Are Tuners - Audiophile quality

Dcaudio, read the thread MR67 vs. MR71...interesting to a listener in your situation. Now if only great FM stations broadcasted via satellite so that we could hear them everywhere!

My experience was simliar to yours DcAudio. My first "stereo" was a Technics rack system from the mid 80's. As I changed my system through the years I did away with the tuner (sometime in the 80's) and had not used one at all until last year. I started investigating the idea of getting another, even though my Technics is still around, a friend has it. Long story short, through my research I eneded up buying a Fanfare FT-1A. Not only have I no regrets, I haven't used my system this much in 15 years!

The Fanfare has a wonderful sound, BUT as others have said the tuner can only be as good as the signal. From what I understand, in Cananda they have some live concert broadcasts that are amazing!

I work at home and very much enjoy using it throughout the day. You wouldn't use a tuner for "critical" listening, unless you had a good signal.

I think we all use our stereos differently, hence the variety of different reponses. I for one would recommend a good tuner.

www.fanfare.com

I'd thought that the Fanfare was the way to go, too. But I recently read a review in The Audio Critic that made me wonder. David Rich took the lid off and wasn't all that impressed with the innards.

Anyone else read this? Any thoughts?

As far as David Rich, It does not matter to me to much how it looks inside as long as it sounds good. I would not spend the extra money to get neatly made solder joints under a case I will never open if it sounds the same. A good example is the Creek T43 and Cambridge Audio T500. These are basically the same tuner inside, the Creek uses a few higher grade parts and is made in England instead of lower cost China for the Cambrige. Same FM Chipset. Mike Creek designed the Cambridge by taking his T43 and experimented by seeing where he could cut corners without compromising the sound quality. I have heard them both (own neither). The Creek does sound slightly better, more noticeable with weak stations. With strong stations it is harder to tell. You get this improvement at a cost of $699 for the Creek versus $259 for the Cambridge. Is it worth it? Yes to some, and I guess nothing wrong with that. The only annoying thing about the Cambridge is no manual over-ride tuning, however the Chipset does do a very excellent job of gradually blending the highs in stereo on weaker stations to eliminate noise and switching to mono on very weak ones. So the Creek is a better choice if you live in a more rural setting. In an urban area with lots of stations it matter less.

Some of you have alluded to the fact that a good FM tuner can provide results that are quite acceptable to the audiophile sense of what sonic accuracy truly is. We at Fanfare join you in that belief.

Proof for one person might be playing a CD in synch with the same selection playing in a radio broadcast (a tricky fete, but do-able) and A/B'ing them. Fanfare has such a client, and has vindicated the FT-1A's claim of sonic accuracy many times over. You'll find his further comments in a review of the FT-1A under "Tuners", "Fanfare" at Audioreview.com". His name is "Roger".

Another is splitting the output of a CD player to the line stage of a reasonably high resolution audio system, and at time, to the exciter stage of an FM transmitter which is connected to a dummy load so it can only transmit locally within the same room. The receiver hooked up to the system to receive the airborn version is a Fanfare FT-1 FM tuner. Based on our count, the vast majority of the audience at both CES exhibits where this was performed could not tell the difference between the broadcast and the direct feed, and even the detractors couldn't be certain on a double-blind test, including me.

Through the type of "objective" comparisons illustrated above is how we judge the accuracy of a tuner, and in this case the Fanfare FT-1 and the FT-1A. We do not deal in speculation or aesthetic response. Our specific goal is to provide the high quality performance our customers have come to expect in a Fanfare product.

As for David Rich's comments, he doesn't speak about the quality of the internal workmanship in the FT-1A inside. What he, in his own personal judgement does(and he's never built anything for the market that's known to me), is speak about what he feels are weaknesses in the design. He is entitled to his opinion. However, in the final analysis, upon listening to the FT-1A's transparent sound, the quietness in its background (no hiss) and its unique station acquisition capabilities (better in all ways than its Canadian competitor), I suspect no one who is a self-thinker would give a damn what anyone says otherwise.

The FT-1A is a design that works for everyone, save the few heretics who feel the world should move to their side of the boat, no matter what the consequence.

Soon a more definitive comment on David Rich's review will appear on our website at "http://www.fanfare.com/reviews.html/"
Thank you for your time.

Marv Southcott, President, Fanfare Electronics