Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
FM Tuners
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 |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
"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. |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
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 ================================================== ==================== |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
"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. |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
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? |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#12
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#13
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#14
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#15
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#16
|
|||
|
|||
"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. |
#17
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#18
|
|||
|
|||
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/ |
#19
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#20
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#21
|
|||
|
|||
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). |
#22
|
|||
|
|||
"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. |
#23
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
#24
|
|||
|
|||
|
#25
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#26
|
|||
|
|||
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). |
Reply |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Forum | |||
Announcing 'hifi-am', to discuss High Fidelity AM tuners and hobbyist transmitters | Tech | |||
Announcing 'hifi-am', to discuss High Fidelity AM tuners and hobbyist transmitters | High End Audio | |||
FS: TV Tuners: Frequency Agile Demodulators | Pro Audio | |||
BMW TV Tuners (Best Prices) | Car Audio | |||
FS: Misc tuners, receivers and amps | Marketplace |