Of course it's opinion, how could it be otherwise? AoS is a subjectivist site, so most of what is written here is often a matter of opinion. Whether you agree or disagree with the opinions stated is up to you.
I neither agree nor disagree with the shootout list: I wasn't there, know little of the system used and don't have the reviewer's ears. The operational conditions for FM reception are quite different in the UK than they are in US.
My criticism is that the list is being presented and cited as being in some way definitive. It's not the only one: there are others doing the same for turntables, pickup arms and cartridges.
As I said before, I admire the reviewer's enthusiasm, enterprise and endeavour. It must have taken a long time to listen to and report on the sound qualities of over 100 tuners. I am not "condemning" his effort; if I am guilty of anything it is in dismissing his hard work for the simple reason I don't find it useful, and would not use it as a basis for the purchase of a tuner.
Last edited by Barry; 20-04-2018 at 19:00. Reason: Addition
Barry
You seem to be saying that a tuner that has a good design for sound quality will have good sound quality? Because there's no real correlation between low sensitivity and 'good sounding' tuners. A low sensitivity tuner is a relatively simple one to design and make. If you live near to the transmitter that you always listen to, then that may well suffice, but many radio/tuner enthusiasts are adventurous and like to explore and listen to more distant stations in good quality. In those circumstances, it needs a good RF design to be able to pluck a distant station from between other, more stronger ones and present it with low noise and with good sound quality. Like I say, a tuner with low sensitivity does not mean that it will have a good AF section, on the contrary, a 'good tuner' will generally be good at most things that it is expected to do.
Nope. Not what I was referring to. I can't understand a top tuner like the Naim 01 being designed with low sensitivity (which is a p.i.t.a.) when this has no bearing on s.q. I understood from past reading that there was a trade-off here, but I'm no electronics or design expert, and you seem to be saying that there's no correlation.
The Naim 01 in proper setup adjustment (not all were, especially in the early days), could sound amazing on the very rare live concerts the BBC used to do so well. Adding complexity to make the unit more sensitive and selective would go against Naim's costing-up requirements and an already expensive product would have been totally beyond belief. The thinking was that one needed a decent aerial with high directivity (Ron Smith Galaxie was the choice back then) to feed a decent tuner and if you had a top model for 'DX-ing' then you had a rotator on the aerial too! The (marketing led?) excuse at the time was that making the tuner 'better' in reception quality had a negative effect on sound quality, but it's my view this reasoning was the usual Naim bullshit lapped up by dealers like me at the time (I had prior with top Accuphase, Yamaha and Revox tuners, most Naim dealers in the 80's hadn't an effin' clue I think on what the competition was like).
For me at any rate, the really sad thing about FM broadcasting is that the broadcasters don't seem to care much any more. There is legislation apparently, limiting the mean broadcast volume (or something like that) so you don't get adverts deafening you over the music, or the music cranked up to zero dynamic range and maximum compression. What used to be a reference grade tuner for performance and sound quality (and I remember how good the top Accuphase, Yamaha CT7000 and Revox models were, along with equally good if less cachet-ridden top Pioneer and Sansui models). Today, I fear all these exalted models would do is reproduce the compression better possibly!
I was recently given for peanuts a very lo-end vintage Sony ST2950L, which despite the looks and fine build overall, got a pretty poor 'Choice review in the late 70's. It's not sensitive, the AM side is useless in it's physical location, but the slightly 'sharp' sound quality on FM is better able to deal with the remaining full-on broadcast sound level, which my other two 'workroom' tuners have more difficulty with, clouding over all too easily (Cambridge T55 and a serviced Quad FM3) and noise is very low on the main stations. So many tuners go muffled or distorted at maximum (modulation?) level as back in the 70's, the broadcasts had more dynamic range I feel.
Sorry for the mini-essay above. If you can afford to obtain one of the tuner 'legends' from the mid to late 70's, in the UK I doubt you'd ever hear how bloody good they could be, as the broadcast quality here is so poor, but the best ones are a true joy to own and use in my opinion.. (try streaming BBC stations from your computer to see how bad the FM sound can be in comparison, at least during the day...).
Tear down these walls; Cut the ties that held me
Crying out at the top of my voice; Tell me now if you can hear me
Good to hear from you Dave. Where have you been hiding?
Agree about the decline in broadcast quality - people have been complaining about it since the '90s. Sadly it appears now to be 'optimised' for reception on kitchen portables and car radios.
The BBC do seem to make more of an effort on Radio 3 and during "The Proms", but in general the SQ is not as good as it once was.
Barry
I'm trying to steer clear of audio forums but keep falling off the wagon Nobody likes a school-mastery smart-arse.
My radio listening is usually daytime when working, and the compression seems to vary from morning to afternoon At least Radio One 'DJ's' don't seem to sound as if they shout at each other any more
Tear down these walls; Cut the ties that held me
Crying out at the top of my voice; Tell me now if you can hear me
Agree on all counts Dave. Very good points, some that echo mine as said above.
I have a small collection of vintage analogue tuners and they all do it for me. British Hifi manufacturers in the 70s just seemed to love to perpetuate the myth that Japanese hifi was c**p. When it truth, they (UK) couldn't produce anything of that build quality and looks, with many of them using ugly metal boxes that often didn't matched anything else, including other components from the same company! Performance wise it's my belief that it was a similar thing. In the electronics industry I used to work with guys who would call Japanese hifi 'Jap c**p'. Well I've got lots of such pieces from the 70s and it all works excellently. My stuff from the UK company who was probably considered to be one of the best failed in the 90s due to poor quality components and underrating. I've got 70s Japanese hifi that has had nothing done to it apart from switches and pots cleaned and it still works perfectly well. Sorry if I've shifted the emphasis of the thread to enable me to have my say!