Tuner - FM over the air - suggestions

@curtdr Could it be Arizona University's KUAT (90.5 & 89.7)?

@curtdr I noticed that you're looking for a tuner with a remote control. One such tuner would be the Teac model TR-670. You can always find them used for under $100 on ebay - just make sure the particular one you're looking at has the remote control that goes with it (you might have to message the seller to make 100% sure about this).

Another option may be the Galaxy Audio RM-RDSTNR AM/FM Tuner with Radio Data System.

Galaxy Audio RM-RDSTNR AM/FM Tuner with Radio Data System

@yyzsantabarbara Audio reproduction is very subjective. What you may think sounds right to you, may not sound right to me, and so on. Audio processing on radio is the same. Some listeners think balls to the wall processing sounds better to them, than a lightly processed radio station (lightly meaning you're hearing more dynamic range, and audio that's closer to the original source). Having been (and still kind of am) a Radio Broadcast Engineer, I could talk your ears off on this subject. The truth of the matter is that 99% of radio stations use separate audio processors for their webstream audio, and OTA (over the air) audio. The OTA processor is usually cranked full tilt to compensate for road noise, and achieving ratings; so that audio will be highly processed, and considered by most to be consistently loud (and not very close to the original source). Since most radio stations don't want to spend $10,000 on a webstream audio processor (like they do for their OTA audio processor), because radio stations do not make any money (95% of the time) off of their stream audio, you'll find that most radio station stream's audio is closer to the source, and not as highly processed as the OTA audio. Now, which do you prefer? This gets down to the individual taste of the listener. Many are not looking for audio quality (I will guarantee you that) - they just want to *hear* their radio station. The weak link in radio station webstreams is the amount of bandwidth they are willing to pay for. If you have a high quality system, try listening to high bit rate webstream audio from: BBC Radio 3 (which uses no audio processing), WCPE, KCSM, WMSE, and even WECK (these are just a few examples). When I was working for commercial radio stations, I always processed my/our radio station's webstream audio channels more lightly and uniquely, as compared to our OTA audio, so that if listeners were looking for higher audio quality, they had an alternative choice. Radio station webstream audio, and OTA audio, will rarely ever sound exactly the same.   

@cleeds You'll have no argument from me regarding HD radio. 

>>>The truth is that the stream of most radio stations is very lossy mp3 quality.<<<

With all due respect, in some (not all) cases, you are correct, but in many cases, you are not. One of the bigger problems plaguing radio reception these days (AM more than FM) is electrical interference. If you want an extremely clean FM signal, you now have to jump though hoops to capture it. Most LED lighting these days emits RFI that extends into the FM band. Now, for us audiophiles, begin to weigh that factor into the equation. I know I have, when critically listening to the stations I engineer (or have engineered). FM reception these days can be very noisy. That's another reason why OTA audio processing is kept aggressive, to mask that noise. Another factor is FM stereo performance, which at best has a S/N ratio of -65 dB. If the same station has a decent high bandwidth stream, that S/N can be closer to -80 dB, or even -90 dB (if the audio signal path is kept clean). FM stereo reception and performance is not really as "high quality" as it is sometimes portrayed. It may be convenient, but it is rarely a high quality medium these days. 

@mahler123 Thank you for helping me prove my point. WFMT is a perfect example of comparing OTA real world FM tuner reception audio reproduction vs a station's webstream audio feed. In this equation are two different audio processors, and audio processor settings; in addition to FM reception electrical interference, the listener's FM tuner performance, and FM transmitter audio performance (just like all audio gear, an FM transmitter's exciter also has audio performance specifications, which also factors into what goes out over the air). Let's also not forget how a radio station's STL (Studio Transmitter Link - the method by which a radio station gets its audio to a remote transmitter site) can also affect OTA audio performance, as it relies on many pieces of digital equipment, and an internet connection, to get that signal to the Willis Tower transmitter site. My only beef with WFMT's webstream audio is that (IMO) it is rather dense (or thick), and bass heavy, with some limiting and compression, compared to the original source audio. This is easily noticeable for those of us with discerning ears.     

@mahler123 "but prefer the digital feed, which is crisper and not prone to weather related dropouts" or when the basement of the Willis Tower gets flooded, and the 98.7 FM signal temporarily goes off the air (May 2020).