[Sonnova]

On Wed, 1 Apr 2009 07:16:15 -0700, Arny Krueger wrote
(in article ):

"codifus" wrote in message


Technology does march on. It marched on right passed
analog FM tuners and left it to die.

Rightfully so.

The guys at
FMtunerinfo are mightily impressed with Sony's XDR bad
boy. But, as usual, they also said that the sound quality
of that very same tuner is merely adequate compared to
yesterdays tuners.

I've heard the tuner - they are talking trash.

It will pull in the most obscure
stations on the planet. If there's an fm transmitter on
Mars, you can trust that Sony XDR to pull it in. But to
actually sit there and want to listen to the broadcast?

It is just fine. It may lack the sonic imperfections of some of the oldies
but goodies, so it may sound a bit different from some of them.

Like all modern FM tuners, and like I said earlier,
modern tuner manufacturers don't bother.

Except they do. However, they seem lacking in enthusiasm for putting back in
the same sonic imperfections that they worked so hard to remove. The trash
talk you're referring to is all about sentimentality and resistance to
change. We've already learned that 99.5+ of all music lovers prefer digital,

Nonsense. 99.5+ percent of music lovers have never heard a decent vinyl
setup, so how can the prefer anything. That's like someone saying "I prefer
strawberries to blackberries even though I've never tasted blackberries."

but 25 years after the introduction of the CD a tiny noisly minority are
still fighting the battle of the LP.

The LP is just another music source. One that can be very high quality and
satisfying in spite of your oft-stated bigotry against it.

Just like the analog/tube bigots

Or the Solid-state bigots :-)

[John Stone]

On 4/1/09 11:16 AM, in article ,
" wrote:

Other tuners tried - in no particular order:

Dynaco: FM3, FM5, AF6 - just barely adequate
Soundcraftsman: T100 - Sensitivity good, not so good in stereo
Revox B760 - adequate to good, weak in sensitivity, good stereo once a
station was captured.
HK Citation 14, 15, 18, HK500 - good, the 18 being the best of the
three
Marantz 10B (borrowed for the experiment) - worst of the lot, even the
FM3
AR Tuner, AR Receiver - better

If the FM3 beat the 10B, then the 10B was broken. The FM3 was a pretty
mediocre tuner, even in its day, where the 10B was indeed state of the art
for the mid 60's.

[[email protected]]

On Apr 1, 7:33*pm, John Stone wrote:

If the FM3 beat the 10B, then the 10B was broken. The FM3 was a pretty
mediocre tuner, even in its day, where the 10B was indeed state of the art
for the mid 60's.


I would tend to agree but for two possibilities - and you may be the
judge.

a) the lender of the 10B was on-site and swore on various holy books
that his unit was tweaked to a fare-thee-well. He was astounded that
the Dynaco beat out his pride-and-joy - as was I.

b) the FM3 had three post-factory mods including de-emphasis, power-
supply and replaced, reputedly, reportedly better diodes. I had just
aligned it as well. It is also my main tube unit today.

So, the Dynaco certainly had everything possible going for it, the 10B
only had its owner's pride on its side.

Peter Wieck
Melrose Park, PA

[Arny Krueger]

[ Moderator's note: OK folks, enough with the word "bigot". -- deb]

"Sonnova" wrote in message

On Wed, 1 Apr 2009 07:16:15 -0700, Arny Krueger wrote
(in article ):

"codifus" wrote in message


Technology does march on. It marched on right passed
analog FM tuners and left it to die.

Rightfully so.

The guys at
FMtunerinfo are mightily impressed with Sony's XDR bad
boy. But, as usual, they also said that the sound
quality of that very same tuner is merely adequate
compared to yesterdays tuners.

I've heard the tuner - they are talking trash.

It will pull in the most obscure
stations on the planet. If there's an fm transmitter on
Mars, you can trust that Sony XDR to pull it in. But to
actually sit there and want to listen to the broadcast?

It is just fine. It may lack the sonic imperfections of
some of the oldies but goodies, so it may sound a bit
different from some of them.

Like all modern FM tuners, and like I said earlier,
modern tuner manufacturers don't bother.

Except they do. However, they seem lacking in enthusiasm
for putting back in the same sonic imperfections that
they worked so hard to remove. The trash talk you're
referring to is all about sentimentality and resistance
to change. We've already learned that 99.5+ of all music
lovers prefer digital,

Nonsense. 99.5+ percent of music lovers have never heard
a decent vinyl setup, so how can the prefer anything.

I'm not falling for the "99.5+ percent of music lovers have never heard
a decent vinyl setup" song-and-dance, today. Trick me once, shame on you,
trick me twice shame on you!

And here's the trick - the word "decent". What I learned is that whatever
vinyl setup I've listened to, it was not decent. VPI and Thorens turntables
are not "decent". No Shure, Stanton, or Audio Technica cartridge is "decent"
No SME or Rega tonearm is "decent".

That's like someone saying "I prefer strawberries to
blackberries even though I've never tasted blackberries."

No, its like saying that during the prime days of vinyl, only 0.5% or less
of all music lovers had a decent vinyl setup.

but 25 years after the introduction of the CD a tiny
noisly minority are still fighting the battle of the LP.

The LP is just another music source.

Of course, but you forgot to mention that like FM stereo and analog tape,
the LP is inherently inaccurate in times where sonic accuracy in music
players costs well under $100.

One that can be very
high quality and satisfying in spite of your oft-stated
bigotry against it.

It's not bigotry to call an inherently sonically inaccurate medium what it
is, whether it is cassette tape, low-bitrate MP3s or vinyl LPs.

Just like the analog/tube bigots

Or the Solid-state bigots :-)

Its not bigotry to agree with something that works that well.

[Harry Lavo]

"codifus" wrote in message
...
On Apr 1, 10:17 am, Steve wrote:
It sounds like Internet Radio provides much better content then FM
that is available for many of the contributors to this thread. The
problem is the quality but as a practical matter 128 MP3 broadcasts
sound better then FM in many cases because there is no interference.


I think it would be more appropriate to say that 128 MP3 broadcasts
sound cleaner than analog FM due to lack of interference. Of course,
though, nothing is perfect. Being digital audio, with some broadcasts
you get complete dropout due to network contention issues etc. Times
like that make me miss analog FM with its more gentle interference; a
little fizz as the signal gets weaker, a gently dropping of high
frequency response as the tuner circuitry adjusts to the noise of the
weakening signal. With digital its all or nothing, and that abruptness
can be quite disconcerting.

CD

Why on earth are we talking in a high end newsgroup about FM without even
providing a decent antenae system, SO SIGNALS DON'T FADE!

[isw]

In article ,
"Harry Lavo" wrote:

"codifus" wrote in message
...
On Apr 1, 10:17 am, Steve wrote:
It sounds like Internet Radio provides much better content then FM
that is available for many of the contributors to this thread. The
problem is the quality but as a practical matter 128 MP3 broadcasts
sound better then FM in many cases because there is no interference.


I think it would be more appropriate to say that 128 MP3 broadcasts
sound cleaner than analog FM due to lack of interference. Of course,
though, nothing is perfect. Being digital audio, with some broadcasts
you get complete dropout due to network contention issues etc. Times
like that make me miss analog FM with its more gentle interference; a
little fizz as the signal gets weaker, a gently dropping of high
frequency response as the tuner circuitry adjusts to the noise of the
weakening signal. With digital its all or nothing, and that abruptness
can be quite disconcerting.

CD

Why on earth are we talking in a high end newsgroup about FM without even
providing a decent antenae system, SO SIGNALS DON'T FADE!

So you're saying that a "decent" antenna will prevent signal fading? I
know some professionals who will be *really glad* to learn that.

Isaac

[isw]

In article ,
codifus wrote:

On Apr 1, 10:17*am, Steve wrote:
It sounds like Internet Radio provides much better content then FM
that is available for many of the contributors to this thread. The
problem is the quality but as a practical matter 128 MP3 broadcasts
sound better then FM in many cases because there is no interference.


I think it would be more appropriate to say that 128 MP3 broadcasts
sound cleaner than analog FM due to lack of interference. Of course,
though, nothing is perfect. Being digital audio, with some broadcasts
you get complete dropout due to network contention issues etc. Times
like that make me miss analog FM with its more gentle interference; a
little fizz as the signal gets weaker, a gently dropping of high
frequency response as the tuner circuitry adjusts to the noise of the
weakening signal. With digital its all or nothing, and that abruptness
can be quite disconcerting.

Don't forget that on any decent receiver, the signal strength where the
digital signal finally disappears is considerably *below* that where
you'd not be interested in an analog signal due to excessive noise.

Isaac

[Arny Krueger]

"isw" wrote in message


So you're saying that a "decent" antenna will prevent
signal fading? I know some professionals who will be
*really glad* to learn that.

Isn't diversity reception still the best way to avoid that problem?