Re: Reasonably priced FM Tuner

[Shaun]

"Dave" wrote in message ...

For the last couple months I have been attempting to find an FM tuner to
bypass the one in a Pioneer SC-37 AVR. The AVR built-in tuner has a lot of
background noise and birdies; its basic sound is not bad, but the extraneous
noises make listening difficult. I have tried a variety of tuners, from
Ebay and other sources with costs ranging from free to $60. My total cost
so far is well under $200. The AVR has B&O class D amplifiers that I like
and I am very happy its pairing with Spendor S5e speakers.

So far the best sounding one listened to is a Harman Kardon TU-910 analog
tuner that needed new dial lights. Others tried in descending sound order
are: Luxman T-111 (Alpine digital one, not the analog one), Sansui T-707
analog with mechanical autoseek, Marantz ST-59 digital and Yamaha T-30
digital. The Yamaha is probably the most sensitive of the batch, but sounds
a bit harsh, still a lot better than the AVR tuner. The Luxman was the
biggest surprise, expected that the Alpine Luxman digital would not be very
good, but it is almost as good as the HK; HK seems more real on good
broadcasts, allows me to sink into the music and forget the tuner itself.

Does anyone have any other recommendations that I should try, or have I hit
the best performance/price with the HK, ideally less than a couple hundred
dollars? I do not need DXing, listen to just 2 FM stations in the Boston,
MA area, WHRB and WCRB. I would like AM for occasional listening to a new
station. The HK is OK on AM, good enough for informational listening.

_______________________________________________

I really doubt that your AVR is using class D for the main speakers, that is
pulse width modulation and requires a filter to remove the carrier frequency
(PWM frequency), it would be a difficult design - if not impossible for a
full range amp. For subwoofers it is fine since they have a limited
frequency range. Usually class D is only used for subs.

Sansui was well known for making very good analog tuners - they would
probably be the best selectivity and sound quality.

Shaun

[KH]

On 4/15/2015 6:27 AM, Shaun wrote:
> "Dave" wrote in message ...

> _______________________________________________
>
> I really doubt that your AVR is using class D for the main speakers, that is
> pulse width modulation and requires a filter to remove the carrier frequency
> (PWM frequency), it would be a difficult design - if not impossible for a
> full range amp. For subwoofers it is fine since they have a limited
> frequency range. Usually class D is only used for subs.
>
> Sansui was well known for making very good analog tuners - they would
> probably be the best selectivity and sound quality.
>
> Shaun

Full range Class D amps are everywhere these days. From Theta, to Mark
Levinson, to NAD and a host of others.

Keith

[Dave]

On Wednesday, April 15, 2015 at 9:27:12 AM UTC-4, Shaun wrote:
> "Dave" wrote in message ...
>=20
> For the last couple months I have been attempting to find an FM tuner to=
=20
> bypass the one in a Pioneer SC-37 AVR. The AVR built-in tuner has a lot =
of=20
> background noise and birdies; its basic sound is not bad, but the extrane=
ous=20
> noises make listening difficult. I have tried a variety of tuners, from=
=20
> Ebay and other sources with costs ranging from free to $60. My total cos=
t=20
> so far is well under $200. The AVR has B&O class D amplifiers that I lik=
e=20
> and I am very happy its pairing with Spendor S5e speakers.
>=20
> So far the best sounding one listened to is a Harman Kardon TU-910 analog=
=20
> tuner that needed new dial lights. Others tried in descending sound orde=
r=20
> are: Luxman T-111 (Alpine digital one, not the analog one), Sansui T-707=
=20
> analog with mechanical autoseek, Marantz ST-59 digital and Yamaha T-30=20
> digital. The Yamaha is probably the most sensitive of the batch, but sou=
nds=20
> a bit harsh, still a lot better than the AVR tuner. The Luxman was the=
=20
> biggest surprise, expected that the Alpine Luxman digital would not be ve=
ry=20
> good, but it is almost as good as the HK; HK seems more real on good=20
> broadcasts, allows me to sink into the music and forget the tuner itself.
>=20
> Does anyone have any other recommendations that I should try, or have I h=
it=20
> the best performance/price with the HK, ideally less than a couple hundre=
d=20
> dollars? I do not need DXing, listen to just 2 FM stations in the Boston=
,=20
> MA area, WHRB and WCRB. I would like AM for occasional listening to a ne=
w=20
> station. The HK is OK on AM, good enough for informational listening.
>=20
> _______________________________________________
>=20
> I really doubt that your AVR is using class D for the main speakers, that=
is=20
> pulse width modulation and requires a filter to remove the carrier freque=
ncy=20
> (PWM frequency), it would be a difficult design - if not impossible for a=
=20
> full range amp. For subwoofers it is fine since they have a limited=20
> frequency range. Usually class D is only used for subs.
>=20
> Sansui was well known for making very good analog tuners - they would=20
> probably be the best selectivity and sound quality.
>=20
> Shaun

Glad to have an expert correct me, as my pitiful experience in designing el=
ectronics for space applications for 40 years has left me ignorant of desig=
n subtleties. Also seem to have left Pioneer and B&O ignorant, as they des=
cribe the amplifiers as Class D.

As far as tuners go, I finally settled in on a Denon TU-1500, was slightly =
better than a TU-800 in my area. I did not try every tuner ever made, alth=
ough my wife suspects I did from the number of boxes that came and went.

[[email protected]]

On Wednesday, April 15, 2015 at 7:27:12 AM UTC-6, Shaun wrote:
> I really doubt that your AVR is using class D for the main speakers, that is
> pulse width modulation and requires a filter to remove the carrier frequency
> (PWM frequency), it would be a difficult design - if not impossible for a
> full range amp. For subwoofers it is fine since they have a limited
> frequency range. Usually class D is only used for subs.

Really? Does that mean the several class D amplifiers I now run in my studio
really aren't? Does that mean that even though I have measured them doing
their rated power at 20 kHz while consuming only about 20% more power from the
wall, they really aren't, and Messr. Hewlett and Packard, the nice boys
at Tektronix and Audio Precision are just as fooled as I am?

Sorry, Shaun, but broad-band class-D consumer and professional
audio amplification has been widely available for well over a decade.

[Peter Wieck]

On Thursday, April 16, 2015 at 10:59:45 AM UTC-4, Dave wrote:

> As far as tuners go, I finally settled in on a Denon TU-1500, was slightl=
y better than a TU-800 in my area. I did not try every tuner ever made, al=
though my wife suspects I did from the number of boxes that came and went.

As it seems that you are at least reasonably sophisticated in your understa=
nding of things-audio, I will withdraw my original caveat against tube tune=
rs and suggest, just for giggles, you obtain a decent Dynaco FM3, bring it =
up to factory spec., go through the alignment process and see how it sounds=
to you. Not the most sensitive unit on the block, nor the most endowed wit=
h features, but hands-down one of the better sounding beasts you might expe=
rience. For the last 25 years, including when we worked overseas, one or an=
other example has been on active duty, even if not on the immediate front l=
ine.=20

Peter Wieck
Melrose Park, PA=20

[Dave]

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

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

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

[Peter Wieck]

On Sunday, April 19, 2015 at 12:16:52 AM UTC-4, Dave wrote:

> Thanks for revisiting your ideas. I thought about a Dynaco FM-3, like it=
s simplicity, but it looks as though the price point for a good one goes be=
yond my requirement for reasonable cost. Given that most seem to need cap =
changes and alignment, the cost would quickly go well above reasonable. Tub=
e (Hollow State Device) sourcing is also a bit problematic these days; a fu=
ll new set could easily double the cost of the tuner. Tuner Information Ce=
nter did not have kind words about the sound of an FM-3. I personally have=
not heard one in well over 40 years.
>=20
> My issue with older tuners, those without PLL MPX decoders, is that they =
had 'birdies' from SCA signals. In my area, WCRB has (had?) SCA info that =
forced me to put a PLL MPX decoder in a Quad FM3 tuner to eliminate the whi=
stles. No solid state tuners with PLL MPX decoders have had this problem i=
n my experience.

Where are you? I run through about two FM3s/year on average (one so far thi=
s year, three last year, none the year before). Other than the EMM801, none=
of the tubes are the least bit exotic. My most recent unit was missing th=
e OEM (Telefunken) 12AX7s as well as their shields, but my junk box furnish=
ed the shields, and my NOS tube stash furnished me a couple of RCA 12AX7s -=
that, a cleaning and an alignment and all is well. Total cost (excepting c=
leaners and the tubes & shields) $58.=20

Peter Wieck
Melrose Park, PA=20

[Peter Wieck]

On Sunday, April 19, 2015 at 12:16:52 AM UTC-4, Dave wrote:

> Thanks for revisiting your ideas. I thought about a Dynaco FM-3, like it=
s simplicity, but it looks as though the price point for a good one goes be=
yond my requirement for reasonable cost. Given that most seem to need cap =
changes and alignment, the cost would quickly go well above reasonable. Tub=
e (Hollow State Device) sourcing is also a bit problematic these days; a fu=
ll new set could easily double the cost of the tuner. Tuner Information Ce=
nter did not have kind words about the sound of an FM-3. I personally have=
not heard one in well over 40 years.
>=20
> My issue with older tuners, those without PLL MPX decoders, is that they =
had 'birdies' from SCA signals. In my area, WCRB has (had?) SCA info that =
forced me to put a PLL MPX decoder in a Quad FM3 tuner to eliminate the whi=
stles. No solid state tuners with PLL MPX decoders have had this problem i=
n my experience.

Where are you? I run through about two FM3s/year on average (one so far thi=
s year, three last year, none the year before). Other than the EMM801, none=
of the tubes are the least bit exotic. My most recent unit was missing th=
e OEM (Telefunken) 12AX7s as well as their shields, but my junk box furnish=
ed the shields, and my NOS tube stash furnished me a couple of RCA 12AX7s -=
that, a cleaning and an alignment and all is well. Total cost (excepting c=
leaners and the tubes & shields) $58.=20

Peter Wieck
Melrose Park, PA=20

[Dave]

On Tuesday, April 21, 2015 at 11:05:43 AM UTC-4, Peter Wieck wrote:
> On Sunday, April 19, 2015 at 12:16:52 AM UTC-4, Dave wrote:
>=20
> > Thanks for revisiting your ideas. I thought about a Dynaco FM-3, like =
its simplicity, but it looks as though the price point for a good one goes =
beyond my requirement for reasonable cost. Given that most seem to need ca=
p changes and alignment, the cost would quickly go well above reasonable. T=
ube (Hollow State Device) sourcing is also a bit problematic these days; a =
full new set could easily double the cost of the tuner. Tuner Information =
Center did not have kind words about the sound of an FM-3. I personally ha=
ve not heard one in well over 40 years.
> >=20
> > My issue with older tuners, those without PLL MPX decoders, is that the=
y had 'birdies' from SCA signals. In my area, WCRB has (had?) SCA info tha=
t forced me to put a PLL MPX decoder in a Quad FM3 tuner to eliminate the w=
histles. No solid state tuners with PLL MPX decoders have had this problem=
in my experience.
>=20
> Where are you? I run through about two FM3s/year on average (one so far t=
his year, three last year, none the year before). Other than the EMM801, no=
ne of the tubes are the least bit exotic. My most recent unit was missing =
the OEM (Telefunken) 12AX7s as well as their shields, but my junk box furni=
shed the shields, and my NOS tube stash furnished me a couple of RCA 12AX7s=
- that, a cleaning and an alignment and all is well. Total cost (excepting=
cleaners and the tubes & shields) $58.=20
>=20
> Peter Wieck
> Melrose Park, PA

Boston, MA area. I check Craigslist for tuners periodically, have not seen=
one listed since I began my search. Ebay usually has kit versions ultimat=
ely selling for over $100 for working ones; factory wired tuners tend to be=
a lot more. I divested my tube stock years ago, so any replacements would=
cost me. I also do not have a tube tester, have no simple way to know if =
tubes are good or weak.