The Leak Trough-Line Tuner a History.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by spendorman

I can take a few photos, it's not much to look at and my camera (and operator!) are not up to much. It was in a wooden cabinet that housed it and a Leak Stereo 70 (still have).

---

Yes that sounds okay.... You might like to describe how it sounds as well, if you like, if not its ok.


Regards D S D L

Here are some pics of a Stereofetic. It looks much better in the wooden sleeve that houses both the tuner and a Leak Stereo 70. Apologies for picture quality. Please feel free to organise or delete pics etc.

Difficult to describe sound quality, but its not bad at all. I have several other tuners to compare with including Quad FM4, FM3, FM1, Radford, Rogers, Pioneer, Technics, Sony, etc. etc.

I notice that the Stereofetic has a four gang tuning capacitor, that can't be bad.

Here are a few more, could only upload 5 photos above.

Thank you for the photos. It looks very different inside...lots of empty air. The wood sleeves do add to the looks... I must admit to really liking the Leak visual design, however the American appearance for these Leak products is something else.

Thank you Spendorman much appreciated.


Regards D S D L

"Empty air" probably partly due to the use of transistors and early IC's, those round metal devices that look like metal cased transistors. One can see the multiple connections (just) in the pics. Still its not a bad tuner. Fairly sensitive, does not overload easily, easy to tune, does not drift annoyingly, and sounds pretty good.

The Rogers Ravensbourne is a good tuner too, although the early model (usually with white marking on tuning scale) is not very sensitive. The later model (green markings on tuning scale) is fine though. Ithink the earlier is called Ravensbourne and the later one Ravensbourne FET. Memory fades though and I stand to be corrected.

I prefer the Ravensbourne FET to both the Quad FM3 and FM4.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by spendorman

Difficult to describe sound quality, but its not bad at all. I have several other tuners to compare with including Quad FM4, FM3, FM1, Radford, Rogers, Pioneer, Technics, Sony, etc. etc.

---

Hello spendorman

Nice photos. I would certainly be interested in a comparison of the Quad FM3and FM4 with the Radford (FMT-2 ?). Would you be willing to write a few words for AoS?

Thanks

Barry

I don't know if the replacement T75 tuner from Rogers was that wonderful.. The T100 was amazing, but they're like hens teeth and fetch good money today I think.

P.S. The FM4 is actually a good little tuner, easy to tune, use and obviously holds its value very well. It's also far more modern in its matching requirements and the radio performance was judged good at the time (the dear old FM3 had been totally outclassed as a "radio" many years before in the early to mid 1970's).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DSJR

P.S. The FM4 is actually a good little tuner, easy to tune, use and obviously holds its value very well. It's also far more modern in its matching requirements and the radio performance was judged good at the time (the dear old FM3 had been totally outclassed as a "radio" many years before in the early to mid 1970's).

---

Dave,

Is the comment in parentheses reporting the perceived opinion at the time, or is it yours? If the latter, it doesn't seem to stack up with your posting (#11) on my thread.

Regards

Barry

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by barry.d.hunt

Dave,

Is the comment in parentheses reporting the perceived opinion at the time, or is it yours? If the latter, it doesn't seem to stack up with your posting (#11) on my thread.

Regards

Barry

---

Hi Barry, The internet is a funny thing, when we can't explain any more than our typing ability...:)

The "Sound quality" of tuners wasn't taken into serious consideration in the mid seventies, any more than the perceived sound quality of vinyl sources. When I say "radio" performance, I mean the usual measured parameters such as sensitivity, selectivity etc.. The likes of the Yamaha CT7000, Sansui 7700 and 9900 (i think that's the model numbers) and Accuphase 101 (?) were far more interesting technically and visually - they happened to sound great too, but that was a bonus back then).

In the company of all these relatively huge and lavishly finished Japanese tuners, the mid seventies UK efforts from Quad, Rogers, EAD (?) and Sugden looked crude and "quaint" by comparison, despite actually sounding good.

I hope that answers your question. It's not my habit to contradict myself or cause confusion in my posts. I didn't realise how basically "truthful" the FM3 could be until some years later, when listening to a proms concert actually sounded like a good facsimile of a proms I'd attended earlier that week (I worked in the West End then and regularly attended concerts at the RFH, RAH and rock gigs at the Hammersmith Odeon (Apollo), the BBC's Paris Theatre and Virgin's "The Venue").

I must say though, that in the late seventies, many reviewers used to feed a high quality music source into an FM modulator, fed into the tuner's aerial input and then the sound output of the tuner was level matched and compared with the source. All very clinical and objective, but this did give a fair hearing to these items.