The benefits of a better tuner

[Macca]

Any list of rankings is only ever going to be one person's subjective opinion and so worth about as much as anyone else's subjective opinion. That's aside from the fact that different tuners are going to sound different depending on the partnering equipment and the quality/strength of the signal they receive.

Hi-fi is not a competitive sport, I've always thought that those who think it is have maybe not been around it long enough yet, and have somehow got that impression from '5 star awards' and other similar rank (ho ho) nonsense out of the magazines.

[Boyse6748]

I too have an FT 101, and I agree that it is surprisingly good! It bested every other tuner I’ve tried, which is a short list but it’s good enough I’ve stopped looking.

Russell

Hear / Hear.... some sense for someone who knows!!! Well done you!



Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[vintagesteve]

As a vintage wireless enthusiast of some 40 odd years, I have been into large vintage hifi receivers for a number of years now, but just recently I got into vintage tuners and have bought a few different ones. I have to agree with many of the posters on here regarding reviews that accent on sound quality rather than RF performance! It's a tuner for gawd's sake! I mean, yes, it has to have good, even excellent AF quality, but the way in which some reviewers go on about soundstages, bass quality etc etc as if they make so much difference is verging on the ridiculous. Look, I realise that we all think that we have good ears, and I'm no different in that respect, but I also have lots of experience in a wide variety of audio design, testing, musicianship, recording etc etc. - just so that you have an idea where I'm coming from, that's all. Now, I have hooked up a variety of different tuners in a manner where I can A/B test them, and making sure that their volumes are matched to the micro decibel (very important!), the difference between them on strong stations was the square root of sod all. Now, talk about their ability to pick up a distant station, and that's different. There's sensitivity, selectivity, multipath rejection, noise levels, etc etc. In that respect I could relatively easily separate tuners. I agree with the OP, there are definitely 'better' tuners, but - for me - that 'betterness' is a result of a tuner's RF performance and to some extent, its versatility. And personally I like a good AM section too.

[Boyse6748]

As a vintage wireless enthusiast of some 40 odd years, I have been into large vintage hifi receivers for a number of years now, but just recently I got into vintage tuners and have bought a few different ones. I have to agree with many of the posters on here regarding reviews that accent on sound quality rather than RF performance! It's a tuner for gawd's sake! I mean, yes, it has to have good, even excellent AF quality, but the way in which some reviewers go on about soundstages, bass quality etc etc as if they make so much difference is verging on the ridiculous. Look, I realise that we all think that we have good ears, and I'm no different in that respect, but I also have lots of experience in a wide variety of audio design, testing, musicianship, recording etc etc. - just so that you have an idea where I'm coming from, that's all. Now, I have hooked up a variety of different tuners in a manner where I can A/B test them, and making sure that their volumes are matched to the micro decibel (very important!), the difference between them on strong stations was the square root of sod all. Now, talk about their ability to pick up a distant station, and that's different. There's sensitivity, selectivity, multipath rejection, noise levels, etc etc. In that respect I could relatively easily separate tuners. I agree with the OP, there are definitely 'better' tuners, but - for me - that 'betterness' is a result of a tuner's RF performance and to some extent, its versatility. And personally I like a good AM section too.

Yes indeed, totally agree... the Dynalab Etude, together with the Dynalab system Sleuth... does that very concept. (Extra Gain or Attenuation) got both. Multipath / Wide / Narrow. Perhaps a listening con to suit the moment..... but it does sound good on all occasions, without too much effort.

I agree... it just a tuner!!! But a very good one!



Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[mikmas]

Not surprisingly the list is incomplete, as well as being of limited use - hardly the best way of choosing which tuner to buy.

The list on it's own is indeed limited but I find the comments a tad unfair given the fairly exhaustive information available on the parent website Neil linked to. I have yet to find any source on the web that can compare with The Tuner Information website in terms of the huge range of tuners covered and the extensive commentary provided.

[Mike Reed]

As a vintage wireless enthusiast of some 40 odd years, I have been into large vintage hifi receivers for a number of years now, but just recently I got into vintage tuners and have bought a few different ones. I have to agree with many of the posters on here regarding reviews that accent on sound quality rather than RF performance! It's a tuner for gawd's sake! I mean, yes, it has to have good, even excellent AF quality, but the way in which some reviewers go on about soundstages, bass quality etc etc as if they make so much difference is verging on the ridiculous. Look, I realise that we all think that we have good ears, and I'm no different in that respect, but I also have lots of experience in a wide variety of audio design, testing, musicianship, recording etc etc. - just so that you have an idea where I'm coming from, that's all. Now, I have hooked up a variety of different tuners in a manner where I can A/B test them, and making sure that their volumes are matched to the micro decibel (very important!), the difference between them on strong stations was the square root of sod all. Now, talk about their ability to pick up a distant station, and that's different. There's sensitivity, selectivity, multipath rejection, noise levels, etc etc. In that respect I could relatively easily separate tuners. I agree with the OP, there are definitely 'better' tuners, but - for me - that 'betterness' is a result of a tuner's RF performance and to some extent, its versatility. And personally I like a good AM section too.

Fair comment, but a tuner, for example, which has low sensitivity in its design brief is likely to improve on the s.q. front (assuming a good design, of course). For example, the Naim 01 needs a multi-array outside antenna to function properly, whereas some tuners I've had can make a good fist from a piece of string.

[Minstrel SE]

Yes I read the tuner information centre in the vain hope that they will rate my budget tuners like the Creek and Arcam Alpha. At least they could call me clever on a budget.

But of course its all Kenwood LO2 and multi gang monsters.

I dont see the Denon TU 260L on that list...... coming in at number ...not alf pop pickers

I love FM and feel like treating myself to a top tuner

[Barry]

The list on it's own is indeed limited but I find the comments a tad unfair given the fairly exhaustive information available on the parent website Neil linked to. I have yet to find any source on the web that can compare with The Tuner Information website in terms of the huge range of tuners covered and the extensive commentary provided.

See post #21 supra.

[mikmas]

See post #21 supra.

Why?

As far as I can see, Martin is merely stating the obvious ....

[Barry]

Precisely, and that is why the site, despite its comprehensive coverage of so many tuners, is of limited use in my opinion.

I admire the reviews' enthusiasm and endeavour, but the conclusions he makes and hence the ranking order are his opinion only. I find it odd that only the first three tuners have equal ranking - why not others lower down the pecking order?