[Randy Yates]

Hi Folks,

Just for fun, I'd be interested to see who has "high-end" FM receivers
out there. You know, something suitable for use with those Duntech
Sovreigns, Krell amps, and Ecosse cables.
--
% Randy Yates % "And all that I can do
%% Fuquay-Varina, NC % is say I'm sorry,
%%% 919-577-9882 % that's the way it goes..."
%%%% % Getting To The Point', *Balance of Power*, ELO
http://home.earthlink.net/~yatescr

[Colin B.]

Randy Yates wrote:
Hi Folks,

Just for fun, I'd be interested to see who has "high-end" FM receivers
out there. You know, something suitable for use with those Duntech
Sovreigns, Krell amps, and Ecosse cables.

How high end is high end? I've got a Sansui TU-9900. Lovely beast. I'd
be inclined to get a 919 if I could find one, except for the signal lock
circuit. Anyways, I'd put it up against my friend's Magnum Dynalab quite
happily, assuming I could get it aligned first.

Speaking of which, is there anyone who does a good job of aligning tuners
in Western Canada?

Colin

[Mr.T]

"Randy Yates" wrote in message
...
Just for fun, I'd be interested to see who has "high-end" FM receivers
out there. You know, something suitable for use with those Duntech
Sovreigns, Krell amps, and Ecosse cables.

Well I don't have a pair of Sovereigns or a Krell amp, but my system is
worth *FAR* more than my FM tuner, because I wouldn't even attempt to do any
serious listening to *any* radio, AM, FM or digital. The radio is used for
listening to the news broadcasts, and I don't do that much any more now that
I can get it all on the internet. In fact the only radio that gets used much
these days is in the bathroom :-)
(VERY "low-end"!!)

Why are you interested in a "high-end" FM radio anyway?

MrT.

[@(none)]

Randy Yates wrote:
Hi Folks,

Just for fun, I'd be interested to see who has "high-end" FM receivers
out there. You know, something suitable for use with those Duntech
Sovreigns, Krell amps, and Ecosse cables.

There is hardly any FM-radio station left in the world that does
transmit "standard quality" sound.
Audio is processed by an endless chain of compressors, multiband
compressors, enhancers, optimods, compressed data links ( from the
studio to the transmitter ).
All to make the music and especially the commercial messages louder
than the competitors.

A "high-end" receiver doesn't give you any bennefit in that.

Andre

[Colin B.]

"@(none)" ""andre\"@(none)" wrote:
Randy Yates wrote:
Hi Folks,

Just for fun, I'd be interested to see who has "high-end" FM receivers
out there. You know, something suitable for use with those Duntech
Sovreigns, Krell amps, and Ecosse cables.

There is hardly any FM-radio station left in the world that does
transmit "standard quality" sound.

That's an overstatement. Just because you may live in a wasteland doesn't
mean that we all do.

www.ckua.com. High quality music, high quality audio. High quality announcers.
Even high quality commercials that don't shout in your face.

They're the reason I listen to the radio. CBC is another one.

Colin

[Randy Yates]

"Colin B." writes:

"@(none)" ""andre\"@(none)" wrote:
Randy Yates wrote:
Hi Folks,

Just for fun, I'd be interested to see who has "high-end" FM receivers
out there. You know, something suitable for use with those Duntech
Sovreigns, Krell amps, and Ecosse cables.

There is hardly any FM-radio station left in the world that does
transmit "standard quality" sound.

That's an overstatement. Just because you may live in a wasteland doesn't
mean that we all do.

www.ckua.com. High quality music, high quality audio. High quality announcers.
Even high quality commercials that don't shout in your face.

They're the reason I listen to the radio. CBC is another one.

Colin

I agree. I also happen to live in broadcast range of WCPE, perhaps
one of the most famous classical FM stations in the country. I
doubt they're compressing Mozart, and a good tuner would probably
yield a very agreeable listening experience.
--
% Randy Yates % "How's life on earth?
%% Fuquay-Varina, NC % ... What is it worth?"
%%% 919-577-9882 % 'Mission (A World Record)',
%%%% % *A New World Record*, ELO
http://home.earthlink.net/~yatescr

[water4life]

The MAcintosh MR 67 tube tuner has an outstanding sound. Extremely
lifelike.
Luis

Randy Yates wrote:
Hi Folks,

Just for fun, I'd be interested to see who has "high-end" FM receivers
out there. You know, something suitable for use with those Duntech
Sovreigns, Krell amps, and Ecosse cables.
--
% Randy Yates % "And all that I can do
%% Fuquay-Varina, NC % is say I'm sorry,
%%% 919-577-9882 % that's the way it goes..."
%%%% % Getting To The Point', *Balance of Power*, ELO
http://home.earthlink.net/~yatescr

[Karl Uppiano]

"@(none)" ""andre\"@(none)" wrote in message
...
Randy Yates wrote:
Hi Folks,

Just for fun, I'd be interested to see who has "high-end" FM receivers
out there. You know, something suitable for use with those Duntech
Sovreigns, Krell amps, and Ecosse cables.

There is hardly any FM-radio station left in the world that does
transmit "standard quality" sound.
Audio is processed by an endless chain of compressors, multiband
compressors, enhancers, optimods, compressed data links ( from the
studio to the transmitter ).
All to make the music and especially the commercial messages louder
than the competitors.

A "high-end" receiver doesn't give you any bennefit in that.

You could make the same argument about CDs (or even vinyl). But there are
some good ones out there...

[guest]

On 2006-12-22, Randy Yates wrote:
"Colin B." writes:

"@(none)" ""andre\"@(none)" wrote:
Randy Yates wrote:
Hi Folks,

Just for fun, I'd be interested to see who has "high-end" FM receivers
out there. You know, something suitable for use with those Duntech
Sovreigns, Krell amps, and Ecosse cables.

There is hardly any FM-radio station left in the world that does
transmit "standard quality" sound.

That's an overstatement. Just because you may live in a wasteland doesn't
mean that we all do.

www.ckua.com. High quality music, high quality audio. High quality announcers.
Even high quality commercials that don't shout in your face.

They're the reason I listen to the radio. CBC is another one.

Colin

I agree. I also happen to live in broadcast range of WCPE, perhaps
one of the most famous classical FM stations in the country. I
doubt they're compressing Mozart, and a good tuner would probably
yield a very agreeable listening experience.

& some might even do digital broadcasting of their classical & jazz.

[Harry Lavo]

"guest" wrote in message
...
On 2006-12-22, Randy Yates wrote:
"Colin B." writes:

"@(none)" ""andre\"@(none)" wrote:
Randy Yates wrote:
Hi Folks,

Just for fun, I'd be interested to see who has "high-end" FM receivers
out there. You know, something suitable for use with those Duntech
Sovreigns, Krell amps, and Ecosse cables.

There is hardly any FM-radio station left in the world that does
transmit "standard quality" sound.

That's an overstatement. Just because you may live in a wasteland
doesn't
mean that we all do.

www.ckua.com. High quality music, high quality audio. High quality
announcers.
Even high quality commercials that don't shout in your face.

They're the reason I listen to the radio. CBC is another one.

Colin

I agree. I also happen to live in broadcast range of WCPE, perhaps
one of the most famous classical FM stations in the country. I
doubt they're compressing Mozart, and a good tuner would probably
yield a very agreeable listening experience.

& some might even do digital broadcasting of their classical & jazz.

WFCR here in Western Mass does that...24 hrs a day.

Their conventional signal is very fine.

I'd suggest that *any* tuner used for quality listening should have the same
criteria as any other high-end audio component:

1) Getting the timbre correct
2) Complete transparency and ability to convey dimensionality and soundstage
3) Unchanged characteristics on dynamic peaks

In addition, the benefits of a really good tuner unique to FM:

1) high sensitivity, with concomitant low noise level on marginal signals
2) switchable wide and narrow bandwidth to optimize signal
interference/audio quality
2) quite high native S/N level (at least 70 db, preferably 75) at full
signal
3) quality noise cancellation that doesn't dull the signal or switch
completely to mono
4) spot on tuning for lowest distortion

My personal favorites are the late Fishers....particularly the FM-200-B and
the FM-1000. Of more modern tuners, the Carver TX-11 has quality sound, a
good wide-bandwidth setting, and unsurpassed noise-reduction controls. And
then their are the tube Macs and the Marantz 10B.

My "sleeper" (disclaimer: I own two): the Fisher FM-90-B...the last of their
"small" tuners...but by todays standards still a very strong performer and
available (still) as a reasonable price. This was one of the last (and most
refined) of the tube Fishers.

[Peter Larsen]

guest wrote:

I agree. I also happen to live in broadcast range of WCPE, perhaps
one of the most famous classical FM stations in the country. I
doubt they're compressing Mozart,

If the average level is louder than some -20 dB then they compress it by
the difference, and I have then left room for benefit of doubt, very
reverberant recorded room and modest limiting.

A good compressor wisely adjusted _can_ do quite much compression
without causing a lot of sonic havoc. I made a live location recording
in Holmen's Church here in Copenhagen early 2006 and Danish Radio P2
(CLassical music channel) borrowed the recording so as to be able to use
a snippet of it as illustration, they had compressed it at least 8 dB -
as I recall this, I have the off air file somewhere - but it still
sounded very good and those I let listen to the off air version and the
off DAT version found nothing wrong with the off air version until
confronted with the off DAT version.

and a good tuner would probably yield a very agreeable listening
experience.

The period 1978 to 1988 (approximately) is the decade of the quality
wars, Sansui and Technics are good brands to audition and/or buy at
garage sales.

& some might even do digital broadcasting of their classical & jazz.

Nothing beats the off air stuff, not cable nor "digital broadcast", both
to my knowledge may imply additional AD conversion, bit-reduction and DA
conversion stages.


Peter Larsen