Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Solid State Tuners

Last response: in Home Audio
Share
Anonymous
June 29, 2004 1:36:50 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.tech (More info?)

I own a top-end model ( back then) Zenith 26 " T.V, with A.M & F.M,
Turntable Console and a mid 70's Kenwood Eleven model reciever. Why
is the tuner portion of the Kenwood so small (and held in high esteem
by some) and the tuner in the Zenith mammoth in comparison? Did
technolgy advance that much in just 5 to 7 years? Or is the older
Zenith a better tuner?

More about : solid state tuners

Anonymous
June 29, 2004 5:39:50 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.tech (More info?)

In <61ca5ef0.0406282036.7daf67b6@posting.google.com>, on 06/28/04
at 09:36 PM, bedibble@comcast.net (Bryan Dibble) said:

>I own a top-end model ( back then) Zenith 26 " T.V, with A.M & F.M,
>Turntable Console and a mid 70's Kenwood Eleven model reciever. Why
>is the tuner portion of the Kenwood so small (and held in high esteem
>by some) and the tuner in the Zenith mammoth in comparison? Did
>technolgy advance that much in just 5 to 7 years? Or is the older
>Zenith a better tuner?

By modern standards neither tuner is very good.

TV tuners used different technology that was physically larger back
then. The TV tuner stepped through the channels with a big mechanical
switch and the receiver tuned using a continuous method. TV tuners also
need to tune over a wider band than radio.

-----------------------------------------------------------
spam: uce@ftc.gov
wordgame:123(abc):<14 9 20 5 2 9 18 4 at 22 15 9 3 5 14 5 20 dot 3 15
13> (Barry Mann)
[sorry about the puzzle, spammers are ruining my mailbox]
-----------------------------------------------------------
Anonymous
June 30, 2004 3:45:04 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.tech (More info?)

In <cbs36v$1brg$1@news.interpublic.com>, on 06/29/04
at 11:57 AM, Codifus <codifus@optonline.net> said:

[ ... ]

>My impression is that since no one cares about FM anymore

[ ... ]

In the late 80's manufacturers tried to hold or lower prices. I started
to see some of the "beef" being taken out, then home theater hit and
continues to distract everyone. Using modern techonology it is possible
to cheapen tuners in a way that does not show up when tested with
service and commercial grade test equipment and methods. The savings is
then used to add other features that are easier to sell. (It takes a
while to teach, then demonstrate the benefits of a better tuner, but a
flashy button sells itself in a second.)

Also, the reviewers are so fascinated with the gizmos, they don't pay
much attention to the bread and butter stuff.

I'm also not seeing very many customers who appreciate a good tuner. If
a radio seems to "pull in" their favorite station, it must be OK.

I'm also wondering if there are many broadcasters who are obsessed with
quality. Most, seem to be following some sort of corporate formula that
attempts to maximize revenue. In my area it's mostly follow the market
leader because the other guy's format is "greener".

-----------------------------------------------------------
spam: uce@ftc.gov
wordgame:123(abc):<14 9 20 5 2 9 18 4 at 22 15 9 3 5 14 5 20 dot 3 15
13> (Barry Mann)
[sorry about the puzzle, spammers are ruining my mailbox]
-----------------------------------------------------------
Related resources
Anonymous
July 1, 2004 9:42:39 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.tech (More info?)

> XM and Sirius
> have some better programming but their audio is not as good as
> traditional FM was.

This statement is total nonsense.
Anonymous
July 1, 2004 1:08:04 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.tech (More info?)

"D Ray" <david@timecalc.com> wrote in message
news:eaf9681.0407010442.4e38e837@posting.google.com
>> XM and Sirius
>> have some better programming but their audio is not as good as
>> traditional FM was.

> This statement is total nonsense.

In some people's eyes it comes down to dueling artifacts. FM has plenty of
them unless you have ideal reception. Not that FM is free of artifacts when
you have ideal reception. Sirius and XM technology is based on perceptual
coding, so it still has some audible artifacts on the best day of its life.
Mostly different ones.

Right now the sound quality of FM is dominated by something other than the
limitations of the respective formats, so the discussion of the limitations
of the respective formats is not as important.

The real problem with FM is the hyper-processing that is almost totally
endemic.
Anonymous
July 1, 2004 4:09:32 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.tech (More info?)

"Arny Krueger" <arnyk@hotpop.com> wrote in message news:<KaidncCInMI5kXndRVn-tw@comcast.com>...
> "D Ray" <david@timecalc.com> wrote in message
> news:eaf9681.0407010442.4e38e837@posting.google.com
> >> XM and Sirius
> >> have some better programming but their audio is not as good as
> >> traditional FM was.
>
> > This statement is total nonsense.
>
> In some people's eyes it comes down to dueling artifacts. FM has plenty of
> them unless you have ideal reception. Not that FM is free of artifacts when
> you have ideal reception. Sirius and XM technology is based on perceptual
> coding, so it still has some audible artifacts on the best day of its life.
> Mostly different ones.
>
> Right now the sound quality of FM is dominated by something other than the
> limitations of the respective formats, so the discussion of the limitations
> of the respective formats is not as important.
>
> The real problem with FM is the hyper-processing that is almost totally
> endemic.

Forgetting the fomat type or artificles (not specified), if an old
Declo or Phillips has a great front end, and process the signal well,
and can cleanly send it on to the amlifier section (better than a
Kenwood )(1974),why can' the Zenith, depending on who manufactured it,
compete or exceed the Kenwood's ability (not to mention whatever the
unusable FM Dolby circuit might add}.
!