Tom's Hardware: Topic FM Tuners
Tom's Hardware: Over 1.4 million members in 6 different countries available to answer all your high-tech questions.
Sign up now! Its free!
Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)
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/photo [...] C00014.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
Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)
"Codifus" <codifus@optonline.net> wrote in message
news
00l6101506@news1.newsguy.com...
> 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 re: 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.
Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)
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
Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)
"chung" <chunglau@covad.net> wrote in message
news00l4e014ub@news1.newsguy.com...
> Harry Lavo wrote:
> > "Russ Button" <russ@button.com> wrote in message
> > news:cvu4ra0naa@news1.newsguy.com...
> >> 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.
Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)
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" <chunglau@covad.net> wrote in message
news08bhl015i1@news3.newsguy.com...
> Codifus wrote:
>> chung wrote:
>>> Harry Lavo wrote:
>>>
>>>> "Russ Button" <russ@button.com> wrote in message
>>>> news:cvu4ra0naa@news1.newsguy.com...
>>>>
>>>>> 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/rec.audio.high-end/msg/82d77a20a02f463c?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).
Please mind
You are about to answer a thread that has been inactive for more than 6 months.
If you still wish to proceed, please ensure that your posting is original and does not duplicate or overlap any prior responses to this thread.
Sponsored links
Ad
Related Content
- hi fi equalizer
- memory recall ok
- radio shack conductive paint
- delay live radio
- what is passive active crossover
- what is the difference between an active crossover and passive
- can t find explorer
- power supply rankings
- roof mount fm antenna
- high end cassette deck
- overclock tx1000
- roof mount fm antenna
- headphones with fm antenna
- what size surge protector do i need
They won a badge
Join us in greeting them
- 02:34 buwish won the Sophmore badge
- 01:00 Cache won the Freshman badge
- 01:00 stratosrally won the Freshman badge
- 00:36 jezza333 won the Sophmore badge
- 23:37 rand_79 won the Watchman badge
- 01:00 Donnie2009 won the Uniformed badge
- 01:00 AnthonyG70 won the Uniformed badge
- 01:00 earlytv won the Uniformed badge
- 01:00 babs24u won the Freshman badge
- 01:00 scalpdance won the Freshman badge