Tuner or Receiver

Tuner technology has not changed. If you are looking for a new tuner, there are very few produced anymore. I have a Magnum Dynalab which is the only company left that makes new high end and expensive tuners. As long as your tuners are working I doubt you will need to upgrade. This is a site that explains everything that you would want to know about tuners!
http://www.fmtunerinfo.com/

Thanks Yogi.  The only real shortcoming then is not having the expanded AM band on either tuner.  As long as the new tuners don't have appreciably better sensitivity or selectivity compared to the two that I have right now then I will stick with them.  The Carver is a bit better with weak signals but the Onkyo is no slouch.

I read some reviews of the new NAD C427 which are quite good.  People claim the FM side is better at picking up weak signals than some older gear like Adcom.  But I know for the money the Carver was about the best tuner made.  Thus, I would probably have to spend thousands today to get something comparable then.

You would be wasting your time and money buying another tuner. A good antenna is worth its weight in gold with tuners! 

No matter how good the tuner is you still need a good antenna.

And the RX 596  is from 1993, long past the "silver era"

I have a Yamaha CR-1020 (1977 - 1980) that has an excellent tuner. You can even tune out multipath distortion (from signals bouncing off buildings)..

I will plan to stick with the Carver and Onkyo tuners then.  Both handle weak signals well.  I will have to set up a outdoor antenna when I can figure out where to put it.  

Some attics work for antennas some don't. Agree on keep your tuners  

billbartuska

I have a Yamaha CR-1020 (1977 - 1980) that has an excellent tuner. You can even tune out multipath distortion (from signals bouncing off buildings)..

That's interesting. Will you please explain how it "tunes out" multipath distortion?

yogiboy

Tuner technology has not changed.

Oh no, this is quite mistaken. While at the low-end of the market things may be the same, there has been tremendous change at the upper-end by using DSP. There are a few tuners that take advantage of this, not the least of which is the McIntosh  MR-88 which - oddly - has recently been discontinued. Crown and DIVA also make DSP-based tuners.

Whether these represent worthy audible improvements is a matter of debate, of course. But to say the technology has not changed is just not accurate.

antenna - yes

your location decides whether you need the best sensitivity or the best selectivity - many tuners are better at one than the other

Magnum Dynalab is legendary and Yamaha (which I have) might be 2nd best

Peter Aczel (Audio Cryptic) once tested a car stereo tuner against home ones - the car unit won

there is a nice web site somewhere that is solely devoted to FM Tuners

fmtunerinfo.com 

I had a Carver MXR-130 for over 25 years. Up until the tuner went do to a problem with the quartz crystal itself, it was spectacular (sound wise, not necessarily reception wise) for AM/FM.

Anyway, can I get some feedback please on the quality or lack thereof of a Technics FM/AM Stereo receiver model SA-110? I've had this thing collecting dust for more than 30 years (seriously), but cosmetically it is in perfect condition and I assume it is still in perfectly good functional condition as well. I realize this is no audiophile grade component like a Magnum Dynalab, but given some of posts herein I'm wondering now would there really be an audible difference between the Technics and a high end tuner.

Thanks. 

This to me seems a bigger question than merely FM.

In my mind, the FM tuner has by and large been replaced by Internet radio. While we can argue sound quality, issues of reception are more or less fixed given a stable Internet connection.

For really good sounding Internet radio,check out the 96 kHz feed from Jazz FM 91 in Toronto.

http://jazz.fm/

Best,

E

well, I have 3-4 good (Public) FM stations here

I do listen to the outstanding WWOZ on internet radio tho
https://www.wwoz.org/

In my mind, the FM tuner has by and large been replaced by Internet radio. While we can argue sound quality, issues of reception are more or less fixed given a stable Internet connection.

+1

This is why my toy of an FM receiver is not part of my audio chain and and has been collecting dust for years. The only time I listen to FM is via my car radio, for 10 minutes to and from work.

Tuner's sound different from one to the other,  at this point, the Sony and Kenwood for cheap sound best, I have many tuner's,  buy and sale them all the time.

@audiolabyrinth 

I'm selling mine https://newyork.craigslist.org/lgi/ele/6291300794.html

And from what I understand, I'm asking a very reasonable price. I've seen this on the Internet for more than twice what I'm asking. If you are in the NY Long Area and are interested, let me know. 

erik_squires

In my mind, the FM tuner has by and large been replaced by Internet radio. While we can argue sound quality, issues of reception are more or less fixed given a stable Internet connection.

Given good reception conditions (a reasonable distance from the transmitter, and a proper antenna and installation) FM offers a v-e-r-y stable connection. In fact, the signal from many radio stations is sent over-the-air using an STL (or two) before it ever reaches the transmitter.

As for sound quality: Let's face it, the SQ of many radio stations is nowhere near audiophile standards. But on those stations that do care about SQ, I think the best FM - using a good antenna and high-end tuner - walks all over any Internet stream that I've ever heard.

To be fair, many people have never heard high-quality FM. They use a receiver or cheap tuner and the little free folded dipole that was packaged with it. In those instances, streaming probably is the better solution.

Remember too that many older tv antennas blocked fm, as it falls between channels 6 and 7 

yogiboy

The only problem is good outdoor FM directional antennas are not made anymore!

It is very difficult to find good outdoor FM antennas and @jl35  is correct that many TV antennas have traps for FM. They are sometimes removable, but I think the best FM antennas are dedicated to that purpose.

There are some directional FM antennas still available. One is here (India-based, but they have a US distributor)  and Kathrein is another source. I think both of these are oriented towards the pro market (for translator use), but there are also DIY options, if you are so inclined.

I listen to both AM and FM.    Will likely buy a Terk loop that seems to get good reviews for AM.  I have a few TV antennas that will receive FM thanks to buying a few before they vanished off the market.   Will likely use a Delhi VIP 302 SR for both VHF TV reception and FM reception.  Should be adequate in my area since I live in an urban area with plenty of signals. Also have a couple of monster antennas  in the Antennacraft HD 1850 and Antennacraft CS 1100 which I could use if I go to a rural area and require deep fringe reception capability.  Traps can be removed for FM use and will still allow for VHF TV reception.  I could run the risk of overload to the tuner though thus I will use the small antenna in this location.

DSP is found in some portable radios these days.  I have a new Sangean portable and Tecsun portable and both use this on AM and FM.  Can't really compare this to a non DSP laced radio at this time since I have not owned one for quite some time.

I am going to install this four element directional for a friend. It will go in the attic. I’m sure it will be better than any of those indoor types!


http://www.mcmelectronics.com/product/30-2460

Yeah, I happened to learn about that antenna pretty recently when I was looking at their website.  Reviews seem good.  And the gain on that antenna makes it a solid medium gain FM antenna.  I may actually consider buying this instead and then use the Delhi for TV only.

Attics can be tricky...lots of metal nails cause reflection 

I have two attic mounts and no problem!

mine always worked fine too

Look up the Tuner Information Center....  http://www.fmtunerinfo.com/index.html#audiophile
and you will have subjective sonic results of lots of tuners..  Based on extensive reading I acquired a near 45 year old Sansui TU-9900 fully modified by Mike @ Radio X.  It blew three CD players out of the room until I got a Sony XA 5400 ES which was/is a Class A rated Stereophile component.  There are some very highly rated old tuners that can be had for a couple hundred and then modified later when finances allow.

My only concern with buying older gear now is the potential for a failure of some kind and not being able to have it repaired.  Unless the new Tuner technology is superior to that of my Carver or Onkyo I will likely just stay with them.  They work well and do a good job of pulling in weak stations on FM.  And the audio quality on both is good.

I am all in favour of Internet Radio, so my old Quad FM3 now sits unused. FM radio is an old technology with serious limitations with regard to frequency response, distortion and channel separation. Also, most stations compress dynamics to make it all fit into the constraints of the technology.
Of course, Internet radio is not perfect either. Many streams are at low bit rates, degrading the sound quality to a varying extent. So the question is the balance between the degradation from the FM technology vs the degradation from low bit rate streams. The good news is that with time internet radio stations have increased the bit rate more and more. BBC Radio 3 for example now has 320kbs streams (only in the UK), which their research has shown is indistinguishable from lossless FLAC. Even so, they are curently experimenting with lossless FLAC streams and these certainly sound very good. In my experience in a blind test I can just about distinguish 256 kbs from lossless, but only just, and not very reliably. The same applies to most other people. So my conclusion is that certainly with higher bitrate streams like 192 or 256 kbs internet radio’s imperfections are far less than those of FM radio. And there is the almost infinite range of stations. An dthe future looks even better: with cheaper bandwith more and more stations will move up to higher bitrates including lossless Red Book resolution.
As for these big older receivers, I love them with their knobs, dials, meters and brightly lit screens. I have an older Kenwood/Trio receiver, and it sits unused, but I cannot bring myself to get rid of it.

willemj

I am all in favour of Internet Radio, so my old Quad FM3 now sits unused. FM radio is an old technology with serious limitations with regard to frequency response, distortion and channel separation ...
Of course, Internet radio is not perfect either. Many streams are at low bit rates, degrading the sound quality to a varying extent. So the question is the balance ... my conclusion is that certainly with higher bitrate streams like 192 or 256 kbs internet radio’s imperfections are far less than those of FM radio.

There are a lot of variables in assessing the SQ of FM vs. Internet radio. But given a good FM tuner, a good signal and a good FM station, the results will walk all over most Internet streams. Of course, optimum FM reception conditions may be more the exception than the rule, so it's easy to embrace Internet radio. For me, it's not an either/or question - I listen to both.

Agree with Cleeds