The benefits of a better tuner

[dwhistance]

Hi, I suspect like many of you I have more items of hi-fi "in store" in my loft than is sensible. Trying to have a bit of a clear out today I came across a Magnum Dynalab "Etude" FT 101A tuner brand new in a box. I can remember buying it just before we moved from London to the Isle of Wight but it must have got lost in the move and has been among the boxes in the loft ever since.

Whilst I think these tuners are still reasonably sought after I thought it would be a shame to move it on without trying it so I put it in the system instead of the Quad FM4 we have been using. I must say I am stunned by the difference. The Quad is a good tuner, however this is amazing - huge soundstage, stunning bass, lovely full sound. Even Classic FM sounds good whilst Radio 3 and Radio 4 are excellent, so much so that I'm really looking forward to Soul Music tomorrow morning.

Sadly my bank account won't be benefitting from this find but my ears will be. The Quad will now be doing duty in my workshop - just need to run an ariel cable in and connect it to the 34 and 405 already there.

David Whistance

[Boyse6748]

Hi, I suspect like many of you I have more items of hi-fi "in store" in my loft than is sensible. Trying to have a bit of a clear out today I came across a Magnum Dynalab "Etude" FT 101A tuner brand new in a box. I can remember buying it just before we moved from London to the Isle of Wight but it must have got lost in the move and has been among the boxes in the loft ever since.

Whilst I think these tuners are still reasonably sought after I thought it would be a shame to move it on without trying it so I put it in the system instead of the Quad FM4 we have been using. I must say I am stunned by the difference. The Quad is a good tuner, however this is amazing - huge soundstage, stunning bass, lovely full sound. Even Classic FM sounds good whilst Radio 3 and Radio 4 are excellent, so much so that I'm really looking forward to Soul Music tomorrow morning.

Sadly my bank account won't be benefitting from this find but my ears will be. The Quad will now be doing duty in my workshop - just need to run an ariel cable in and connect it to the 34 and 405 already there.

David Whistance

I have that very tuner..... just staggeringly good. By far the best tuner I’ve ever heard.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[Mike Reed]

Amazed that a tuner of that calibre can have lain forlorn and forgotten about; As it's new, I imagine things might improve as it settles down. I've often wondered about Magnums in comparison with my 01 as they're both in that select band (!) at the top. think you've got a pretty strong signal there, but being so hilly this may not help. I'd guess you have a good outside 6 element plus aerial, however.

[Spectral Morn]

Compare this to a silver period Pioneer, Kenwood, Sony, Revox or an Audiolab

Here is the Tuner Information Centre guide, fairly accurate I think.

Link to listing http://www.fmtunerinfo.com/shootouts.html#FT-101

'1 PLUS: -C- Accuphase T-109V - Very natural sound, good bass. Pinpoint imaging. Lifelike, three-dimensional sound, smooth extended highs.
1 (TIE): -C- Kenwood L-02T - Most natural sound, good bass. Pinpoint imaging. Lifelike, three-dimensional sound.
1 (TIE): -C- Burmester 978 - Natural, open and airy sound, good bass. Pinpoint imaging. Lifelike, three-dimensional sound with nice extended highs.
4: -C- Sansui TU-919 - The prince who could be king.
5: -C- Sansui TU-X1 - Very good sound top to bottom. Big soundstage, three-dimensional. Very slight diffuse sound.
6: -C- Audiolab 8000T - Good bass, natural but diffuse sound, sweet extended highs.
7: -C- Philips AH6731 - A very natural, neutral sound. Stereo separation best with a good signal.
8: -C- Revox B760 - Great bass, lifelike midrange and extended highs.

9: -M- Mitsubishi DA-F20 - Quick, punchy bass, open, lively midrange and extended highs.
10: -M- Kenwood KT-5020 - Great bass and midrange and extended, sweet treble. Again, why pay more?
11: -M- Kenwood KT-990D - Smooth, clean sound that always pleased. Why pay more?
12: -M- Meridian Model 104 - Excellent, natural sound, good bass, no to DX games.
13: -M- Meridian Model 504 - Good bass, excellent midrange with smooth, just-right highs.
14: -M- Kenwood L-1000T - Good bass, punchy midrange, sweet extended highs.
15: -M- Sansui TU-X701 - Great-sounding midrange, bass OK, softer highs next to the L-02T.
16: -M- Luxman T-117 - Very good-sounding tuner. No real faults, top to bottom. Not as three-dimensional as the L-02T and gives up some bass richness.
17: -M- Sansui TU-717 - Good bass and midrange with nice "depth" to the soundstage. More forward than the L-02T.
18: -M- B&K TS-108 - Very nice midrange, good bass and nice, extended highs.
19: -M- Technics ST-9038 - Very good bass, nice midrange, smooth treble.
20: -M- Magnum Dynalab MD-108 - Bass OK, very good imaging and realistic midrange, extended but forward highs.
21: -M- Kenwood KT-917 - Good bass, midrange and treble. A very pleasant sound but more one-dimensional when placed next to the L-02T.
22: -M- Sansui TU-S9 - Smooth, natural sound. A budget bargain.
23: -M- Kenwood KT-1100 - Quite tuneful, but flatter soundstage than the L-02T.
24: -M- McIntosh MR 80 - Good bass, lively midrange and pleasant highs. More one-dimensional than the L-02T.
25: -M- Sanyo Plus T35 - Good bass, laidback midrange and extended, pleasant highs.
26: -M- Technics ST-G7 - Very nice bass, articulate midrange, forward but nice upper range.
27: -M- Pioneer F-99X - Follows behind the big bass dogs but the midrange and treble are where it's at. Sweet, clean, quiet and to be copied.
28: -M- Kenwood KT-3300D - Very good bass, slightly diffuse light mids and pleasant extended highs. A laidback, nice listen.
29: -M- Pioneer F-90 - Great sonics with a slightly lighter sonic presentation than the top dogs. Upper midrange and treble are top-notch.
30: -M- Sansui TU-D99X - Good bass. Bass, midrange and treble work well together for a balanced sound.
31: -M- Hitachi FT-007 - Clean, balanced sound, but less dynamic than the L-02T.
32: -M- Sony ST-J88B - Good bass, pleasing midrange, slightly forward and sweet treble.
33: -M- Linn Kremlin - OK bass; articulate, precise sound; good high frequency. Midrange, bass loses some natural warmth.
34: -M- Restek Metric - Excellent imaging, bass and highs. Midrange gave up some to other tuners.
35: -M- Onix TU39 - Dynamic, smooth, the midrange give up some "life" to others. Some added sparkle in the highs.
36: -M- Perreaux TU-3 - Nice balanced sound. Gives up some richness and dynamics to the L-02T.
37: -M- Magnum Dynalab FT-101 - Good all-around sound, treble very slightly forward.
38: -M- Kenwood L-07TII - Good all-around sound but loses some inner detail.
39: -M- Accuphase T-109 - Great bass, dry midrange, pleasant but slightly forward treble.
40: -M- Magnum Dynalab FT-101A Etude - A good, balanced sound, but slightly dry.
41: -M- Technics ST-8077 - Good bass, midrange OK. Nice treble presentation.
42: -M- Technics ST-8080 - Good bass, good midrange, forward highs but not unpleasant.
43: -M- Nikko Gamma V - Very good bass, good imaging, treble forward but not unpleasant.
44: -M- Kenwood KT-8300 - Good bass and dynamics, with a slightly forward upper midrange and treble.
45: -M- Onkyo T-4500 - Slightly lighter but a pleasing sound. Neutral, top to bottom, with nice highs.
46: -M- Onkyo T-9090II - Pleasant sound, good bass, but not as dynamic as some tuners. Great DX machine.
47: -M- NAD 4155 - Good, punchy bass. Light, articulate mids with well-mated highs.
48: -M- Pioneer F-91 - Very good bass punch and control, articulate midrange with forward highs. May be a good tuner for a large room.
49: -M- Pioneer TX-9800 - Rich bass presentation. Good midrange with a treble slightly forward that took away from the total picture.
50: -M- Tandberg 3011A - Good bass, midrange a little light, sweet treble. Very good imaging.
51: -M- Sansui TU-417 - A most pleasant sound, bottom to top. Needs good signals.
52: -M- Carver TX-11b - Punchy bass, clean highs and treble.
53: -M- Sumo Charlie - Punchy bass, good midrange, slightly rolled-off treble.
54: -M- Revox B260 - Rich bass and lower midrange. Good imaging. Three-dimensional. The highs are a little too much for my personal taste. The high rating reflects its other positive sound qualities.
55: -M- Yamaha CT-7000 - Warm-sounding bass, pleasant midrange and highs. Highs a little rolled-off.
56: -M- Sequerra Model 1 - Harmonically rich bass and lower midrange. Very seductive, but if you want accuracy, shop elsewhere.
57: -M- Magnum Dynalab FT-11 "NEW" - Good sound, natural midrange, treble nice, loose bass.
58: -M- Kenwood KT-7300 - Punchy bass, pleasant mids and highs. Slight loss of ambience.
59: -M- Onkyo T-4310R - Pleasant, inoffensive sound, good imaging. Good digital DXing tuner.
60: -M- Magnum Dynalab FT-101A - Pleasant light, airy sound. Lacks bass dynamics.
61: -M- Realistic TM-1001 - Sweet treble, pleasant mids, but the bass is not as full and dynamic as the big dogs.
62: -M- Yamaha T-2 - Very pleasant and listenable. This may be the cutoff tuner between the keepers and the also-rans.

63: Revox B261 - Punchy bass, pleasant enough but slightly forward mids and highs.
64: Pioneer TX-9500II - Clean, articulate sound. Lighter sonic presentation against the L-02T.
65: SAE Mark VI - Inoffensive sound, good background music. A mini-Sequerra.
66: Denon TU-850 - Good sound, midrange just right, treble sweet, slightly bass-shy.
67: Sansui TU-217 - Good sound when reception is strong.
68: Kenwood L-01T - Good sound, midrange slightly forward, good bass.
69: Phase Linear Model 5000 Series Two - Bass-shy, pleasant midrange and treble.
70: Magnum Dynalab FT-11 "OLD" - Good bass, dry midrange, treble OK.
71: Quad FM4 - Very nice midrange, good resolution, extended treble, rolled off bass.
72: Technics ST-9030 - Inoffensive but bland.
73: Naim NAT 01 - Bass OK, midrange OK, treble sweet.
74: Luxman T-115 - Good bass, midrange OK, treble slightly forward.
75: Nakamichi ST-7 - Muffled bass, forward midrange, highs soft and inoffensive.
76: Marantz 2130 - OK bass, midrange and treble forward and "light" sounding.
77: McIntosh MR 78 - Good bass, slightly electronic sound.
78: Fanfare FT-1A - Best through the low-output jacks, clean but bright midrange, lacks bass power.
79: Kenwood KT-7500 - Flat soundstage, better sound can be found. One-note bass. More boring than unpleasant in a long listening session.
80: Cambridge Audio T500 - Bass light, midrange forward and lacks focus, highs OK.
81: Kyocera T-910 - Pleasant sound, but what's that ringing in my ears?
82: SAE 8000 - Not irritating but not involving, either. Too much background noise.
83: Kenwood KT-815 - Bass thin, treble forward. It cries out for a new audio stage.
84: Denon TU-600 - Good sound, but not recommended because of reception problems.'

[Mike Reed]

All quite interesting, but only indicative of what was heard (and presumably over a fair old period) within the context of that valved based system. Couldn't see a mention of the other bits ! Each of those tuners would differ (slightly) in their output. E.g. My 01 has a low output because it hardly moves the needles in my pre. I'd no idea of this with the Naim pre. It did say that there was no guarantee of top working condition, though.

Over the decades, received wisdom and general opinion have allocated certain kudos to a smallish coterie of tuners. I remember that a Marantz 5B ????) valved jobby was raved about. I've had 2 x Leak, Revox, Pioneer, 2 x Naim, Technics, Quad and a few other tuners over the ages, and they've all been very good indeed. However, a few have that ability, fed with a good signal and channel, to offer an experience over and above 'very good'. I'd say that 'experience' is more apposite than adjectives.

Thank heavens for the recent reprieve of FM. It always has, and always will, provide me with part of my music fix.

[Barry]

I agree, the description of sound quality is far too general and vague. No mention of selectivity and sensitivity, nor of the ability of the tuner not to drift off-tune with time. For example the legendary Marantz 10B was famed not only for SQ but was notorious in its inability to remain on-tune, requiring regular and expensive realignment.

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

When at home I listen to either Radio 3 or 4 for at least three hours a day, and have done so for the last forty years using several tuners: Quad FM2; Quad FM3; Leak 'Troughline'; Cambridge T55, and B&O 1700. But for the last five years I have been more than happy listening with a tuner ranked at 71 (;))

[twotone]

There's one for sale @ £100 over on PFM, the reviews aren't great otherwise I would have bought it plus it's only FM no AM.

7: -M- Magnum Dynalab FT-101 - Good all-around sound, treble very slightly forward.

[spendorman]

Quad FM4, I remember reading that it needs to be fed in to a high impedance input otherwise bass will be curtailed. Of course Quad pe-amps are suitable.

[Ian7633]

I can highly recommend the Acoustic Solutions SP111 DAB/FM tuner. The sound is very good, detailed with good bass and a nice wide soundstage. It is very basic though with only 4 pre-sets and a fairly cheap display. It comes with a remote when new but it's extremely fragile so most are a distant memory. Considering you can pick these tuners up for the price of a couple of CDs it's a bit of a bargain.

[Boyse6748]

God bless,

That’s a list!! Where on earth did that come from and by whom??

Not my choice of great tuners that’s for sure!

How bizarre!


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[Barry]

Quad FM4, I remember reading that it needs to be fed in to a high impedance input otherwise bass will be curtailed. Of course Quad pe-amps are suitable.

Agreed - a simple 'upgrade' to the Quad FM4 is to increase the value of the series output capacitor for each channel.

[twotone]

God bless,

That’s a list!! Where on earth did that come from and by whom??

Not my choice of great tuners that’s for sure!

How bizarre!


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Pretty famous that list Peter, the sort of bible of FM tuners. The website is fantastic just google it.

[Boyse6748]

Pretty famous that list Peter, the sort of bible of FM tuners. The website is fantastic just google it.

Already have, it's the biggest load of tosh I've ever have the pleasure to view.

Did the reviewers have a hearing problem? Are you telling me that after 50 + years of listening to FM this list is correct!

It's a very sad list indeed.... But hay, we all have our own views. I would take it all with a pinch of salt.

I would suggest you get yourself a Dynalab Etude and judge for yourself. Plus there are many other fabulous Tuners not even mentioned.

Still, it's bedtime for me.... So I will say no more.

The FM Bible.... I heard it all now.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[moodybuilder]

Got a Onix BWD and soap not using might get it out.

[vinylspinner]

Must agree with Peter on this one. I have owned and listened to a good number of tuners over the years.
The rankings on that list are not what I have heard tbh, not even a mention of the B&O Beomaster 5000 from circa 1967/68, probably one of the best ever FM only tuners made, but that is my opinion.

Agree about the Quad FM4, change the caps and you have a very good tuner, just keep a eye on the memory battery inside, there is an upgrade available to sort that issue though.

I own a Yamaha CT7000 and can testify that the Magnum Dynalab beats it easily, as does the Beomaster, my favourite 3 that I own and use are the Beomaster, the Magnum and the Quad FM4.

Other people will probably disagree.

Nigel

[dwhistance]

I'm sorry to have stirred things up so much, I can't really comment on tuner hierarchy having only owned a few of those on that list and then in several systems over a period of over 30 years. I clearly I need to look at the caps in my Quad, can you tell me where I can get this done please? If with new caps it can compete with the Etude my wife will be very pleased as she prefers the buttons for changing channels. I think I will still prefer the Etude though.

David Whistance

[Mike Reed]

... a mention of the B&O Beomaster 5000 from circa 1967/68, probably one of the best .....

Nigel

Ah, takes me back to '69 to '71, when a few B &O pieces came my way. I vaguely remember this tuner, but could be getting confused with the Beolab 3000, which incorporated the FM only tuner. I thought these were the dog's b's at the time.

[Barry]

I'm sorry to have stirred things up so much, I can't really comment on tuner hierarchy having only owned a few of those on that list and then in several systems over a period of over 30 years. I clearly I need to look at the caps in my Quad, can you tell me where I can get this done please? If with new caps it can compete with the Etude my wife will be very pleased as she prefers the buttons for changing channels. I think I will still prefer the Etude though.

David Whistance

dadaelectronics.eu

[vinylspinner]

https://beocentral.com/beomaster5000-1960s

This one






Ah, takes me back to '69 to '71, when a few B &O pieces came my way. I vaguely remember this tuner, but could be getting confused with the Beolab 3000, which incorporated the FM only tuner. I thought these were the dog's b's at the time.

[alphaGT]

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

[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?

[mikmas]

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?

Bizarre - judging a vaste resource stuffed with information on the basis of one shootout list you don't agree with ... and that on the basis of an implicit 'subjectivity' which is glaringly obvious to any reader.
A bit like condemning AoS as 'just a load of opinion' :lol:

[Macca]

I agree entirely, but you'd think that's exactly what it was when you read comments on forums along the lines of "we had a phonostage shootout last night and Brand X completely destroyed Brand Y".
Have they watching too much Robot Wars? :lol:

I know. I read those things and just think 'Really?' I guess am a jaded old cynic rolling my eyes at those who are still bright-eyed and over-enthusiastic.

[Barry]

Bizarre - judging a vaste resource stuffed with information on the basis of one shootout list you don't agree with ... and that on the basis of an implicit 'subjectivity' which is glaringly obvious to any reader.
A bit like condemning AoS as 'just a load of opinion' :lol:

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.

[Macca]

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.

.

Even when it is fact not opinion people still disagree!

How more subjectivist than that can you get? The answer is none. None more subjectivist.

[vintagesteve]

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.

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.

[Mike Reed]

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.

[DSJR]

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...).

[Barry]

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.

[DSJR]

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 ;)

[vintagesteve]

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...).

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!

[DSJR]

One thing Japanese based audio gear was blessed with in the 70's was superior longer lasting electrolytic capacitors! I don't think Quad skimped on lower quality components but the 33/303, 405 and 34's at least suffered from leaky supply caps after ten years or so of average use. My then eleven year old Radford SC22/STA25 in 1977 had mounds of leaked electrolyte on it's supply caps and nobody at the time wanted to fix it (no internet then for service specialists further afield).

One thing about many far eastern integrated amps. Behind the lavishly finished front panels often lurked a circuit deliberately hobbled to get THD down with gob-loads of global feedback (I believe it was), plus crossover distortion on what was left and construction laden with criss-cross wires... How you heard the effects was in a flattening and blanding-out of the sound-field and increasing harshness at higher powers. The trouble for me was trying to find the gems in a sea of good looking sonic rubbish. Oh, but when they got it right..... (the Sony V-FETs come immediately to mind but of course there were others at various prices).

[Mike Reed]

It was all a long time ago, but John Peel's late night shows on R2 were selectively put onto Revox R2R. Of the Leak Stereofetic, Revox (not the B one) and Pioneer 8 something I had during this period, it was the Leak which I have fond memories of AND which didn't exhibit birdies, despite a nine element aerial high up on the roof of a 5 storey house in Canterbury.

As I said, it was early seventies in two different top floor rooms. The Revox was bought to match the amp. and R2R (well, it mattered in those days !) and the Pioneer had its matching amp. later. I then left college, started work and couldn't afford to fanny about with changes in hifi until quadraphonics came in; that buggered everything !

[Spectral Morn]

I agree, the description of sound quality is far too general and vague. No mention of selectivity and sensitivity, nor of the ability of the tuner not to drift off-tune with time. For example the legendary Marantz 10B was famed not only for SQ but was notorious in its inability to remain on-tune, requiring regular and expensive realignment.

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

When at home I listen to either Radio 3 or 4 for at least three hours a day, and have done so for the last forty years using several tuners: Quad FM2; Quad FM3; Leak 'Troughline'; Cambridge T55, and B&O 1700. But for the last five years I have been more than happy listening with a tuner ranked at 71 (;))

One of the reason I didn't push forward with my tuner comparisons was my realizing that the Tuner Info guide was pretty much spot on, so I will disagree very strongly re it not being useful.

[hifinutt]

i used that long list in past for choosing fm tuners but over recent years i enjoy the bel canto fm 1 which can be used with a battery supply [vbs1 ] or a little supplied psu . extremely transparent sound and no drift ever . really enjoy it a lot

[Barry]

One of the reason I didn't push forward with my tuner comparisons was my realizing that the Tuner Info guide was pretty much spot on, so I will disagree very strongly re it not being useful.

Did you listen to your tuners before agreeing with the Tuner Information site, or abandon your listening tests as you thought it would only duplicate the results?

[Spectral Morn]

Did you listen to your tuners before agreeing with the Tuner Information site, or abandon your listening tests as you thought it would only duplicate the results?

I did the listening Barry and I agreed with what they stated,why repeat the same thing ? So I didn't bother writing it up.

[Barry]

I did the listening Barry and I agreed with what they stated,why repeat the same thing ? So I didn't bother writing it up.

Fair enough. :)