differ. A good tuner is like a good turntable or a good pair of
speakers in that some tuners sound clean and lifeless while others bring
the music to you in all its glory, even with a strong signal. Well made
FM Tuners are a dying breed, if they haven't died already. The consumer
just doesn't care/know/realize that a good tuner does make as much of a
difference as other components in a hifi system. Most systems today have
a receiver whose built-in tuner is just adequete, very sensitive and
selective, but as for sound quality?

I sometimes record my FM programs to my computer and burn a CD. If I
play that CD in the car or elsewhere, people are usually surprised to
find that it was just a regular FM broadcast.


I find your comments right on. A good signal through a good-sounding fm
tuner is virtually indistinguishable from a CD. I gain much pleasure from
having a terrific source of both classical and jazz from an excellent
station (WFCR, in Amherst, MA) and my Carver and Fisher tuners bring it
through with musicality intact.

BTW, I brought a fairly highly rated Pioneer (the TX-6500II) home for a
listen just a few months ago. It was sensitive for sure, but sounded like
dreck by comparison to these two. Just never came alive.

As for fminfo, I find my explorations of tuners pretty well square with
their evals sensitivity and selectivity, but not so much when it comes
to the subjective, listening part. Seems to depend on who among them's ears
have contributed...some seem to value a rock bass most of all...and I have
heard tuners like the Pioneer above that do well in that department but
sound unmusical to my ears.

Codifus wrote:

michael wrote:

http://www.fmtunerinfo.com/

Take the reviews with a grain...

I beg to differ. A good tuner is like a good turntable or a good pair of
speakers in that some tuners sound clean and lifeless while others bring
the music to you in all its glory, even with a strong signal.


The standard argument is why would one tuner sound so different?
Frankly, you speak in terms I don't understand. If things sound
differently there is a reason, and that reason can be quantified. With
a turntable we can measure cartridge FR differences, mechanical
isolation to low frequency intrusion, etc, along with phono distortion
components. With speakers the art of measurement in order to isolate
sonic signature is now highly refined and less a mystery than many think.

That being said, I don't pay much attention to the technical merits of
fmtunerinfo, but that's because those guys know way more than I do!

You can judge the merits of the reviews without being an RF guru. Let's
take an example of the TX-950. These statements come direct from the
review:

"Overall, we believe the TX-930 and TX-950 are virtually identical, but
none of us has compared them side-by-side."

This statement is absurd and an embarrassment if taken at face value.
If the sentence means what one would think it means, how can these
people be taken seriously? Here, they proclaim two units identical, but
then admit that they haven't compared them 'side by side'. What does
that mean? It reads like they made their judgment from simply looking
at the pictures. The Japanese manufacturers had a habit of making
circuit design changes with only slight cosmetic differences. Could this
be the case, here?

Now, the units may indeed be identical, but to state in print that one
believes them to be identical (which would include circuitry, and not
just cosmetics) without actually investigating is irresponsible. On the
other hand, I could be charitable and suppose that they had, at
different occasions, actually looked at and maybe (but not likely)
measured the two units. Now, at this later date and from memory they
recall that electrically the two are the same. Neverthelss, their text
does not imply such a thing. In any case, we really don't know what the
basis of their judgment is.

"Our contributor Bob G. found the TX-950's sound to be “sterile,”
compared to his Kenwood KT-8300 and Sansui TU-717, although the TX-950
pulled in stations well."

Again, who knows what this means? Does "sterile sound" mean
uncontaminated sound (the usual meaning of the word) or something
different? What does "pull in stations well" mean? What stations and
under what conditions was the test conducted? Once again, another
meaningless claim.

"Our never-bashful contributor Ryan says that, compared to the
well-built TX-1000, the TX-950 “is a tin can with a supply transformer
stolen from Radio Shack's reject bin, to be generous.”

This statement is the kind of statement that approaches libel, and I'd
be wary of putting something like this out there without qualification.
Are they saying that the power supply is defective? That is what one
might conclude from the statement. Or are they just saying, again, that
they simply looked at it and it didn't look like they thought it should?
Do they have evidence that the PS is unsuited to its task? Did they
measure whether it produced the correct voltages necessary within the
parameters of the circuit board system components? Did it exhibit power
fluctuations, poor shielding, too much hum? We don't know what to make
of this bizarre and unsubstantiated statement.

If this statement was made about a well known American speaker company
(think MIT professor) the site would be facing a bevy of high powered
attorneys. As it is, Yamaha are likely unaware of this amateur tweako
site, and since they are no longer in the market producing high quality
tuners they probably couldn't care less.

fmtunerinfo.com? Len Feldman is turning in his grave. Either that, or
he's up there laughing his wings off over the foolishness of some hi fi
hobbyists. fmtunerinfo.com underscores the sad spectacle that is audio
reviewing, today. Anyone can say anything about anything without
accountability. But, if people are willing to accept this kind of
undisciplined approach to audio reviewing then they should be happy with
what is out there.

michael

Russ Button wrote:
Harry Lavo wrote:


You might wish to consider a
Carver TX-11, 11a, or 11b. These have rack ears and are 2U in
height. They
are some of the more sensitive and among the best sounding
transistor tuners
ever widely available, and a readily available on eBay.

I thought of that. Carver has a reputation of being quirky
equipment. Remember the Carver Sonic Hologram? You gotta
wonder about someone who'd do something like that. I do
see the Carver tuners on EBay a lot.


Russ

Dunno if the quirky reputation fairly applies to all Carver equipment.
I've had 2 TX-11 tuners. The first was stolen after a year and I
replaced it with another. This was before the TX-11a was made. Nary a
hint of a problem with either one and I've still got the TX-11 playing
in my bedroom system after at least 20 years.

Quirky No!! Reliable ? Methink so!

ESTG/

michael wrote:
Codifus wrote:

michael wrote:


http://www.fmtunerinfo.com/


Take the reviews with a grain...


I beg to differ. A good tuner is like a good turntable or a good pair
of speakers in that some tuners sound clean and lifeless while others
bring the music to you in all its glory, even with a strong signal.



The standard argument is why would one tuner sound so different?
Frankly, you speak in terms I don't understand. If things sound
differently there is a reason, and that reason can be quantified. With
a turntable we can measure cartridge FR differences, mechanical
isolation to low frequency intrusion, etc, along with phono distortion
components. With speakers the art of measurement in order to isolate
sonic signature is now highly refined and less a mystery than many think.

That being said, I don't pay much attention to the technical merits of
fmtunerinfo, but that's because those guys know way more than I do!


You can judge the merits of the reviews without being an RF guru. Let's
take an example of the TX-950. These statements come direct from the
review:

"Overall, we believe the TX-930 and TX-950 are virtually identical, but
none of us has compared them side-by-side."

This statement is absurd and an embarrassment if taken at face value. If
the sentence means what one would think it means, how can these people
be taken seriously? Here, they proclaim two units identical, but then
admit that they haven't compared them 'side by side'. What does that
mean? It reads like they made their judgment from simply looking at the
pictures. The Japanese manufacturers had a habit of making circuit
design changes with only slight cosmetic differences. Could this be the
case, here?
Look at the Onkyo T-4057 and the 4087 on that site. The FM tuner guys
said that the tuners look identical on the outside, but the circuitry
inside the 4087 is quite a bit more sophisticated.


Now, the units may indeed be identical, but to state in print that one
believes them to be identical (which would include circuitry, and not
just cosmetics) without actually investigating is irresponsible.
If they say they beleive something, it's not to be taken as fact. It's
just their opinion. They are quite experienced with tuners. You get the
idea that they like to compare and fiddle with alot of them. That
experience must be worth something. It is to me, and it makes their
opinion lean much more strongly towards fact, even though it still is
not fact.

On the
other hand, I could be charitable and suppose that they had, at
different occasions, actually looked at and maybe (but not likely)
measured the two units. Now, at this later date and from memory they
recall that electrically the two are the same. Neverthelss, their text
does not imply such a thing. In any case, we really don't know what the
basis of their judgment is.

"Our contributor Bob G. found the TX-950's sound to be “sterile,”
compared to his Kenwood KT-8300 and Sansui TU-717, although the TX-950
pulled in stations well."

Again, who knows what this means?
I would think it simply means that the tuner is clean, un-distorted, and
quiet. But does it really make music enjoyable to listen too? Probably not.

Does "sterile sound" mean
uncontaminated sound (the usual meaning of the word) or something
different? What does "pull in stations well" mean? What stations and
under what conditions was the test conducted? Once again, another
meaningless claim.
They live in a certain geographical area. They know the stations around
them. They've tested alot of tuners. Given that background, when they
say "pull in stations well" they are obviously comparing the tuner in
question to all the other tuners they've tested. It's all relative and
easy to relate to.


"Our never-bashful contributor Ryan says that, compared to the
well-built TX-1000, the TX-950 “is a tin can with a supply transformer
stolen from Radio Shack's reject bin, to be generous.”

This statement is the kind of statement that approaches libel, and I'd
be wary of putting something like this out there without qualification.
It is a strong statement, but hey, it's their own site and they are
entitled to their opinions. And it could very well be correct. If you
choose not to agree with them, move on. It's not like their shoving
their opinions down your throat.

Are they saying that the power supply is defective? That is what one
might conclude from the statement. Or are they just saying, again, that
they simply looked at it and it didn't look like they thought it should?
Do they have evidence that the PS is unsuited to its task? Did they
measure whether it produced the correct voltages necessary within the
parameters of the circuit board system components? Did it exhibit power
fluctuations, poor shielding, too much hum? We don't know what to make
of this bizarre and unsubstantiated statement.
We don't have to make much of this statement. All they're saying is that
the build quality of that tuner was quite cheap compared to the other
tuners they've seen. Nuff said.


If this statement was made about a well known American speaker company
(think MIT professor) the site would be facing a bevy of high powered
attorneys.
And if so, does it make the company with the big money attorney's right?
Do you buy Monster cable? If not, you should, because they've sued
everybody, even monster.com, so their cables must be awesome!

As it is, Yamaha are likely unaware of this amateur tweako
site, and since they are no longer in the market producing high quality
tuners they probably couldn't care less.

fmtunerinfo.com? Len Feldman is turning in his grave. Either that, or
he's up there laughing his wings off over the foolishness of some hi fi
hobbyists. fmtunerinfo.com underscores the sad spectacle that is audio
reviewing, today. Anyone can say anything about anything without
accountability. But, if people are willing to accept this kind of
undisciplined approach to audio reviewing then they should be happy with
what is out there.

If you think about it, this site should be much more beleiveable
compared to other audio review sites because;

1. They're not making any profit from it, they just love tuners, and it
shows.
2. They're talking about and testing products that aren't even made
anymore, most of which are about 15-20 years old. Everything is used.
What could their sinister motive possibly be?
3. In one of their reports they even laugh at Ebayer's who pay way too
much for a tuner simply because it was mentioned on their site.

michael

Those guys at FMTuner info are a very realistic and down to earth bunch
of guys who just love tuners.

I must re-emphasize, my opinions about tuners developed before I found
fmtunerinfo. Once I did find it, I found their experiences to correlate
very well with mine, but of course their experiences was much greater.
Because of that and the things i mentioned above, I am quite inclined to
beleive them.


CD

Gene Poon wrote:
Codifus wrote:

...Well made FM Tuners are a dying breed, if they haven't died
already. The consumer just doesn't care/know/realize that a good
tuner does make as much of a difference as other components in a hifi
system. Most systems today have a receiver whose built-in tuner is
just adequete, very sensitive and selective, but as for sound
quality?


Given the (lacking) quality in FM broadcasting in most areas of the
country, perhaps the manufacturers can be partly excused.

Dynamically compressed, peak-limited mass market album-oriented rock
isn't exactly going to make anybody feel good for spending a few hundred
dollars on a fine FM tuner.

-Gene Poon
I wholeheartedly agree. Manufacturers are just making what consumers
want, which isn't much. The demand for quality audio products is
spiralling ever downward. I remember a time when JVC used to make some
really good boomboxes. The tape decks inside them were very well made
and produced some high quality recordings. Nowadays its all about the
boom,the "supposed" watts, and the flashy colors.

CD

Codifus wrote:
chung wrote:
Harry Lavo wrote:

"Russ Button" wrote in message
...

Harry Lavo wrote:


snip



You might wish to consider a
Carver TX-11, 11a, or 11b. These have rack ears and are 2U in height.

They

are some of the more sensitive and among the best sounding transistor

tuners

ever widely available, and a readily available on eBay.

I thought of that. Carver has a reputation of being quirky
equipment. Remember the Carver Sonic Hologram? You gotta
wonder about someone who'd do something like that. I do
see the Carver tuners on EBay a lot.


Well, the TX-11's work well, including the somewhat gimmicky approach to
distortion and noise reduction. In wideband mode the only tuner I have
heard that sounds a good is a Fisher FM-90B, one of the last of their
tube
tuners.


That's interesting. Given that the Fisher is over 40 years old, how come
it sounded so good, when Mr. Lavo knows that it must have used those
terrible passive components from that era? Shouldn't the new tuners,
with the superior choice of passives, perform much better?

And the Carver TX-11 is a 20 year-old-design. How come the newer tuners
have not outperformed it, given the huge improvements in passives in the
last 25 years?

That's probably because FM stereo reached it's peak in development about
20 years ago. It's a slowly dying format that consumers and
manufacturers don't pay much attention to now, except for the cursory
effort. You'll find that alot of great tuners were made yesterday, not
today.

CD


Yeah, I made that point, too, but Mr. Lavo seemed to think that better
passives today make the new tuners much better. This is what he said:

(http://groups-beta.google.com/group/...c?dmode=source)

"I mean they (the new tuners) are more transparent, just what I said.
Given the same input (in the case of FM a good strong clean signal) you
will hear deeper into the soundstage, with more sense of dimensionality.
In other words, you hear more and what you hear sounds more real,
natural, uncolored. You do not hear a gray scrim (resistor noise). You
do not hear opaqueness (capacitors), so that apparent depth disappears
after only a few feet."

Given that he said that, I am surprised that he prefers the 40-year-old
tuner, with its inferior passive parts, to the new ones using much
better passives (in his opinion).

"chung" wrote in message
...
Harry Lavo wrote:
"Russ Button" wrote in message
...
Harry Lavo wrote:


snip


snip


Well, the TX-11's work well, including the somewhat gimmicky approach to
distortion and noise reduction. In wideband mode the only tuner I have
heard that sounds a good is a Fisher FM-90B, one of the last of their
tube
tuners.

That's interesting. Given that the Fisher is over 40 years old, how come
it sounded so good, when Mr. Lavo knows that it must have used those
terrible passive components from that era? Shouldn't the new tuners,
with the superior choice of passives, perform much better?


I said "sounds as good". I didn't say it was as transparent. There is much
more to "sounds as good" than transparency, particularly in a tuner. In
fact a slight loss of transparency and softened transients is about the only
audible difference between them on a strong local classical/jazz station
through my Koss Pro4aa headphones when both are in wideband mode. That has
not been true of other tuners I have tried. And it is that small difference
that makes the Carver my #1 tuner and the Fisher my #2.


And the Carver TX-11 is a 20 year-old-design. How come the newer tuners
have not outperformed it, given the huge improvements in passives in the
last 25 years?


Because Bob Carver cared about sound quality and spent time making sure he
got the audio right including better than average passive parts on his
flagship tuner. It was designed near the end of the time when this ferment
took place.

This is a little off topic, but where do you live? I haven't listened
to radio in years. I live in the Boston area and the radio stations
here are dismal.

wrote:
This is a little off topic, but where do you live? I haven't listened
to radio in years. I live in the Boston area and the radio stations
here are dismal.

I'm in the San Francisco Bay Area. The radio stations of
interest here are primarily college stations, though there
are a couple of independent stations at the lower end of
the dial which are interesting too.

For those of you in the SF Bay Area, you might find
KPOO (89.5) and KKUP (91.5) to be worth tuning in on
occasion. KPOO plays a lot of 60's and 70's vintage
soul and blues.

KKUP is a listener supported station that takes no
grant money and everyone there works for free.
What this translates to is that it has a very
eclectic program. You *NEVER* know what you're
going to hear when you tune them in. They play
jazz, blues, folk music, classical music, some
avant garde classical stuff, reggae, international
folk... it's eclectic like I said. A lot is stuff
I don't care for, but about 1/3rd of the time it's
pretty hip. Saturday afternoons they play Scottish
folk music and on Monday mornings you get the blues.

Russ

Name height approx price
================================================== =============
Crown FM3 1U $ 350 used
Sumo Charlie 2U $ 300 used
Belles 1U $ who knows?
Inter-M PT-9107-SD 1U $ 420 new

I had the Sumo Charlie tuner years ago. It isn't bad. The Belles DCA FM
tuner was one of the worst units I ever had. It used a Magnum-Dynalab board.
Stereo separation in the wide bandwidth mode was only 42dB, and this was
after careful alignment of the I.F. transformer at the tuner's 10.7MHz I.F.
output. Also, the stereo separation adjustment was optimized.
Test equipment used was a Sound Technology Model 1000A Stereo Generator and
a Hewlett Packard 3575A Gain Phase Meter. It would seem that the group delay
characteristics of the I.F. filtering left something to be desired.
In contrast, I went throught the alignment of a Nakamichi Model 430 FM
Tuner. Stereo separation with this unit was 60dB @1KHz in the wide mode and
52dB in the narrow bandwidth mode.
My favorite currently available tuner is the Parasound TDQ-150. Good sound,
construction, and it does use a single stage Class A line amp/buffer. Price
is under 300 dollars. Good for the money.

Pete

I believe that they have improved the passive components over the years, but
one of my best sounding tuners was the Luxman T-110. I haven't tried any of
the new breed of tuners such as the high end Accuphase units.

Pete

"chung" wrote in message
...
Codifus wrote:
chung wrote:
Harry Lavo wrote:

"Russ Button" wrote in message
...

Harry Lavo wrote:


snip



You might wish to consider a
Carver TX-11, 11a, or 11b. These have rack ears and are 2U in
height.

They

are some of the more sensitive and among the best sounding
transistor

tuners

ever widely available, and a readily available on eBay.

I thought of that. Carver has a reputation of being quirky
equipment. Remember the Carver Sonic Hologram? You gotta
wonder about someone who'd do something like that. I do
see the Carver tuners on EBay a lot.


Well, the TX-11's work well, including the somewhat gimmicky approach
to
distortion and noise reduction. In wideband mode the only tuner I have
heard that sounds a good is a Fisher FM-90B, one of the last of their
tube
tuners.


That's interesting. Given that the Fisher is over 40 years old, how come
it sounded so good, when Mr. Lavo knows that it must have used those
terrible passive components from that era? Shouldn't the new tuners,
with the superior choice of passives, perform much better?

And the Carver TX-11 is a 20 year-old-design. How come the newer tuners
have not outperformed it, given the huge improvements in passives in the
last 25 years?

That's probably because FM stereo reached it's peak in development about
20 years ago. It's a slowly dying format that consumers and manufacturers
don't pay much attention to now, except for the cursory effort. You'll
find that alot of great tuners were made yesterday, not today.

CD


Yeah, I made that point, too, but Mr. Lavo seemed to think that better
passives today make the new tuners much better. This is what he said:

(http://groups-beta.google.com/group/...c?dmode=source)

"I mean they (the new tuners) are more transparent, just what I said.
Given the same input (in the case of FM a good strong clean signal) you
will hear deeper into the soundstage, with more sense of dimensionality.
In other words, you hear more and what you hear sounds more real,
natural, uncolored. You do not hear a gray scrim (resistor noise). You
do not hear opaqueness (capacitors), so that apparent depth disappears
after only a few feet."

Given that he said that, I am surprised that he prefers the 40-year-old
tuner, with its inferior passive parts, to the new ones using much
better passives (in his opinion).