FM Tuner - All the Same?

[Pops110]

Best tuner I have owned. Very nice.

 

 

 

 

 

Shootout #58 (posted 11/09/03): Kenwood L-02T vs. Kenwood L-1000T
Winner: L-02T

Ha! Accuse me of favoritism, will you? Another Kenwood has clawed its way close to the top. The sound was quite nice but I wasn't crazy about the controls being on a remote. It did have lots of gadgets, though, some of which were wide/normal/narrow bandwidths, high/low sensitivity, and two antenna inputs. The face is clean with a muted amber (yellow) display. The remote volume came in handy to level match the two tuners. As many know, I use an alps pot to level-match tuners and it involves lots of adjusting back and forth from couch to controls, so the remote made the process somewhat simpler for this review. One interesting feature was that the tuner automatically chooses wide, normal or narrow mode when changing stations or when using the rotor to pull in a station. You can manually override this, but I'm not sure I like this "I know what's best" mentality. Some people must have their gadgets.

On 88.7, the L-1000T automatically switched to narrow mode. When placed in wide mode, neither tuner could capture the signal. A lot of this has to do with atmospheric conditions and possibly, the station, as I've been able to receive a fair signal from the L-02T in wide on other occasions, in other reviews. In narrow mode, the L-1000T was the noisier of the two. I was a little surprised that it was able to control 88.5 interference better than most tuners have in the past. At 88.1, both tuners played fine and I stopped awhile to enjoy the jazz. At 88.9, the L-02T usually goes into mono in auto mode but will play stereo when manually switched. While both tuners held stereo signals, the L-1000T was slightly quieter and cleaner-sounding. Neither one was a clear winner in controlling 107.5's problematic background birdies and grunge.

The L-1000T's sound? Very nice indeed. The bass goes deep, and there were hints of our L-02T's extra fullness. At times, the L-1000T even gave a few hints of its own - like a sense of slightly more dynamic punch in the midrange. A quick guess is this may be the result of better decoupling around the op-amps or the different op-amps used. The treble was more extended, but remained pleasant-sounding. The character of the midrange and treble moved the sound slightly forward when the tuners were readjusted to match the bass. During all tuner tests, every attempt is made to match tuners through the midrange first, to observe differences compared with our benchmark tuner. Not many have matched the L-02T in bass extension, but a few surprises are just around the corner... stay tuned! I enjoyed the solo listening sessions with the L-1000T. All in all, a very good-sounding tuner but after all is said, reviewed and done, the winner is the L-02T. search eBay for L-1000T

[stevoz]

7 hours ago, MusicOne said:

 

I have not seen this site before, but their opinion doesn't change my view one little bit. Who are they?....just a group of enthusiasts, like us. Their opinion is no better or worthwhile than any of ours.

In the end, all of us have our opinions and it's simply not possible for any one individual to have heard all FM tuners on offer, so we all speak only from our own experience.

It is my guess that a reviewer with access to many products will have heard far more examples than you or I will ever hear.....therefore have a wider 'experience' to base their 'opinions' on. Whether a person takes reviews seriously seems largely dependent on one's opinion of their own knowledge/experience. IME, if that opinion is inflated they will happily ignore them.......often at their own peril.

[acg]

27 minutes ago, Pops110 said:

Best tuner I have owned. Very nice.

 

 

 

 

 

Shootout #58 (posted 11/09/03): Kenwood L-02T vs. Kenwood L-1000T
Winner: L-02T

Ha! Accuse me of favoritism, will you? Another Kenwood has clawed its way close to the top. The sound was quite nice but I wasn't crazy about the controls being on a remote. It did have lots of gadgets, though, some of which were wide/normal/narrow bandwidths, high/low sensitivity, and two antenna inputs. The face is clean with a muted amber (yellow) display. The remote volume came in handy to level match the two tuners. As many know, I use an alps pot to level-match tuners and it involves lots of adjusting back and forth from couch to controls, so the remote made the process somewhat simpler for this review. One interesting feature was that the tuner automatically chooses wide, normal or narrow mode when changing stations or when using the rotor to pull in a station. You can manually override this, but I'm not sure I like this "I know what's best" mentality. Some people must have their gadgets.

On 88.7, the L-1000T automatically switched to narrow mode. When placed in wide mode, neither tuner could capture the signal. A lot of this has to do with atmospheric conditions and possibly, the station, as I've been able to receive a fair signal from the L-02T in wide on other occasions, in other reviews. In narrow mode, the L-1000T was the noisier of the two. I was a little surprised that it was able to control 88.5 interference better than most tuners have in the past. At 88.1, both tuners played fine and I stopped awhile to enjoy the jazz. At 88.9, the L-02T usually goes into mono in auto mode but will play stereo when manually switched. While both tuners held stereo signals, the L-1000T was slightly quieter and cleaner-sounding. Neither one was a clear winner in controlling 107.5's problematic background birdies and grunge.

The L-1000T's sound? Very nice indeed. The bass goes deep, and there were hints of our L-02T's extra fullness. At times, the L-1000T even gave a few hints of its own - like a sense of slightly more dynamic punch in the midrange. A quick guess is this may be the result of better decoupling around the op-amps or the different op-amps used. The treble was more extended, but remained pleasant-sounding. The character of the midrange and treble moved the sound slightly forward when the tuners were readjusted to match the bass. During all tuner tests, every attempt is made to match tuners through the midrange first, to observe differences compared with our benchmark tuner. Not many have matched the L-02T in bass extension, but a few surprises are just around the corner... stay tuned! I enjoyed the solo listening sessions with the L-1000T. All in all, a very good-sounding tuner but after all is said, reviewed and done, the winner is the L-02T. search eBay for L-1000T

 

Nice one Pops.

 

I have a thing about digital bits on analogue instruments.  One thing that the 70's and 80's Tuner have is lots of dials and gauges.  Even though she is not in the rack at the moment, I just took a photo of my TU-X1 lit up in the dark...so pretty...

 

 

...and she in the light...still so pretty...

 

 

...and bigger than 99% of power amplifiers out there haha!

 

[Pops110]

Very pretty. For such a beast.

[Pops110]

 

@MusicOne

[charlie_bird]

On 30/04/2018 at 8:43 AM, Zaphod Beeblebrox said:

You want a really nice tuner at a bargain basement price?

 

Find a Denon TU1500AE. They're plentiful and cheap. Easily better than $1,000.00+ tuners from the 1970s. 

 

I use one. And, FWIW, I also have a Yamaha T2 and T7. The Denon is clearly better sounding.

 

Based on this post I bought one on a whim yesterday. It should match my Denon CD player nicely. Probably paid a $100 more than I should have, but know good advice when i hear it

[Guest Eggcup The Daft]

3 hours ago, stevoz said:

It is my guess that a reviewer with access to many products will have heard far more examples than you or I will ever hear.....therefore have a wider 'experience' to base their 'opinions' on. Whether a person takes reviews seriously seems largely dependent on one's opinion of their own knowledge/experience. IME, if that opinion is inflated they will happily ignore them.......often at their own peril.

You're assuming that the review won't be influenced by the reviewer's own biases, ability to adapt to different levels and types of distortion, that they are not swayed by their relationships (personal, professional, financial) with particular brands, etc. Since we're talking tuners, where they live, the quality of aerial used and the preamp in use will also sway the result of a review markedly.

 

Where they live? Yes. A reviewer in an apartment in one of a group of high rise towers, especially if there are also a lot of stations in their area, will give a different review to a reviewer in a house in a small town or outer suburb with fewer stations. This is guaranteed, because the urban reviewer will need selectivity and good rejection of multipath distortion, while our small town reviewer will require higher sensitivity. A lot of Japanese tuners made for the US market will suit the urban reviewer, while the Quad FM3 would probably struggle in a situation with multipath issues (signals bouncing off buildings and so on) - I've heard this problem. Dependent on the situation, both sides of the argument are right about which type is better!

 

And the aerial, and its relationship to the transmitter, is more important than the tuner. Back in the UK I got better sound from a late 1970s cheap JVC receiver than I've heard from many more expensive tuners - simply because I had a straight line to a not-too-close transmitter and a good aerial pointed at it on the right orientation. I'll never have that much luck again with FM - thank goodness for decent resolution BBC streams and VPN!

[audiofeline]

16 hours ago, MusicOne said:

I have not seen this site before, but their opinion [of the Quad FM3] doesn't change my view one little bit. Who are they?....just a group of enthusiasts, like us. Their opinion is no better or worthwhile than any of ours...

The review said that the Quad FM3 works well with widely-spaced stations; if that's the case where you are located it could serve you well.  In another location, it may not be so good. 

 

I haven't heard it, so I can't comment on the sound quality.  But I can say with certainty that the Quad gear has such distinctive styling that if I had a Quad 33 preamp and matching power amp, I would definitely want the FM3 tuner to complete the set. 

 

Edit: Just noticed a Quad 33 and FM3 in the classifieds, looks like a good price too:

 

 

Edited May 1, 2018 by audiofeline

[doogie44]

For several decades I have listened, as my main source, to FM via my Naim NAT-01 tuner (high-end British series) with dedicated rooftop FM antenna, and proper cabling to the tuner itself. So much wonderful music, especially jazz on 2-MBS FM (now Fine Music Radio 102.5). Before that it was the DYNA FM-3, an all-valve beauty. Only in the last 18 months have I been attracted to streaming and digital radio, NOT DAB...and streaming has a way to go before it beats FM for sound quality. Unfortunately many FM stations now wreck the purity of their signal with techno-tricks, but not ABC-FM or Fine Music Radio. Streaming seems to be beating FM in the minds of mobile youth but they of the cheap earbuds and MP3 know not what they are missing...

 

A decent Japanese or British tuner will surprise you, and a very good tuner with dedicated antenna will gratify you immensely. Rock your musical world. You do get what you pay for, tuners are not all the same. Even the tuner in the Tivoli Audio clock/desktop radio series is excellent. The best ones are atmospheric and musical beyond what you could imagine, very like the illusion of real music! The best compliment I can pay good FM is that you can quickly lose yourself in the music.

 

The Sansui & Yamaha models mentioned already are great. If I were a fanatic I would get a McIntosh MR- all valve tuner (say the MR-67) and have done with it. Cheap and nasty tuners don't cut it and never will.

 

Just my 2c worth

[stevoz]

22 minutes ago, Eggcup The Daft said:

You're assuming that the review won't be influenced by the reviewer's own biases, ability to adapt to different levels and types of distortion, that they are not swayed by their relationships (personal, professional, financial) with particular brands, etc. Since we're talking tuners, where they live, the quality of aerial used and the preamp in use will also sway the result of a review markedly.

 

Where they live? Yes. A reviewer in an apartment in one of a group of high rise towers, especially if there are also a lot of stations in their area, will give a different review to a reviewer in a house in a small town or outer suburb with fewer stations. This is guaranteed, because the urban reviewer will need selectivity and good rejection of multipath distortion, while our small town reviewer will require higher sensitivity. A lot of Japanese tuners made for the US market will suit the urban reviewer, while the Quad FM3 would probably struggle in a situation with multipath issues (signals bouncing off buildings and so on) - I've heard this problem. Dependent on the situation, both sides of the argument are right about which type is better!

 

And the aerial, and its relationship to the transmitter, is more important than the tuner. Back in the UK I got better sound from a late 1970s cheap JVC receiver than I've heard from many more expensive tuners - simply because I had a straight line to a not-too-close transmitter and a good aerial pointed at it on the right orientation. I'll never have that much luck again with FM - thank goodness for decent resolution BBC streams and VPN!

You make very valid points re: tuner reviews.....my comment was more towards audio reviews in general, so I got a bit off track from the specifics.

[Guest Eggcup The Daft]

10 minutes ago, doogie44 said:

For several decades I have listened, as my main source, to FM via my Naim NAT-01 tuner (high-end British series) with dedicated rooftop FM antenna, and proper cabling to the tuner itself. So much wonderful music, especially jazz on 2-MBS FM (now Fine Music Radio 102.5). Before that it was the DYNA FM-3, an all-valve beauty. Only in the last 18 months have I been attracted to streaming and digital radio, NOT DAB...and streaming has a way to go before it beats FM for sound quality. Unfortunately many FM stations now wreck the purity of their signal with techno-tricks, but not ABC-FM or Fine Music Radio. Streaming seems to be beating FM in the minds of mobile youth but they of the cheap earbuds and MP3 know not what they are missing...

 

A decent Japanese or British tuner will surprise you, and a very good tuner with dedicated antenna will gratify you immensely. Rock your musical world. You do get what you pay for, tuners are not all the same. Even the tuner in the Tivoli Audio clock/desktop radio series is excellent. The best ones are atmospheric and musical beyond what you could imagine, very like the illusion of real music! The best compliment I can pay good FM is that you can quickly lose yourself in the music.

 

The Sansui & Yamaha models mentioned already are great. If I were a fanatic I would get a McIntosh MR- all valve tuner (say the MR-67) and have done with it. Cheap and nasty tuners don't cut it and never will.

 

Just my 2c worth

If you have VPN to the UK, find out about the higher bitrate BBC streams. The current settings are, I believe, here:

https://hifiwigwam.com/forum/topic/127134-high-quality-320kbps-streams-for-all-bbc-radio-stations/

I get some buffering issues listening at around this time, unfortunately because the R3 lunchtime concerts would keep me away from guitar practice...

 

You'll find that these are very close in quality to a good tuner (not of course that they sound the same) and far better than FM if you don't have the dedicated aerial and cabling. I'm in a ground floor unit, no chance!

 

Keep that dedicated aerial as long as you possibly can! The Naim is, shall we say, below average without it. WIth it, quality is excellent.

[djb]

Some great tunersin sna hands

 

quad f3 in classifieds today $300

[MusicOne]

9 hours ago, Pops110 said:

 

@MusicOne

 

8 hours ago, audiofeline said:

The review said that the Quad FM3 works well with widely-spaced stations; if that's the case where you are located it could serve you well.  In another location, it may not be so good. 

 

I haven't heard it, so I can't comment on the sound quality.  But I can say with certainty that the Quad gear has such distinctive styling that if I had a Quad 33 preamp and matching power amp, I would definitely want the FM3 tuner to complete the set. 

 

Edit: Just noticed a Quad 33 and FM3 in the classifieds, looks like a good price too:

 

 

 

6 hours ago, djb said:

Some great tunersin sna hands

 

quad f3 in classifieds today $300

 

Guys....way back in 1975, I purchased (new) a complete Quad system.....57 ESLs, 33 pre, FM3 tuner (+ a Fons TT) and 303 power amp, soon to be replaced by a 405 power amp when it became available.

 

I lived with that system for about 25 years and with the 57s until the year 2015.....that's 40 years with the ESLs. I sold the quad 33/405/FM3 in about 2007, as they weren't being used. In retrospect, I should not have parted with the FM3, but the buyer wanted it so badly, he upped the offer and I couldn't refuse....I remember him saying at the time, that he thought the FM3 was one of the best tuners ever made.

[MusicOne]

@Pops110  In the year 1969, I bought the then top Kenwood FM tuner (FM/AM actually), along with a complete Kenwood system. I thought it was very good, until I got the Quad FM3 in 1975 and realised that I was kidding myself....a different level of sophistication, altogether. Mind you, the FM3 does need a good (external....outdoor) antenna to get the best out of it, but I guess that probably applies to all FM tuners.

[audiofeline]

4 hours ago, MusicOne said:

Guys....way back in 1975, I purchased (new) a complete Quad system.....57 ESLs, 33 pre, FM3 tuner (+ a Fons TT) and 303 power amp, soon to be replaced by a 405 power amp when it became available.

 

I lived with that system for about 25 years and with the 57s until the year 2015.....that's 40 years with the ESLs. I sold the quad 33/405/FM3 in about 2007, as they weren't being used. In retrospect, I should not have parted with the FM3, but the buyer wanted it so badly, he upped the offer and I couldn't refuse....I remember him saying at the time, that he thought the FM3 was one of the best tuners ever made.

Sounds like a very nice system to live with!

[Zaphod Beeblebrox]

6 hours ago, MusicOne said:

@Pops110  In the year 1969, I bought the then top Kenwood FM tuner (FM/AM actually), along with a complete Kenwood system. I thought it was very good, until I got the Quad FM3 in 1975 and realised that I was kidding myself....a different level of sophistication, altogether. Mind you, the FM3 does need a good (external....outdoor) antenna to get the best out of it, but I guess that probably applies to all FM tuners.

You bring up an excellent point. Tuners do require a decent antenna to perform well. However, there are some areas (like the lower North Shore of Sydney) where even the best antenna cannot provide really good FM reception. In those cases, I found that Shotz type tuners (Nakamichi, some NAD models, et al) performed much better than even very highly prized models. 

 

The reason is that Shotz type tuners are more resistant to 'multipath' distortion. The Sydney Harbour Bridge is a major problem for FM multipath distortion. 

Edited May 2, 2018 by Zaphod Beeblebrox

[Wimbo]

@Jeddie the Pioneer F90 would have to be up there with the best.

https://www.hifiengine.com/manual_library/pioneer/f-90.shtml

[Tasebass]

On 29/04/2018 at 3:48 PM, Jeddie said:

 

Can changing an FM Tuner improve audio if all else in my system remain the same? If so how?

 

Your thoughts?

Absolutely...same as with other components in a system...

On 30/04/2018 at 7:51 AM, ThirdDrawerDown said:

The OP is wondering what technical advantages or factors create a better listening experience from decent gear such as these.

Absolutely....

Edited May 2, 2018 by Tasebass

[MusicOne]

2 hours ago, audiofeline said:

Sounds like a very nice system to live with!

 

It was a good system, but in 2001 I replaced the Quad amps with Musical Fidelity Nu Vista integrated. Way too much power for the Quad 57s, but that Nu Vista pre was a gem and the added bass control didn't go astray, either.

 

At that time (2001) along with the Nu Vista I bought a MF A3 tuner, which I still use. It has been modded with an after market two stage power supply....this makes the world of difference. I run the A3 tuner through a MF valve buffer and that also adds a lot of sweetness.....just love the FM sound I'm getting at the moment. That is, despite ABC Classic FM in the Illawarra, yet again, having issues with their transmitter. This time....as has happened before.....there's distortion in the right channel. I guess I'll have to contact them again and complain....sometimes it takes months for these issues to be resolved....I complain and draw attention to the problems as they arise, only to be told that they (ABC tech dept) can't act on one report, they need at least 3 complaints before they can fix the problems....bloody Hell!!!....bureaucrats.

[Lloyd Borrett]

If you really want to get into the ins and outs of FM tuners, the web site http://www.fmtunerinfo.com/index.html is worth a visit.

[Ian McP]

21 hours ago, surprisetech said:

Since we're throwing out hats into the ring, here's the cream of my crop.  Marantz ST-17 (2005)  and Pioneer F-91 (1987).  Both sound amazing, have excellent RF performance and a few extra controls.  And both are great examples of the calibre of FM/AM tuners you can pick up 2nd hand for a fraction of their new cost.

 

Also in service are an Onkyo Integra T-4700 and a Yamaha T-80 that both have all the bells and whistles for great fringe area reception.  There's also a Sangean WFT-3D used for DAB+, Internet Radio, Streaming and USB stick playback. It can do FM, but it's in the same system as the T-80, so no point.

 

And in the cupboard there's a gold Marantz ST-64 that was in use in the 2nd system until I got the F-91 and also a Yamaha TX-900.  Both of these have IF bandwidth switching and Fine Tuning and the TX-900 has Hi-Blend as well.

Prices paid for these range from a car trip to St Kilda East through to $325 delivered for the F-91, but the rest were all in the range of $75-200.

 

Marantz ST-17 a/k/a ST-17U (2005, $749/orig 1998, $650) search eBay
Our contributor Ryan posted a surprisingly positive review of the 4-gang ST-17 in our FMtuners group. Ryan tells us that the ST-17 uses bona fide Audiophile capacitors in its audio section ("ridiculously expensive ones, Elna Cerafine") and "sounds good too, after a major realignment, and looks at home with modern audiophile gear." Our panelist Ray is also a fan: "The ST-17 is very solidly constructed and quite large at 18" wide x 3.5" high x 12" deep. Though a digitally tuned unit, it features the vintage Marantz signature horizontal thumb-wheel for station selection, nice touch. After a tour through the schematic [our panelist] Bob reported the following: 'No details on the RF front end in the schematic, but I did notice it has attenuation for strong RF signals, good for people who have local overload problems. The IF path looks good, nothing fancy, with 3 discrete bipolar transistor differential amps and 4 ceramic filters, 2 wide and 2 narrow. The detector is a typical quad type working with the LA1266 FM IF chip, followed by a 4-pole anti-birdie filter, which maybe now we should also call anti-HD interference. Then the LA3410 MPX chip, with switchable de-emphasis implemented via feedback from the chip's output op-amps. These feed the highlight of the tuner, the HDAM output circuit. Each channel of these output amps consists of 8 discrete bipolar transistors with a differential front-end amp and balanced push-pull outputs. The nice thing is that there are no coupling caps involved in implementing the amp circuit, unlike earlier discrete output designs. This stage is followed by muting transistors and the output filter, likely a combination 15 kHz lowpass and 19/38 kHz notch.'

"The four CFs Bob described are premium 220 kHz GDT types in the Wide mode with a 230 kHz and 280 kHz normal type added in Narrow. The front end is a 4-ganger. I measured the de-emphasis response at an exemplary -0.30 dB at 10 Hz, -0.05dB at 20 Hz and then flat to within +/- 0.20 dB all the way up through 15 kHz... as good as I can measure. One of the things I quickly noted upon first listen was an unusually deep and authorative bass, and so it measures. This is as good-sounding a stock tuner as has ever made it to 'Ray's room' - no mod plans brewing here. I find the ST-17 to be a fine tuner with decent sensitivity and selectivity and great sound and it is certainly not 'sparrow feed.'" Our contributor Tim adds, "The ST-17 is the best-sounding, stock, non-aligned tuner I've heard yet in my system." The ST-17 usually sells for $170-310 on eBay. [RFM]

 

 

oh the shame, tuned to Triple M! PBS, RRR or ABC at the very least!

 

[surprisetech]

1 hour ago, Wimbo said:

@Jeddie the Pioneer F90 would have to be up there with the best.

https://www.hifiengine.com/manual_library/pioneer/f-90.shtml

Yes, but the F-91 with similar technology has better WAF!

[surprisetech]

8 minutes ago, Ian McP said:

oh the shame, tuned to Triple M! PBS, RRR or ABC at the very least!

 

I was waiting for that. 

In my defence, the pic was from the seller's listing.  I didn't have a decent pic of my own handy.

My love of FM radio is largely centred on the public stations, mainly PBS, MDR and RRR.

 

MMM is for checking footy scores, but only if no AM, DAB or smartphone is available!

 

A pic of mine is here:

 

[audiofeline]

3 hours ago, MusicOne said:

...That is, despite ABC Classic FM in the Illawarra, yet again, having issues with their transmitter. This time....as has happened before.....there's distortion in the right channel. I guess I'll have to contact them again and complain....sometimes it takes months for these issues to be resolved....I complain and draw attention to the problems as they arise, only to be told that they (ABC tech dept) can't act on one report, they need at least 3 complaints before they can fix the problems....bloody Hell!!!....bureaucrats.

Sounds like you need to get a community support group together so you can coordinate complaints!

[MusicOne]

Just now, audiofeline said:

Sounds like you need to get a community support group together so you can coordinate complaints!

 

Not a bad idea, mate.