Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
#1
![]()
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
http://theaudiocritic.com/blog/
H"D Radio FM/AM Digital Tuner Sony XDR-F1HD This is a $100 (thats no typo) tuner that blows away the classic super tuners of McIntosh, Marantz, Sequerra, Accuphase, etc., according to FM experts who know more than I do." He referes to this in depth technical review: http://ham-radio.com/k6sti/xdr-f1hd.htm |
#2
![]()
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
wrote in message
http://theaudiocritic.com/blog/ H"D Radio FM/AM Digital Tuner Sony XDR-F1HD This is a $100 (thats no typo) tuner that blows away the classic super tuners of McIntosh, Marantz, Sequerra, Accuphase, etc., according to FM experts who know more than I do." He referes to this in depth technical review: http://ham-radio.com/k6sti/xdr-f1hd.htm It had to happen - the complex, expensive analog filters in their IF strips that made the classic high performance FM tuners what they were, get replaced by a DSP that costs a few bucks. Now, if there was only any reason to bother to listen to FM, except maybe in my car. :-( BTW car radios are the intended major market for this technology. |
#4
![]()
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
This is a $100 (thats no typo) tuner that blows away the classic
super tuners of McIntosh, Marantz, Sequerra, Accuphase, etc., according to FM experts who know more than I do." He referes to this in depth technical review: http://ham-radio.com/k6sti/xdr-f1hd.htm "The technical review cited doesn't support audiocritic's claim." How so? One would assume any valid answer would provide contrary information at the same level of measured detail. Did you read the full article of the 'audio critic' or just the cut and paste blurb used to introduce the thread? If not read it, therein is his full review. |
#5
![]()
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
C. Leeds wrote:
wrote: http://theaudiocritic.com/blog/ H"D Radio FM/AM Digital Tuner Sony XDR-F1HD This is a $100 (thats no typo) tuner that blows away the classic super tuners of McIntosh, Marantz, Sequerra, Accuphase, etc., according to FM experts who know more than I do." He referes to this in depth technical review: http://ham-radio.com/k6sti/xdr-f1hd.htm The technical review cited doesn't support audiocritic's claim. from the technical review: "Sound quality for slightly marginal to deeply compromised signals is strikingly better than that from conventional tuners. The performance of the Sony XDR-F1HD on stereo FM is spectacular and unprecedented. " -- -S Poe's Law: Without a winking smiley or other blatant display of humorous intent, it is impossible to create a parody of a religious Fundamentalist that SOMEONE won't mistake for the real thing. |
#6
![]()
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
On 9 Jul 2008 22:25:01 GMT, "Arny Krueger" wrote:
wrote in message http://theaudiocritic.com/blog/ H"D Radio FM/AM Digital Tuner Sony XDR-F1HD This is a $100 (thats no typo) tuner that blows away the classic super tuners of McIntosh, Marantz, Sequerra, Accuphase, etc., according to FM experts who know more than I do." He referes to this in depth technical review: http://ham-radio.com/k6sti/xdr-f1hd.htm It had to happen - the complex, expensive analog filters in their IF strips that made the classic high performance FM tuners what they were, get replaced by a DSP that costs a few bucks. Now, why did they not provide a digital output? Kal |
#7
![]()
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
wrote:
This is a $100 (thats no typo) tuner that blows away the classic super tuners of McIntosh, Marantz, Sequerra, Accuphase, etc., according to FM experts who know more than I do." He referes to this in depth technical review: http://ham-radio.com/k6sti/xdr-f1hd.htm I answered: The technical review cited doesn't support audiocritic's claim. oustor sez: Did you read the full article of the 'audio critic' Yes. If not read it, therein is his full review. The full review does not support the claim. It compares the Sony to a Sangean HDT-1X, and never cites any measurements made from the supertuners mentioned by audiocritic. Perhaps the Sony is all that audiocritic supposes, but there's nothing to support that in the review. Moroever, the review cites shortcomings of the Sony: does not display carrier-to-noise ratio, HD Radio transmission mode, HD Radio station ID, firmware version, or the audio spectrum. It does not provide forced mono, forced analog, split-audio mode, direct frequency entry, or digital output. It does not have a stereo indicator It's all probably moot, however, because so few people care about the very, very lo-fi HD radio scheme. Even broadcasters are reluctant to invest in HD radio programming. Mostly, HD radio is home to cheap automated formats that have already failed on conventional FM. |
#8
![]()
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
On Sat, 12 Jul 2008 09:32:43 -0700, C. Leeds wrote
(in article ): wrote: This is a $100 (thats no typo) tuner that blows away the classic super tuners of McIntosh, Marantz, Sequerra, Accuphase, etc., according to FM experts who know more than I do." He referes to this in depth technical review: http://ham-radio.com/k6sti/xdr-f1hd.htm I answered: The technical review cited doesn't support audiocritic's claim. oustor sez: Did you read the full article of the 'audio critic' Yes. If not read it, therein is his full review. The full review does not support the claim. It compares the Sony to a Sangean HDT-1X, and never cites any measurements made from the supertuners mentioned by audiocritic. Perhaps the Sony is all that audiocritic supposes, but there's nothing to support that in the review. Moroever, the review cites shortcomings of the Sony: does not display carrier-to-noise ratio, HD Radio transmission mode, HD Radio station ID, firmware version, or the audio spectrum. It does not provide forced mono, forced analog, split-audio mode, direct frequency entry, or digital output. It does not have a stereo indicator It's all probably moot, however, because so few people care about the very, very lo-fi HD radio scheme. Even broadcasters are reluctant to invest in HD radio programming. Mostly, HD radio is home to cheap automated formats that have already failed on conventional FM. A number of years ago, I had a Marantz 10B FM tuner. The thing was really good sounding (unless the station one listened to had an SCA (muzak) subcarrier attached to it, then the Marantz stereo demodulator (a sum/difference unit) tended to whistle (I understand that they all did that). Anyway, a friend brought over a then new Yamaha T-85 tuner with it's ceramic filters and IC phase-locked-loop stereo decoder. It blew the 10B out of the water, performance wise. It not only was more selective and more sensitive, but it had better separation and sounded better. So, in my estimation, these classic tuners were bested more than 20 years ago. Oh, I sold the Marantz for lots of $$$$ and bought the Yamaha T-85 to replace it. It's still my only tuner but I do miss the imposing regality of the 10B and it's neat oscilloscope (which on mine, still functioned). |
#9
![]()
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
On Wed, 9 Jul 2008 15:25:01 -0700, Arny Krueger wrote
(in article ): wrote in message http://theaudiocritic.com/blog/ H"D Radio FM/AM Digital Tuner Sony XDR-F1HD This is a $100 (thats no typo) tuner that blows away the classic super tuners of McIntosh, Marantz, Sequerra, Accuphase, etc., according to FM experts who know more than I do." He referes to this in depth technical review: http://ham-radio.com/k6sti/xdr-f1hd.htm It had to happen - the complex, expensive analog filters in their IF strips that made the classic high performance FM tuners what they were, get replaced by a DSP that costs a few bucks. Now, if there was only any reason to bother to listen to FM, except maybe in my car. :-( BTW car radios are the intended major market for this technology. So true. It wasn't always that way, though. When I was a teen (early 1960's) living near Washington DC, stereo FM had just come in. In those days, there were only a handful of FM stations in that market and they were w-i-d-e-l-y spaced on the dial so nobody was using compression and nobody cared if the stations overmodulated a bit, so no one used limiters either. The two college stations, one belonging to American University (WAMU) and the other belonging to George Washington University (WRGW), followed the live music concert scene in DC. On any given summer Friday or Saturday night, the National Symphony or one of the President's armed forces bands (Army, Navy, Air-Force, Marines) would be playing at the Watergate down by the C&O canal (Watergate had a different connotation then) in front of the Lincoln Memorial. People would pull-up alongside the floating bandshell in their boats, or sit on the steps leading down to the river or just spread-out blankets on the grass and listen. Couldn't attend? Tune in on FM and hear it live (complete with the sound of airplanes from National Airport taking-off and landing overhead). It was marvelous. People today have no idea how good live FM could be in the early days. It was like having a good pair of Neummann U87 microphones running from the Watergate to your stereo system! In the winter, most of these concerts moved indoors to the State Department Auditorium and were broadcast from there which was even better because of the hall acoustics (and no airliners). If you'd like to get an idea what the Watergate concerts were like in those days, watch the beginning of a movie with Cary Grant and Sophia Loren called "Houseboat." It sort of begins at a Watergate concert where Sophia's character's father is a visiting Italian symphony conductor. Then of course there was the WQXR "network" which, in the early 1960's relayed (via the receive-and-rebroadcast method) programming from WQXR in New York City to a chain of stations going north into New England and south to DC. It was a little noisier than the local live broadcasts. The 'QXR affiliate in DC, was (IIRC) WMAL-FM and their chief engineer told me once (because I called and asked) that they received their feed by rebroadcasting the signal they picked-up using a high-gain single-frequency yagi antenna from the Philadelphia affiliate. So what we got was an FM signal that was captured by the Philly station off the air from WQXR New York, and then they rebroadcasted it and WMAL picked up that rebroadcast and then rebroadcasted it themselves, so there were TWO FM outlets between my FM tuner and the originating FM station in NYC. No matter. What we got (while it lasted) was live broadcasts of the NY Philharmonic from Lincoln Center, concerts from Carnegie Hall, and smaller ensembles directly from WQXR's studios. It was glorious! I really miss those live stereo FM broadcasts and I was saddened to see, the last time I was in DC, that the powers-that-be had allowed the band-shell barge at the Watergate to sink. Youngsters today wonder why we old farts think that the world has gone downhill since our youth. Well, its because it has! |
#10
![]()
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Sonnova wrote:
I really miss those live stereo FM broadcasts Before I retired and moved out of range I used to listen to the live Boston Symphony broadcasts on WGBH. They were great. Now I listen to concerts (taped of course) from around the world on Vermont Public Radio (classical - digital on a Sangean HDT-1) Fidelity is good except for dynamic compression. The VPR classical feed is 24/7 classical music. I have about 1500 CDs but rarely play them any more. ---MIKE--- In the White Mountains of New Hampshire (44° 15' N - Elevation 1580') |
#11
![]()
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
On Tue, 15 Jul 2008 15:23:49 -0700, MIKE--- wrote
(in article ): Sonnova wrote: I really miss those live stereo FM broadcasts Before I retired and moved out of range I used to listen to the live Boston Symphony broadcasts on WGBH. They were great. Now I listen to concerts (taped of course) from around the world on Vermont Public Radio (classical - digital on a Sangean HDT-1) Fidelity is good except for dynamic compression. The VPR classical feed is 24/7 classical music. I have about 1500 CDs but rarely play them any more. We used to get live feeds from the San Francisco Symphony on one of the two Classical stations that we used to have in the area. Now we have only one. Unfortunately, it simply wasn't the same. The FM spectrum in this market is incredibly crowded (99.99% is commercial crap as well) which means that all of the FM stations utilize heavy compression and hard limiting - necessary to be loud (to gain listener share) while still avoiding the dread overmodulation. This robs the music of any semblance of the palpability that one could get over FM in the "good ol' days". Theoretically, one could play a DAT of some great orchestra performance from one of the digital transcription services available to radio stations these days and get essentially the same sound as I was getting in the early 60's from live feeds. Unfortunately, that's just not the same, either. It has to be the FM outlets themselves, there's no other difference that I can come-up with. ---MIKE--- In the White Mountains of New Hampshire (44° 15' N - Elevation 1580') |
#12
![]()
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
"Sonnova" wrote in message
... The two college stations, one belonging to American University (WAMU) and the other belonging to George Washington University (WRGW), Georgetown U. had an FM station. I had a show on Sunday nights in the '62-63 year. I should be able to remember the call letters -- maybe it'll come back to me. I'll not look it up, because if it's changed, it might bias my memory. The transmitter was in the control room (I was the announcer -- it was the studio and control room type of setup), and when you heard that 120 Hz acoustic hum stop, you knew you'd gone off the air -- probably SWR kickout. It only happened to me once. -- Earl |
#13
![]()
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
On Wed, 16 Jul 2008 15:13:23 -0700, Earl Kiosterud wrote
(in article ): "Sonnova" wrote in message ... The two college stations, one belonging to American University (WAMU) and the other belonging to George Washington University (WRGW), Georgetown U. had an FM station. I had a show on Sunday nights in the '62-63 year. I should be able to remember the call letters -- maybe it'll come back to me. I'll not look it up, because if it's changed, it might bias my memory. The transmitter was in the control room (I was the announcer -- it was the studio and control room type of setup), and when you heard that 120 Hz acoustic hum stop, you knew you'd gone off the air -- probably SWR kickout. It only happened to me once. -- Earl WGTB? Yes, I remember them. AFAIR, that was their call back in the early 60's as well. In fact, it might have been them and not George Washington University that I'm remembering. It has been, after all, close to half a century and the names are similar. Do you remember the Watergate concerts? |
#14
![]()
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
"Sonnova" wrote in message
... On Wed, 9 Jul 2008 15:25:01 -0700, Arny Krueger wrote (in article ): wrote in message http://theaudiocritic.com/blog/ H"D Radio FM/AM Digital Tuner Sony XDR-F1HD This is a $100 (thats no typo) tuner that blows away the classic super tuners of McIntosh, Marantz, Sequerra, Accuphase, etc., according to FM experts who know more than I do." He referes to this in depth technical review: http://ham-radio.com/k6sti/xdr-f1hd.htm It had to happen - the complex, expensive analog filters in their IF strips that made the classic high performance FM tuners what they were, get replaced by a DSP that costs a few bucks. Now, if there was only any reason to bother to listen to FM, except maybe in my car. :-( BTW car radios are the intended major market for this technology. So true. It wasn't always that way, though. When I was a teen (early 1960's) living near Washington DC, stereo FM had just come in. In those days, there were only a handful of FM stations in that market and they were w-i-d-e-l-y spaced on the dial so nobody was using compression and nobody cared if the stations overmodulated a bit, so no one used limiters either. The two college stations, one belonging to American University (WAMU) and the other belonging to George Washington University (WRGW), followed the live music concert scene in DC. On any given summer Friday or Saturday night, the National Symphony or one of the President's armed forces bands (Army, Navy, Air-Force, Marines) would be playing at the Watergate down by the C&O canal (Watergate had a different connotation then) in front of the Lincoln Memorial. People would pull-up alongside the floating bandshell in their boats, or sit on the steps leading down to the river or just spread-out blankets on the grass and listen. Couldn't attend? Tune in on FM and hear it live (complete with the sound of airplanes from National Airport taking-off and landing overhead). It was marvelous. People today have no idea how good live FM could be in the early days. It was like having a good pair of Neummann U87 microphones running from the Watergate to your stereo system! In the winter, most of these concerts moved indoors to the State Department Auditorium and were broadcast from there which was even better because of the hall acoustics (and no airliners). If you'd like to get an idea what the Watergate concerts were like in those days, watch the beginning of a movie with Cary Grant and Sophia Loren called "Houseboat." It sort of begins at a Watergate concert where Sophia's character's father is a visiting Italian symphony conductor. Then of course there was the WQXR "network" which, in the early 1960's relayed (via the receive-and-rebroadcast method) programming from WQXR in New York City to a chain of stations going north into New England and south to DC. It was a little noisier than the local live broadcasts. The 'QXR affiliate in DC, was (IIRC) WMAL-FM and their chief engineer told me once (because I called and asked) that they received their feed by rebroadcasting the signal they picked-up using a high-gain single-frequency yagi antenna from the Philadelphia affiliate. So what we got was an FM signal that was captured by the Philly station off the air from WQXR New York, and then they rebroadcasted it and WMAL picked up that rebroadcast and then rebroadcasted it themselves, so there were TWO FM outlets between my FM tuner and the originating FM station in NYC. No matter. What we got (while it lasted) was live broadcasts of the NY Philharmonic from Lincoln Center, concerts from Carnegie Hall, and smaller ensembles directly from WQXR's studios. It was glorious! I really miss those live stereo FM broadcasts and I was saddened to see, the last time I was in DC, that the powers-that-be had allowed the band-shell barge at the Watergate to sink. Youngsters today wonder why we old farts think that the world has gone downhill since our youth. Well, its because it has! Hear hear!! Thanks for bringing back the memories. I moved into the NYC area right after grad school in 1963...and boy, the sounds! I am currently fortunate to live in western mass where WFCR broadcasts....they only do opera and Tanglewood live, but their signal is not terrible compressed and they feature top quality classical and jazz...with my Carver TX-11 or Fisher 90C tuned in, it is hard to tell I'm not listening to CD. I can turn up the volume on a performance and have no hiss or noise, and reasonable dynamics. So I guess I am one of the lucky ones. Harry |
#15
![]()
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
On Wed, 16 Jul 2008 17:52:13 -0700, Harry Lavo wrote
(in article ): "Sonnova" wrote in message ... On Wed, 9 Jul 2008 15:25:01 -0700, Arny Krueger wrote (in article ): wrote in message http://theaudiocritic.com/blog/ H"D Radio FM/AM Digital Tuner Sony XDR-F1HD This is a $100 (thats no typo) tuner that blows away the classic super tuners of McIntosh, Marantz, Sequerra, Accuphase, etc., according to FM experts who know more than I do." He referes to this in depth technical review: http://ham-radio.com/k6sti/xdr-f1hd.htm It had to happen - the complex, expensive analog filters in their IF strips that made the classic high performance FM tuners what they were, get replaced by a DSP that costs a few bucks. Now, if there was only any reason to bother to listen to FM, except maybe in my car. :-( BTW car radios are the intended major market for this technology. So true. It wasn't always that way, though. When I was a teen (early 1960's) living near Washington DC, stereo FM had just come in. In those days, there were only a handful of FM stations in that market and they were w-i-d-e-l-y spaced on the dial so nobody was using compression and nobody cared if the stations overmodulated a bit, so no one used limiters either. The two college stations, one belonging to American University (WAMU) and the other belonging to George Washington University (WRGW), followed the live music concert scene in DC. On any given summer Friday or Saturday night, the National Symphony or one of the President's armed forces bands (Army, Navy, Air-Force, Marines) would be playing at the Watergate down by the C&O canal (Watergate had a different connotation then) in front of the Lincoln Memorial. People would pull-up alongside the floating bandshell in their boats, or sit on the steps leading down to the river or just spread-out blankets on the grass and listen. Couldn't attend? Tune in on FM and hear it live (complete with the sound of airplanes from National Airport taking-off and landing overhead). It was marvelous. People today have no idea how good live FM could be in the early days. It was like having a good pair of Neummann U87 microphones running from the Watergate to your stereo system! In the winter, most of these concerts moved indoors to the State Department Auditorium and were broadcast from there which was even better because of the hall acoustics (and no airliners). If you'd like to get an idea what the Watergate concerts were like in those days, watch the beginning of a movie with Cary Grant and Sophia Loren called "Houseboat." It sort of begins at a Watergate concert where Sophia's character's father is a visiting Italian symphony conductor. Then of course there was the WQXR "network" which, in the early 1960's relayed (via the receive-and-rebroadcast method) programming from WQXR in New York City to a chain of stations going north into New England and south to DC. It was a little noisier than the local live broadcasts. The 'QXR affiliate in DC, was (IIRC) WMAL-FM and their chief engineer told me once (because I called and asked) that they received their feed by rebroadcasting the signal they picked-up using a high-gain single-frequency yagi antenna from the Philadelphia affiliate. So what we got was an FM signal that was captured by the Philly station off the air from WQXR New York, and then they rebroadcasted it and WMAL picked up that rebroadcast and then rebroadcasted it themselves, so there were TWO FM outlets between my FM tuner and the originating FM station in NYC. No matter. What we got (while it lasted) was live broadcasts of the NY Philharmonic from Lincoln Center, concerts from Carnegie Hall, and smaller ensembles directly from WQXR's studios. It was glorious! I really miss those live stereo FM broadcasts and I was saddened to see, the last time I was in DC, that the powers-that-be had allowed the band-shell barge at the Watergate to sink. Youngsters today wonder why we old farts think that the world has gone downhill since our youth. Well, its because it has! Hear hear!! Thanks for bringing back the memories. I moved into the NYC area right after grad school in 1963...and boy, the sounds! I am currently fortunate to live in western mass where WFCR broadcasts....they only do opera and Tanglewood live, but their signal is not terrible compressed and they feature top quality classical and jazz...with my Carver TX-11 or Fisher 90C tuned in, it is hard to tell I'm not listening to CD. I can turn up the volume on a performance and have no hiss or noise, and reasonable dynamics. So I guess I am one of the lucky ones. Harry You are lucky. There is simply nothing like a broadcast of a live concert. The knowledge that the music to which one is listening is going on RIGHT at that second as you listen-in may form some sort of psycho-acoustical bond with the broadcast that simply isn't replicated when listening to "canned" music, no matter how effective or perfect that canning process might be. Live broadcasts generated an excitement and a sense of anticipation (as well as a sense of participation) not present in canned playback. Sure, it's an illusion, but isn't that what hi-fi is all about? The Illusion of a live performance in one's listening room? I'd trade all of my "state-of-the-art" gear to be able to go back to my attic room in my parent's house for ONE live Watergate concert in 1962 over my Eico HFT-90 FM tuner, my Knight-Kit stereo FM demodulator, my pair of Knight-Kit 18-Watt mono integrated amplifiers and the bass-reflex speaker cabinets my dad made for me, each holding a Knight KN-812 12" "full-range" speaker and a Layfayette horn tweeter. Crude, yes, but none-the-less satisfying to my then 16-year-old ears. |
#16
![]()
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
"Sonnova" wrote in message
Sure, it's an illusion, but isn't that what hi-fi is all about? The Illusion of a live performance in one's listening room? I'd trade all of my "state-of-the-art" gear to be able to go back to my attic room in my parent's house for ONE live Watergate concert in 1962 over my Eico HFT-90 FM tuner, my Knight-Kit stereo FM demodulator, my pair of Knight-Kit 18-Watt mono integrated amplifiers and the bass-reflex speaker cabinets my dad made for me, each holding a Knight KN-812 12" "full-range" speaker and a Layfayette horn tweeter. Crude, yes, but none-the-less satisfying to my then 16-year-old ears. I've never been all that satisfied with reproduced sound. That is probably because I've been exposed to live music, often several times weekly, for my whole life. In 1962 or there-abouts I owned a Sherwood stereo tuner, an Eico ST-70 integrated amplifier, and a variety of headphones and loudspeakers. I think my first hifi record player was a Glaser-Steers changer, which was followed by a number of AR turntables. Several times I sold my AR turntable, bought "something better", sold or scrapped that, and bought another AR turntable. My last turntable was a Thorens TD-125 with a SME 3009 arm. it was obvious to me in the late 1960s that analog record/play technology had pretty well done all that it was going to do. I figured that sometime in the early 70s that digital would become available. I was totally amazed when it took until the early 80s for that to happen. |
#17
![]()
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
On Fri, 18 Jul 2008 15:30:38 -0700, Arny Krueger wrote
(in article ): "Sonnova" wrote in message Sure, it's an illusion, but isn't that what hi-fi is all about? The Illusion of a live performance in one's listening room? I'd trade all of my "state-of-the-art" gear to be able to go back to my attic room in my parent's house for ONE live Watergate concert in 1962 over my Eico HFT-90 FM tuner, my Knight-Kit stereo FM demodulator, my pair of Knight-Kit 18-Watt mono integrated amplifiers and the bass-reflex speaker cabinets my dad made for me, each holding a Knight KN-812 12" "full-range" speaker and a Layfayette horn tweeter. Crude, yes, but none-the-less satisfying to my then 16-year-old ears. I've never been all that satisfied with reproduced sound. That is probably because I've been exposed to live music, often several times weekly, for my whole life. In 1962 or there-abouts I owned a Sherwood stereo tuner, an Eico ST-70 integrated amplifier, and a variety of headphones and loudspeakers. I think my first hifi record player was a Glaser-Steers changer, which was followed by a number of AR turntables. Several times I sold my AR turntable, bought "something better", sold or scrapped that, and bought another AR turntable. My last turntable was a Thorens TD-125 with a SME 3009 arm. God, a Glaser-Steers, I haven't thought of that name for 40 years or more! In 1962, I owned a Rek*O*Kut "Rondine" and some Japanese stereo arm that I bought from Radio Shack (when they were still a Boston mail-order house). I think I was using a Stanton cartridge in that set-up. My first real record player (ignoring the little RCA 45 RPM deck I had as a child) was one of those ubiquitous British BSR changers that everybody sold for about $20. Then I got a Garrard AT-7 "Automatic turntable" with the big, heavy platter, but it rumbled. So did the Rk*O*Kut, (it was idler driven too) so I changed it to belt drive (Outboard motor, belt from a belt-driven Rek*O*Kut, had a local machinist turn the motor spindle to the correct diameter - I even knew enough to have the shaft "crowned" so that the center of the shaft was the correct diameter and the shaft tapered above and below the crown to keep the belt form "walking"). it was obvious to me in the late 1960s that analog record/play technology had pretty well done all that it was going to do. I figured that sometime in the early 70s that digital would become available. I was totally amazed when it took until the early 80s for that to happen. Frankly, digital, as a consumer music medium never even occurred to me until the mid seventies. |
#18
![]()
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Arny Krueger wrote:
it was obvious to me in the late 1960s that analog record/play technology had pretty well done all that it was going to do. I figured that sometime in the early 70s that digital would become available. I was totally amazed when it took until the early 80s for that to happen. I had 16 bit digital, mono, legitimate monotonic 16 bits, in 1971. 50kHz sample rate. Cost $40,000. Had a 256 kilobyte disk to store to. Had to have outboard cutoff filter, which I wired up by hand using passive components. Worked fine for audio, but 256 kilobytes is not much audio, even mono. I was not surprised at the date of the first digital audio, either pro mastering or CD. Doug McDonald |
#19
![]()
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
"Sonnova" wrote in message
Then I got a Garrard AT-7 "Automatic turntable" with the big, heavy platter, but it rumbled. My recollection is that the AT-7 was actually based on Garrard's lighter weight chassis of the day. The heavier chassis was used for the Type A, A-70, and Zero-100. The AT-7 was based on the AT-6 and mainly differed by the addition of a 12" overlay on the AT-6 10" turntable. All of the Garrards of the day rumbled. The main bearing was the cause, and adding a heavier platter make the cheap bearing vibrate more. Of course my Glaser Steers was a rumble box as well. So did the Rk*O*Kut, (it was idler driven too) so I changed it to belt drive (Outboard motor, belt from a belt-driven Rek*O*Kut, had a local machinist turn the motor spindle to the correct diameter - I even knew enough to have the shaft "crowned" so that the center of the shaft was the correct diameter and the shaft tapered above and below the crown to keep the belt form "walking"). Cute. it was obvious to me in the late 1960s that analog record/play technology had pretty well done all that it was going to do. I figured that sometime in the early 70s that digital would become available. I was totally amazed when it took until the early 80s for that to happen. Frankly, digital, as a consumer music medium never even occurred to me until the mid seventies. I worked for IBM in the late 60s and was familiar with digital technology from computers, and data conversion from working with process control computers - such as the IBM 1801. |
#20
![]()
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
On Sun, 20 Jul 2008 02:49:57 -0700, Arny Krueger wrote
(in article ): "Sonnova" wrote in message Then I got a Garrard AT-7 "Automatic turntable" with the big, heavy platter, but it rumbled. My recollection is that the AT-7 was actually based on Garrard's lighter weight chassis of the day. The heavier chassis was used for the Type A, A-70, and Zero-100. The AT-7 was based on the AT-6 and mainly differed by the addition of a 12" overlay on the AT-6 10" turntable. That's correct, but I misspoke (or rather, mis-wrote). I meant a Type A, I just mis-remembered what it was called. I owned the Type A, which was merely a Garrard model RC-98 with a heavy 10" platter overlay and a dynamically balanced tone-arm with ball bearing pivots in both planes. It was good-looking though for it's era All of the Garrards of the day rumbled. The main bearing was the cause, and adding a heavier platter make the cheap bearing vibrate more. Uh-huh, the problem wasn't helped any by the rim-drive and a 4-pole motor only isolated from the chassis by three rubber grommets. Of course my Glaser Steers was a rumble box as well. Same idea.. So did the Rk*O*Kut, (it was idler driven too) so I changed it to belt drive (Outboard motor, belt from a belt-driven Rek*O*Kut, had a local machinist turn the motor spindle to the correct diameter - I even knew enough to have the shaft "crowned" so that the center of the shaft was the correct diameter and the shaft tapered above and below the crown to keep the belt form "walking"). Cute. Needless to say, the Rek*O*Kut was single-speed after that, but even though it was designed to be a rim-drive 'table, it had a real platter bearing, with a long machined shaft about the diameter of a nickel tapered to a shallow, pointed cone shape at the business end. Fitted into a bronze-oillite sleeve pressed into an aluminum well casting with a highly polished, hardened ball bearing in the bottom of the well for the shaft-point to rest upon. Very well made. Of course, the platter rang like a bell when you thumped it, but in those days, we didn't realize that ringing platters mattered. it was obvious to me in the late 1960s that analog record/play technology had pretty well done all that it was going to do. I figured that sometime in the early 70s that digital would become available. I was totally amazed when it took until the early 80s for that to happen. Frankly, digital, as a consumer music medium never even occurred to me until the mid seventies. I worked for IBM in the late 60s and was familiar with digital technology from computers, and data conversion from working with process control computers - such as the IBM 1801. I was working in semiconductor at the time and the company for which I worked was big in PCM - for telephone systems. It just never crossed my mind that it would ever be good enough for music. |
#21
![]()
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
"Sonnova" wrote in message
Then I got a Garrard AT-7 "Automatic turntable" with the big, heavy platter, but it rumbled. My recollection is that the AT-7 was actually based on Garrard's lighter weight chassis of the day. The heavier chassis was used for the Type A, A-70, and Zero-100. The AT-7 was based on the AT-6 and mainly differed by the addition of a 12" overlay on the AT-6 10" turntable. All of the Garrards of the day rumbled. The main bearing was the cause, and adding a heavier platter make the cheap bearing vibrate more. Of course my Glaser Steers was a rumble box as well. So did the Rk*O*Kut, (it was idler driven too) so I changed it to belt drive (Outboard motor, belt from a belt-driven Rek*O*Kut, had a local machinist turn the motor spindle to the correct diameter - I even knew enough to have the shaft "crowned" so that the center of the shaft was the correct diameter and the shaft tapered above and below the crown to keep the belt form "walking"). Cute. it was obvious to me in the late 1960s that analog record/play technology had pretty well done all that it was going to do. I figured that sometime in the early 70s that digital would become available. I was totally amazed when it took until the early 80s for that to happen. Frankly, digital, as a consumer music medium never even occurred to me until the mid seventies. I worked for IBM in the late 60s and was familiar with digital technology from computers, and data conversion from working with process control computers - such as the IBM 1801. |
#22
![]()
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
... "Sonnova" wrote in message Then I got a Garrard AT-7 "Automatic turntable" with the big, heavy platter, but it rumbled. My recollection is that the AT-7 was actually based on Garrard's lighter weight chassis of the day. The heavier chassis was used for the Type A, A-70, and Zero-100. The AT-7 was based on the AT-6 and mainly differed by the addition of a 12" overlay on the AT-6 10" turntable. All of the Garrards of the day rumbled. The main bearing was the cause, and adding a heavier platter make the cheap bearing vibrate more. Of course my Glaser Steers was a rumble box as well. There was very little escape from rumble in those days, unless you moved to a very large transcription turntable or to the few belt drives then available (and viewed with suspicion by the audio community). That's why many amps and most preamps had a built-in switchable rumble filter. |
#23
![]()
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
On Sun, 20 Jul 2008 12:58:25 -0700, Harry Lavo wrote
(in article ): "Arny Krueger" wrote in message ... "Sonnova" wrote in message Then I got a Garrard AT-7 "Automatic turntable" with the big, heavy platter, but it rumbled. My recollection is that the AT-7 was actually based on Garrard's lighter weight chassis of the day. The heavier chassis was used for the Type A, A-70, and Zero-100. The AT-7 was based on the AT-6 and mainly differed by the addition of a 12" overlay on the AT-6 10" turntable. All of the Garrards of the day rumbled. The main bearing was the cause, and adding a heavier platter make the cheap bearing vibrate more. Of course my Glaser Steers was a rumble box as well. There was very little escape from rumble in those days, unless you moved to a very large transcription turntable or to the few belt drives then available (and viewed with suspicion by the audio community). That's why many amps and most preamps had a built-in switchable rumble filter. Being a teenager in those days, I lusted after an Empire 308 belt-drive turntable and that gorgeous oiled walnut Grado tonearm. I don't remember the price of the 'table, but I do recall that the Grado arm was $40. IOW, way out of my league, money-wise. I did, eventually, get an AR turntable and arm and that was nice (until the headshell on the arm started to get intermittent - as they all did). |
#24
![]()
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
I bought the Sony tuner, and it is far superior to my Yamaha T-80 ...
I always thought my tuner was a holy grail of sorts for FM, and I was very happy with the analog performance. BUt now, there is ZERO noise ... I am hearing background vocals much more clearly now, and classical (in analog and especially in HD) is much more detailed. Dynamic range is better, but not CD-quality. I notice the signal to be less compressed, and there is no fatigue. All this for less than I paid for my stock Yamaha tuner off ebay .. Bill Clark Windham, VT On Jul 8, 6:45*pm, wrote: http://theaudiocritic.com/blog/ * *H"DRadioFM/AM DigitalTuner * *SonyXDR-F1HD * *This is a $100 (thats no typo)tunerthat blows away the classic super * *tuners of McIntosh, Marantz, Sequerra, Accuphase, etc., according to * *FM experts who know more than I do." He referes to this in depth technical review: http://ham-radio.com/k6sti/xdr-f1hd.htm |
#25
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]() Quote:
|
#26
![]()
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
wrote in :
http://theaudiocritic.com/blog/ H"D Radio FM/AM Digital Tuner Sony XDR-F1HD This is a $100 (thats no typo) tuner that blows away the classic super tuners of McIntosh, Marantz, Sequerra, Accuphase, etc., according to FM experts who know more than I do." He referes to this in depth technical review: http://ham-radio.com/k6sti/xdr-f1hd.htm Got mine last year for about $60 after the $50 rebate from Ibiquity. The Sony cleaned up my FM reception (multipath) problems with the stock dipole mounted randomly, apparently thanks to the digital format. To get my older tuners to work cleanly with the same stations I'd have to put up a directional outdoor antenna, which I may do anyway just to see how many long distance stations I can reliably pull in. The AM HD radio market in Seattle is virtually non-existant with only one station (all sports, news and talk). On rare occasions I can tell that the format does offer a clean stereo signal in AM, although it's from commercial jingles and has outrageous compression/limiting effects. KING-FM offers good classical broadcasting, albeit with variable source material quality that the Sony tuner reproduces mercilessly. Voice music, especially large groups, can reproduce more cleanly than I recall from any other tuner I've owned. Still not quite as good as a decent CD recording on a high quality player, but HD Radio obviously offers performance improvements on FM and could benefit a lot of listeners who have reception problems. I'd like to hear the performance in a car, to see how it copes with severe multipath as the vehicle moves. It's a technological tour de force, that could probably be improved upon in a serious "audiophile" version for not much more money at all--assuming someone doesn't tweak the design with a better analog output stage. Between getting this new tuner and having sold my entire vinyl record collection during a recent forced move to more modest housing, I'm now almost totally digital. Will HD Radio save broadcasting? Well, that remains to be seen, but the price of trying out the format is pretty reasonable. --Damon |
#27
![]()
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
On 2 Aug 2009 14:16:25 GMT, Damon Hill
wrote: I live in Southwestern Ohio (near Cincinnati) and enjoy AM HD broadcast DX from St. Louis, Missouri. KMOX (1120 AM) broadcasts an all-night IBOC signal and they broadcast 50's and 60's music programming on Friday and Saturday nights. The IBOC really shines on my Sony HD table radio. The IBOC signal sometimes is lost, but I would say that it comes in clearly about 80% of the time. I wish that more AM IBOC stations would broadcast music programming! |
Reply |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Forum | |||
LAST DAY: Sansui TU-519 Classic Tuner NM | Pro Audio | |||
FS: Classic high-end tuner CHEAP! | Marketplace | |||
FS: Classic Kenwood Tuner | Marketplace | |||
FS: Classic Kenwood Tuner | Marketplace | |||
FS: Sansui TU-9900 classic tuner 11-03 | Marketplace |