Seeking tuner information, recomendations

inspiredsports

As I moved away from my vintage solid state gear (NAD Monitor Series 7600 Receiver and separate NAD Monitor Series 1700 Preamp/Tuner paired with an NAD 2600A Power Amp) and into tube gear (Conrad Johnson PV-5 paired with VTL ST-50), I found I really missed the excellent NAD 4300 tuner components that are directly incorporated into both the NAD units.

The 4300 is an exceptional component in its own right, and I owned one separately in the past, specifically because I was curious to know if the separate model sounded better or worse when its components were incorporated in the other models I owned. When A/B'd versus both the 7600 Receiver and 1700 Preamp/Tuner, I felt the integrated units actually surpassed the performance of the separate 4300. At that time I did not own high-line interconnects, and I have always felt superiority of the inner wiring in the integrated units was the deciding factor. I now use MIT Shotgun 2's which are a fairly decent wire, but no longer own the 4300 to test my theory and won't be buying another as the units I'm now considering are slightly better than the tuner sections of the 7600. At any rate, I've found the NAD FM tuner sections to be very, very good.

##################################################

Now as I set out years later to compare tuners, I've found A/B'ing to presents some challenges:

1) You can't control the source. You need to listen to a station that plays material you are very familiar with.
2) I don't know if A/B'ing is a "flawed" way to test, but it is the only way you can compare tuners as you don't control the source. You need to A/B back and forth during the song that is currently being broadcast.
3) You need to be able to bring similar dbf antenna signals to each tuner's antenna input as tuners sound different with differing signal strengths.
4) Simply setting the tuner outputs so they produce the same db level at the listening position takes time and a db meter. All else equal, even a slightly louder volume level at the listening position gives the impression that the sound quality is better.
5) You also need to minimize subtle differences in interconnects, RCA inputs/outputs, switches, power cords, etc.


Fortunately, as far as source, There are several strong classic rock, jazz and classical stations nearby that play music I have been familiar with for decades, and probably own the CD or LP. I listen to music for 8 or more hours per day, so I will listen to a single tuner (without A'B'ing) for hours at a time and a different volume levels.

Concerning equipment, the recently rebuilt 7600 (including RCA jacks) has an immense feature set that really helps. The rebuild gives me a higher confidence level the various inputs (and switches between inputs) are equivalent, and a good cleaning of RCA jacks on older gear with DeOxit has eliminated oxidation. The remote smoothly controls volume and silently switches inputs from internal Tuner, Aux, Tape 1, Tape 2, CD, Video etc.

I use equal length S2 interconnects and everything gets plugged into my APC Power Conditioner. I've also accumulated several simple dipole antennas that are capable of bringing just under 80dbf to each antenna input. 62dbf seems to be a threshold where many/most tuners automatically turn off their sound quality limiting noise filters and narrow/distance circuits, so I'm able to exceed that dbf level. For my listening tests, I use only the strongest stations around her, and manually turn off all narrow/distance/noise suppression so as to have the purest signal path the tuners have to offer in play.

It's obviously not a lab controlled test bed, but I've leveled the playing field as best as I can.

##################################################

Right now (in addition to the internal 4300 components I've been familiar with since 1987), I'm comparing an Onkyo T-9090 and an a Sansui TU-717.

SIDE-NOTE: http://www.fmtunerinfo.com has "Shootout" rankings (you have to scroll all the way to the bottom of their very long "Shootouts" page) at http://www.fmtunerinfo.com/shootouts.html

At the time of this posting (rankings change if new tuners tested end up ranked at the top of the list), they rate the Sansui TU-717 at #17, the Onkyo T-9090 Mk II at #46 and the NAD 4155 at #47. The Onkyo specs on the T-9090 and MkII models are identical, but the MkII has a remote and 2 additional filters that help in Dx modes. As my testing is mostly on strong local signal "audiophile" listening, I consider the two to be equal as the Dx functions are turned off. The NAD 4300 has not yet been tested and is a newer (and I believe better sounding) model than the 4155. At any rate, I've found the 4300's sonic performance and to be a tiny bit better than the T-9090's and would enter it 1 ranking better than the Onkyo; they are extremely close to on another.

--- Sansui TU-717 ---
- Clear, articulate highs
- Clear, clean midrange
- Deep, authoritative bass

--- Onkyo T-9090 ---
- Clear highs, but very slightly rolled off
- Midrange ever so very slightly veiled/congested (like the day before you really know you have a cold)
- Deep, authoritative bass

- The TU-717 has a clearer, airier presentation with more overall separation between instruments/vocals.
- The TU-717 and T-9090 have nearly identical soundstage widths, with the TU-717 throwing just a bit more depth.
- Both tuners will make the hair on the back of your neck stand up when you crank up the volume on a familiar tune
- Sibilance in announcer voices is nearly non-existent for both units.
- Grabbing distant stations (Dx'ing) is not my goal, but the Onkyo absolutely blows the Sansui away here, seeming to find and clean up signals from very distant stations the Sansui can't even "see".

So, in my own simple shootout, here's how my rankings look today:

1) Sansui TU-717
2) NAD 4300 components (as integrated into the NAD 7600 Receiver)
3) Onkyo T-9090

The Onkyo was borrowed from a friend and is going away soon. I'm working on getting Crown FM 2, Kenwood KT-990D and Scott 310E tuners here for continued comparisons.

Stay tuned . . .

inspiredsports

Above I was happy getting between 62 and 80 dbf of gain at the receiver with some decent indoor dipole and j-pole antennas. But being insane and obsessed, I decided the old antenna 35' above grade level on my chimney would have to make way for a new FM-only multi-element array with a rotor.

The new rotor and antenna arrived Friday afternoon, and the cable yesterday afternoon. Both days were beautiful weather and the installation took just an hour or so each day.

At www.summitsource.com I found the 8-element Winegard HD-6055P to be the best balance of quality, db gain and price ($59.00 as they price matched www.tselectronic.com) and the Antennacraft TDP-2 ($54) the best old-school style rotor to handle the spinning honors. With wire and shipping I spent the modest sum of $157.

The huge 10-element Magnum Dynalab MD-10 +12 dB with a front to back of 15dB and even huger and out of production 13-element Antenna Performance APS-13 with only +10 dB of gain, but a huge 30dB front to back ration are the only 2 antennas I could find with better specs, and either would have doubled my expense.

So . . . was it worth it?

In a word, yes.

The strongest stations (remember 62dB is enough to kick most automated Dx circuits off) in my area generally come in at 75 to 85dB on the indoor dipole or j-pole. I'm now at 95 to 108dB !!

The Crown FM2 and a Sansui TU-719 will join the 7 tuners I now have here next week and the shootout will continue (I have 2 Sansui TU-717's that currently hold the top 2 rungs [1 sounds slightly better than the other]).


P.S.: In noticing from the survey results at the top of the page that 17% of you don't have tuners, I will soon have a tuner for you for sale in the Classifieds.

bikezappa

The antenna is King.
The tuner is queen.

inspiredsports

bikezappa wrote: »

The antenna is King.
The tuner is queen.

Yep. I figured I'd better be certain I have the best signal possible with all of the attention I'm giving to listening to all of these various tuners. I wanted to be sure they sound as good as they can sound based on signal.

I'm also rounding up a lot of pairs to slightly improve the sample size and get an indication if a tuner is badly out of alignment. I'm also listening with 3 different amps and three sets of speakers to see how my top picks hold up.

Polkersince85

The big antennas are the ticket. You may want to install a standoff ground wire for lightning protection.

inspiredsports

Polkersince85 wrote: »

The big antennas are the ticket. You may want to install a standoff ground wire for lightning protection.

That's something I need to learn more about. Do you have any pointers?

Polkersince85

Google is your friend here for pointers. At the least, bare copper ground wire (HomeDepot) clamped to the upper mast with standoffs down to an 8 ft. grounding rod. Nothing will protect from a direct strike but static surges can hurt, too.

Ricardo

Forget about an FM tuner. Internet radio. Get a Squeezebox Touch and you can stream thousands of stations with excellent quality. You will find many FM stations in your area stream through the web, plus you can get FM stations from all around the world and there are tons of internet only stations worth discovering.

Plus, you can stream music from other sources too.

inspiredsports

Ricardo wrote: »

Forget about an FM tuner. Internet radio. Get a Squeezebox Touch and you can stream thousands of stations with excellent quality. You will find many FM stations in your area stream through the web, plus you can get FM stations from all around the world and there are tons of internet only stations worth discovering.

Plus, you can stream music from other sources too.

That may happen too, but don't change the subject.

I've forayed into digital with a decent HA Info NG27 DAC / Headamp that has been tweaked with an AD8620 op amp [on Brown Dog], stacked with a second Buf634 chip per channel, fitted with an extra 2200uF capacitance and paired with decent cabling to my preamp that I'm using right now on my network.

But for right now I'm well on the way to rounding up the best FM broadcast sound that I can afford (and as an aside, I could have about a dozen Squeezebox's for what I've already invested in my little FM experiment).

inspiredsports

I probably overpaid, but now have a Kenwood KT-5020 on the way. They seem to be as rare as hen's teeth and rated in the top 10 at fmtunerinfo.com so I'm probably in for a treat.

inspiredsports

First, a big THANKS to starkiller who sold me his very nice Onkyo T-9090 which arrived today packaged better than what they originally did from the factory.

I'm about tuner'd out here for a while.

But boy did I get caught snoozing as I completely missed the Fisher Radio Co. R-200-B George Grand had listed in his "Delivered to Polkfest?" thread. He described it as "just about a museum piece with original box and packing", where George was the second owner and stopped using it in 1971! And it sold for $100 !!!

Yes michaeljhsda2, I'm eating my heart out, stamping my feet and pouting.

My own personal shootout is about to begin in earnest (and will take quite some time) with 1 Kenwood KT-5020, 1 Crown FM Two, 2 Sansui TU-717's, 1 Sansui TU719, 2 Onkyo T-9090's, 1 NAD 7600 Receiver (4300 Tuner incorporated within) and 1 NAD 1700 Preamp / Tuner (4300 Tuner incorporated within). If I didn't have the 717's, I would be on thebluemonkey's nearly identical 517 in the classifieds in a heartbeat.

That Fisher would have rounded it out with some nice tube action at the source, although the test bed will ultimately be all tube gear (modded Conrad Johnson PV-5 and modded VTL ST-50).

mhardy6647

uffda. The R200B is a nice stereo tuner. I have one sitting the basement but 1) it's borrowed and 2) it's kind of scroungy.

inspiredsports

Well let's get going there and get that puppy fired up!

michaeljhsda2

I think this particular Fisher is a soiled state tuner, no tubes.

mhardy6647

michaeljhsda2 wrote: »

I think this particular Fisher is a soiled state tuner, no tubes.

hmmm... is the R200B different than the R200?

http://www.vintage-tuner.com/tuner1/fisher/fisher_r-200-01.jpg


Must do a little research...
EDIT: ahh, so. Silly me. Sorry. I don'ts gots one of those in any way, shape, or form.
http://www.radiomuseum.org/r/fisher_the_fisher_r200b_1.html

EDIT^2: Looks like it does have Nuvistors in the front end, FWIW :-)

michaeljhsda2

mhardy6647 wrote: »

hmmm... is the R200B different than the R200?

http://www.vintage-tuner.com/tuner1/fisher/fisher_r-200-01.jpg


Must do a little research...
EDIT: ahh, so. Silly me. Sorry. I don'ts gots one of those in any way, shape, or form.
http://www.radiomuseum.org/r/fisher_the_fisher_r200b_1.html

EDIT^2: Looks like it does have Nuvistors in the front end, FWIW :-)

Yes it does. Thanks for the link.

mhardy6647

michaeljhsda2 wrote: »

Yes it does. Thanks for the link.

You betcha; need more?
http://www.audiokarma.org/forums/showthread.php?t=313322

I have never heard one of these in operation. Just sayin'.

inspiredsports

michaeljhsda2 wrote: »

Yes it does. Thanks for the link.

I was pretty sure it had tubes. I think it's actually considered a tube/solid state hybrid. Let me know if you ever decide to pass it on. You will want to power that little jewel up very slowly with a Variac and may have some tubes, capacitors and resistors that have failed after 30 years sitting idle and an alignment will probably be in order.

michaeljhsda2

I thought I read somewhere earlier today (audiokarma perhaps) that it was a hybrid...I have a lot to learn about it and I'll definitely play it conservative by bringing it up with a variac.

inspiredsports

michaeljhsda2 wrote: »

I thought I read somewhere earlier today (audiokarma perhaps) that it was a hybrid...I have a lot to learn about it and I'll definitely play it conservative by bringing it up with a variac.

There seems to be conflicting information published with some showing the R 200 as an AM/FM tuner and the R 200-B as additionally having shortwave capability.

mhardy6647

Yes the R200B in question is a multi-band hybrid (only vacuum tubes on the high-frequency side of the circuit, 'cause good RF transistors only came along relatively recently).

The issue of the all vacuum tube R200 vs. R200B; FM vs. AM-FM is interesting and worthy of some more probing. I think the one in my basement is AM-FM with MPX stereo... but I need to double-check the model number.

bikezappa

Ricardo wrote: »

Forget about an FM tuner. Internet radio. Get a Squeezebox Touch and you can stream thousands of stations with excellent quality. You will find many FM stations in your area stream through the web, plus you can get FM stations from all around the world and there are tons of internet only stations worth discovering.

Plus, you can stream music from other sources too.

I like FM Tuners and have invested much money and time. I have also tried listening to some FM stations on the internet and have been surprised at how good they sounded.

What squeezbox do you recommend that has remote control and how many internet stations can you save.

Sorry if this is changing the topic a bit.

inspiredsports

It's absurd to compare Internet Radio to FM Broadcast at this point in time so LET'S NOT IN THIS THREAD.

Check out post 70, then start a new thread.

If your system can resolve the difference, FM sounds AT LEAST THREE TIMES as good and the highly compressed stream you can get with even the most robust broadband connection.