Reasonably priced FM Tuner

[Dave]

For the last couple months I have been attempting to find an FM tuner to bypass the one in a Pioneer SC-37 AVR. The AVR built-in tuner has a lot of background noise and birdies; its basic sound is not bad, but the extraneous noises make listening difficult. I have tried a variety of tuners, from Ebay and other sources with costs ranging from free to $60. My total cost so far is well under $200. The AVR has B&O class D amplifiers that I like and I am very happy its pairing with Spendor S5e speakers.

So far the best sounding one listened to is a Harman Kardon TU-910 analog tuner that needed new dial lights. Others tried in descending sound order are: Luxman T-111 (Alpine digital one, not the analog one), Sansui T-707 analog with mechanical autoseek, Marantz ST-59 digital and Yamaha T-30 digital. The Yamaha is probably the most sensitive of the batch, but sounds a bit harsh, still a lot better than the AVR tuner. The Luxman was the biggest surprise, expected that the Alpine Luxman digital would not be very good, but it is almost as good as the HK; HK seems more real on good broadcasts, allows me to sink into the music and forget the tuner itself.

Does anyone have any other recommendations that I should try, or have I hit the best performance/price with the HK, ideally less than a couple hundred dollars? I do not need DXing, listen to just 2 FM stations in the Boston, MA area, WHRB and WCRB. I would like AM for occasional listening to a new station. The HK is OK on AM, good enough for informational listening.

[isw]

In article <m9fap...@news3.newsguy.com>,

A Heathkit AJ-15 (if you can find one) is possibly one of the best
*reasonably priced* FM tuners ever. It uses some ICs where they don't
matter (in the IF stages), but the stereo decoder is all discretes, and
is capable of very good performance if you know how to align it.

Shortly after it was introduced, just about everybody changed over to IC
stereo decoders, and those were generally quite noisy and lacking in
other performance characteristics such as separation.

For those who don't remember, the AJ-15 was the tuner portion of the
very popular AR-15. Sadly, and unlike the FM section, the amplifiers in
the AR are basically not very good. Well, OK; they're awful.

Isaac

[Peter Wieck]

If you must have a remote, that cuts out many good options. If you must have digital tuning, that cuts out yet more. But if you are unfettered in your choices, in no particular order:

HK Citation 18
Revox B760
Revox A720
Hafler DH330
HK Citation 14
Dynaco FM5 (last iteration)

All of the above are quite vintage, relatively common and range in price from less than $100 to several thousand, but a good specimen of any will cause you no shame or heartache. Your location is critical, as any of the above (and many hundreds of others) will do fine if your target station is nearby. The Revox tuners are good for distance, but as always, no tuner is any better than its antenna.

I would never suggest a tuner I do not own either. Nor did I suggest any tube units. They are not for everyone and may need more care and feeding than some are prepared to give.

Peter Wieck
Melrose Park, PA

[Dave]

Thanks for the responses. I am happy with an analog dial with no remote or digital readout; my current favorite, the HK TU-910, is fully manual with a tuning knob. Fixing the dial lights was an easy soldering job once I found a source for the bulbs.

I tend to shy away from Heath products, have not had good luck with them, especially ones originally sold as kits. I also had issues with early non-IC stereo decoders in the Boston area, birdies from the SCA signals. I modded a Quad FM3 to eliminate the birdies several decades ago - factory kit to mod the tuner. AR used to claim to one of the first FM tuners to be able to cope with SCA due to its being present on the prime classical station, WCRB.

The Revox tuners look nice, but are too costly. Had a G-36 reel-to-reel years ago and it was built like a tank.

I'll keep looking around, checking Craigslist and local shops.

[abbeynormal]

On Saturday, January 17, 2015 at 7:54:54 PM UTC-8, Dave wrote:
> Does anyone have any other recommendations that I should try, or have I hit the best performance/price with the HK, ideally less than a couple hundred dollars? I do not need DXing, listen to just 2 FM stations in the Boston, MA area, WHRB and WCRB. I would like AM for occasional listening to a new station. The HK is OK on AM, good enough for informational listening.<

why not bypass analog FM altogether for HD radio? I use a boston acoustics receptor HD radio [has outputs for external amplification] which makes otherwise hiss and multipath-prone fm stations in my reception location sound pristine like they are just next door. it also features HD-AM as well, which makes AM stations sound like [somewhat metallic-sounding] FM stations complete with stereo sound. [unfortunately there aren't too many HD-AM transmitters] it is among the most sensitive of tuners [both fm and am] in my experience but at least with my specimen the am reception is somewhat narrow in bandwidth but still listenable in good reception areas during the day. just a thought. :)

[Peter Wieck]

On Sunday, January 18, 2015 at 10:20:38 PM UTC-5, Dave wrote:
>SNIP< AR used to claim to one of the first FM tuners to be able to cope with SCA due to its being present on the prime classical station, WCRB.

>
> The Revox tuners look nice, but are too costly. Had a G-36 reel-to-reel years ago and it was built like a tank.
>
> I'll keep looking around, checking Craigslist and local shops.

I also keep an AR tuner, one of the better sleepers in the collection. But in my time, I have seen only two (2) on the open market, most are prized by their owners as (apparently) are the rest of the very vintage AR electronics.

[Dave]

I thought about HD Radio, but it is a highly compressed format, maxing at 150 kbps for FM, less for AM, kind of like mediocre internet radio, which is not all that listenable. There do not seem to be any current HD tuners, aside from the McIntosh, which costs a lot more than I am willing to spend. I have a decent antenna in my attic on a rotator, so signal level and multipath are not much of an issue for me.

Unless I come across something better than the HK TU-910, I will likely just stand pat for a while.

[abbeynormal]

to my ears it definitely sounds BETTER than any internet radio I've heard, at least with my non-high-speed connection. it uses something called "spectral substitution to reconstitute the trebles that normally get tossed during the data compression process, so the high end is apparently better than what is heard on the internet. in my experience the HD signal is definitely better in terms of frequency response and noise level/stereo separation, than the typical FM signal [typically spitty and hissy/multipath-ridden] received at my rural location.

[Oregonian Haruspex]

The Sony XDR-F1HD is probably the best FM tuner ever made. It is no
longer in production, and is an HD Radio, but the signal quality it
gives with analog FM signals is superior to every known commercially
produced FM tuner. There is a fairly good study of this receiver
online: ["http://www.ham-radio.com/k6sti/xdr-f1hd.htm"]

Rohde & Schwarz, Mason, Micro-tel, and Scanlock receivers may offer
better performance as do some Icom units, but many lack stereo. These
are also very expensive compared even to audiophile units - they are
covert, intercept, and monitoring receivers for government agencies and
very serious radio hobbyists. As far as consumer electronics go (even
the very high end audiophile units) the XDR-F1HD is the tops.

[Peter Wieck]

There comes a time to consider that any given tuner need only be as good as the signal it receives. Today, that is not a very high bar to jump. After which selectivity and sensitivity are far more critical. The Sony is not so hot in this regard. If one wants HD, the Sony is an excellent choice, but hardly unique.

[Dave]

>
> The Sony XDR-F1HD is probably the best FM tuner ever made. It is no
> longer in production, and is an HD Radio, but the signal quality it
> gives with analog FM signals is superior to every known commercially
> produced FM tuner. There is a fairly good study of this receiver

> online: ["http://www.ham-radio.com/k6sti/xdr-f1hd.htm"]\

I looked into the Sony, even though good used ones seem to fetch near $300. It seems to be a great DXer, but several reviews posted on the Tuner Information Center describe its sound as well below audiophile quality. I have not auditioned one, have to rely on reviews from sources I have found consistent with my experience. The Sony also seems to run hot and several people have mentioned having to replace overheated capacitors

There have been several tuners temporarily in my rack that had better sensitivity and selectivity than the HK910, but they did not sound as good. I do not need DXing, have a decent antenna on a rotator and the stations I listen to are nearby with strong signals, no apparent multipath issues that I have heard. I want good sound more than anything else.

[Oregonian Haruspex]

As far as signal purity on a spectrum analyzer the XDR-F1HD beats even
the highest end audiophile FM tuners. Have a look at the link above.

The Sony unit does gently roll off the higher frequencies (IE it has
fairly strong de-emphasis) but this of course is not an issue if one
has an equalizer in the signal chain.

It runs warm, this is true.

[Oregonian Haruspex]

I think you failed to read the link. The Sony is so sensitive and
selective that it can receive and demodulate signals that even high-end
audiophile tuners fail to detect. It also seems to do much better with
stereo separation.

[Shaun]

"Dave" wrote in message news:m9fap...@news3.newsguy.com...

_______________________________________________

I really doubt that your AVR is using class D for the main speakers, that is
pulse width modulation and requires a filter to remove the carrier frequency
(PWM frequency), it would be a difficult design - if not impossible for a
full range amp. For subwoofers it is fine since they have a limited
frequency range. Usually class D is only used for subs.

Sansui was well known for making very good analog tuners - they would
probably be the best selectivity and sound quality.

Shaun

[KH]

On 4/15/2015 6:27 AM, Shaun wrote:
> "Dave" wrote in message news:m9fap...@news3.newsguy.com...

> _______________________________________________
>
> I really doubt that your AVR is using class D for the main speakers, that is
> pulse width modulation and requires a filter to remove the carrier frequency
> (PWM frequency), it would be a difficult design - if not impossible for a
> full range amp. For subwoofers it is fine since they have a limited
> frequency range. Usually class D is only used for subs.
>
> Sansui was well known for making very good analog tuners - they would
> probably be the best selectivity and sound quality.
>
> Shaun

Full range Class D amps are everywhere these days. From Theta, to Mark
Levinson, to NAD and a host of others.

Keith

[Dave]

Glad to have an expert correct me, as my pitiful experience in designing electronics for space applications for 40 years has left me ignorant of design subtleties. Also seem to have left Pioneer and B&O ignorant, as they describe the amplifiers as Class D.

As far as tuners go, I finally settled in on a Denon TU-1500, was slightly better than a TU-800 in my area. I did not try every tuner ever made, although my wife suspects I did from the number of boxes that came and went.

[dpierce.ca...@gmail.com]

On Wednesday, April 15, 2015 at 7:27:12 AM UTC-6, Shaun wrote:
> I really doubt that your AVR is using class D for the main speakers, that is
> pulse width modulation and requires a filter to remove the carrier frequency
> (PWM frequency), it would be a difficult design - if not impossible for a
> full range amp. For subwoofers it is fine since they have a limited
> frequency range. Usually class D is only used for subs.

Really? Does that mean the several class D amplifiers I now run in my studio
really aren't? Does that mean that even though I have measured them doing
their rated power at 20 kHz while consuming only about 20% more power from the
wall, they really aren't, and Messr. Hewlett and Packard, the nice boys
at Tektronix and Audio Precision are just as fooled as I am?

Sorry, Shaun, but broad-band class-D consumer and professional
audio amplification has been widely available for well over a decade.

[Peter Wieck]

On Thursday, April 16, 2015 at 10:59:45 AM UTC-4, Dave wrote:

> As far as tuners go, I finally settled in on a Denon TU-1500, was slightly better than a TU-800 in my area. I did not try every tuner ever made, although my wife suspects I did from the number of boxes that came and went.

As it seems that you are at least reasonably sophisticated in your understanding of things-audio, I will withdraw my original caveat against tube tuners and suggest, just for giggles, you obtain a decent Dynaco FM3, bring it up to factory spec., go through the alignment process and see how it sounds to you. Not the most sensitive unit on the block, nor the most endowed with features, but hands-down one of the better sounding beasts you might experience. For the last 25 years, including when we worked overseas, one or another example has been on active duty, even if not on the immediate front line.

[Dave]

> As it seems that you are at least reasonably sophisticated in your understanding of things-audio, I will withdraw my original caveat against tube tuners and suggest, just for giggles, you obtain a decent Dynaco FM3, bring it up to factory spec., go through the alignment process and see how it sounds to you. Not the most sensitive unit on the block, nor the most endowed with features, but hands-down one of the better sounding beasts you might experience. For the last 25 years, including when we worked overseas, one or another example has been on active duty, even if not on the immediate front line.
>
> Peter Wieck
> Melrose Park, PA

Thanks for revisiting your ideas. I thought about a Dynaco FM-3, like its simplicity, but it looks as though the price point for a good one goes beyond my requirement for reasonable cost. Given that most seem to need cap changes and alignment, the cost would quickly go well above reasonable. Tube (Hollow State Device) sourcing is also a bit problematic these days; a full new set could easily double the cost of the tuner. Tuner Information Center did not have kind words about the sound of an FM-3. I personally have not heard one in well over 40 years.

My issue with older tuners, those without PLL MPX decoders, is that they had 'birdies' from SCA signals. In my area, WCRB has (had?) SCA info that forced me to put a PLL MPX decoder in a Quad FM3 tuner to eliminate the whistles. No solid state tuners with PLL MPX decoders have had this problem in my experience.

[Peter Wieck]

On Sunday, April 19, 2015 at 12:16:52 AM UTC-4, Dave wrote:

> Thanks for revisiting your ideas. I thought about a Dynaco FM-3, like its simplicity, but it looks as though the price point for a good one goes beyond my requirement for reasonable cost. Given that most seem to need cap changes and alignment, the cost would quickly go well above reasonable. Tube (Hollow State Device) sourcing is also a bit problematic these days; a full new set could easily double the cost of the tuner. Tuner Information Center did not have kind words about the sound of an FM-3. I personally have not heard one in well over 40 years.
>
> My issue with older tuners, those without PLL MPX decoders, is that they had 'birdies' from SCA signals. In my area, WCRB has (had?) SCA info that forced me to put a PLL MPX decoder in a Quad FM3 tuner to eliminate the whistles. No solid state tuners with PLL MPX decoders have had this problem in my experience.

Where are you? I run through about two FM3s/year on average (one so far this year, three last year, none the year before). Other than the EMM801, none of the tubes are the least bit exotic. My most recent unit was missing the OEM (Telefunken) 12AX7s as well as their shields, but my junk box furnished the shields, and my NOS tube stash furnished me a couple of RCA 12AX7s - that, a cleaning and an alignment and all is well. Total cost (excepting cleaners and the tubes & shields) $58.

[Peter Wieck]

On Sunday, April 19, 2015 at 12:16:52 AM UTC-4, Dave wrote:

> Thanks for revisiting your ideas. I thought about a Dynaco FM-3, like its simplicity, but it looks as though the price point for a good one goes beyond my requirement for reasonable cost. Given that most seem to need cap changes and alignment, the cost would quickly go well above reasonable. Tube (Hollow State Device) sourcing is also a bit problematic these days; a full new set could easily double the cost of the tuner. Tuner Information Center did not have kind words about the sound of an FM-3. I personally have not heard one in well over 40 years.
>
> My issue with older tuners, those without PLL MPX decoders, is that they had 'birdies' from SCA signals. In my area, WCRB has (had?) SCA info that forced me to put a PLL MPX decoder in a Quad FM3 tuner to eliminate the whistles. No solid state tuners with PLL MPX decoders have had this problem in my experience.

Where are you? I run through about two FM3s/year on average (one so far this year, three last year, none the year before). Other than the EMM801, none of the tubes are the least bit exotic. My most recent unit was missing the OEM (Telefunken) 12AX7s as well as their shields, but my junk box furnished the shields, and my NOS tube stash furnished me a couple of RCA 12AX7s - that, a cleaning and an alignment and all is well. Total cost (excepting cleaners and the tubes & shields) $58.

[Dave]

Boston, MA area. I check Craigslist for tuners periodically, have not seen one listed since I began my search. Ebay usually has kit versions ultimately selling for over $100 for working ones; factory wired tuners tend to be a lot more. I divested my tube stock years ago, so any replacements would cost me. I also do not have a tube tester, have no simple way to know if tubes are good or weak.