advertisement


What is it that makes an fm tuner special?

Del monaco

Del monaco

Del Monaco
Reading the fm thread I wondered what it is that attracts me to the sound of my fm tuner. I know about the Nicam aspect of the digitised signal, the arguments re. internet radio vs fm vs free view. I understand remarks about old technology. But why do I return to the tuner when listening to Radio 3 and why do others love it so much?
Although I appreciate quiet backgrounds that are afforded by internet radio and Dab, for me it seems to somehow ‘deaden’ the presentation, hem it in a little. There seems to be a limited amount of breathing space or air and the sound feels a little claustrophobic. The FM tuner seems to open this up a little allowing air to circulate and the sound to breathe a little more. There’s a little warmth to the fm sound that gives it a little more tangibility for me. Alongside this are elements of nostalgia, an attraction to vintage sound and trying equipment you missed during your earlier days that are now more accessible and affordable. Also, a good piece of equipment is always a good piece of equipment in spite of its age and cost.
What do fm tuner lovers hear that makes these dinosaurs of the hifi world special?
 
Great question - I have nothing to add, other than knowing that there is something quite appealing about good FM. Though admittedly I don’t own such a beastie.
 
I wonder how important the nostalgia element is? The vintage I own is the equipment that would have been knocking around when I first became engaged with hifi. Maybe just having it now takes me back to that time of discovery and excitement if the new. Maybe that is a feeling I carry into the listening?
Making a quick comparison between fm and internet radio this morning, I did notice that the tuner sound had more depth compared to the stream which appeared more forward with bass, mids and treble very much on the same plane. Also the sound has a burnished mahogany presentation that just seems more attractive to my ears.
 
From my post in an earlier thread:

Some years ago the Swedish Radio had a program where they demonstrated how bad lossy compression (MP3, DAB etc) is. It was distributed on FM, DAB and the internet. They begun by telling us that the test signals coming up to show the difference was only meaningful on FM as the other formats was, yes, lossy compressed.

Nothing wrong with FM, given a good reception, a good antenna and a decent tuner.
 
It's a long time since I had a tuner in my system though the radio probably gets more 'listening' hours than anything else whether in the garage, van or indeed at work.
Quite often when reading hif mags back in the late 80's and throughout the 90's reviewers would have said that a live broadcast given a good signal through a quality antenna and tuner would trump the best that other sources could offer, being closer to sounding like the 'real thing' . I never bought an expensive tuner but did own a couple of the budget 'giant killers' , Denon TU260 and a NAD402 but due to time restrictions(working) , the introduction of DAB (basically the report was that FM was going to be no more) combined with living with females who generally prefered to watch TV the Tuner was relegated to the back benches and eventually sold on.
Hopefully when we move from this temporary rental (waiting on conveyancing) I'd like to put together a 'classic' budget(ish) system for the workshop/garage, I'd quite like to try a Leak Troughline with a stereo decoder as quite often they got very favourable mentions when other tuners were being reviewed.
 
Tuners are my hifi addiction. I just can’t resist them.
My first “real” tuner was a Naim 101 in the late 80’s. Used it through the tv aerial into a 42.5/hicap160 and a pair of IBLs. Radio 3 was breathtaking. The BBC did a great job on R3 but were not so competent on other channels. Consequently, I only listened to R3. Selling the 101 to fund the purchase of a Nap 250 was the biggest mistake I ever made.

Currently have a Pioneer F7 (not popular but great sound), a Pioneer TX-606L (a great all-rounder and readily available), a Nad 402 (superb and dirt cheap) and a Pioneer TX-1000 (always wanted one since 1979 and it’s excellent). It’s certainly time to thin out the herd.

There’s something that it so right about a good FM broadcast. It might be the sense of ambiance in a studio or concert hall, it might be the way it draws you into the broadcast in the same way that a mono system does. Whatever it is, I can’t fully identify it but I’m not bothered. FM can be incredible and I just hope that broadcasts extend beyond 2030.
 
I’m listening in mono at the moment.Radio 3.Trying to identify the music.A very nice, warm hug of a sound.
 
It’s the same with vinyl really. It’s a much older technology but there is something magical(most of the time) about the playback!
 
My main tuner is a highly modified Kenwood KT 8300.
On standard radio program, it sounds great, non fatiguing while very dynamic for a fm broadcast.
On live shows of my favorite rock station, this is a complete different story.
Best description would be : I have the feeling I am in the studio with the musicians !
Don’t get me wrong, the sound is not perfect but when I am at a live show in a jazz bar, the sound is never perfect neither.
To me, no other media can beat that and not so many recordings of any form can be as good.
 
On Wednesday, I was at a friend's house listening to Radio Three while trying to help box things up ready to move house on Sunday.

I did not realise my friend had adopted DAB as his chosen way of catching R3, and thought it was very good sounding. Not quite as pleasing as my Trough-Line [mono 1957] tuner feeding an ESL via a good modern Quad valve amp [Q II Forty]. But it was dynamic, clear, detailed, and just a bit un-naturally bright in the modern fashion of so much hifi.

They played a movement from Tchaik Four, which showed all the characteristics mentioned. It was a commercial recording, so no possibility of really saying if the sonic was more related to the recording or the radio set. But then some studio guests played live and it was very clear that sonics were actually from the radio receiving arrangements rather than a characteristic of a commercial recording. Plus another thing that actually I find disconcerting. An effect like a "suck out" or sort of filtering that silenced moments of ambience. Between The BBC presenter talking to the artists concerned and them starting their performance there was a profound silence of a few seconds, that that caused me to ask my friend if the radio had gone off!

I am sure that R3 on DAB is very impressive and actually rather good, but it lacks the natural sounding qualities of VHF. The old Trough-Line is remarkable at low level sonic cues that help place the unseen music making in a tangible space that you can imagine very easily, and thus forget and get on enjoying the music without artificial distractions.

I was going to start a thread on this, but this is an ideal place to post my observations fresh from only two days ago. The DAB tuner was a Pure - full width separate item - so probably not a bad example of the recent state of the art in DAB terms.

I shall be sticking with my Leak tuner and ESL, and as I positively dislike stereo, I have no plan to "upgrade" to stereophonic VHF/FM reception.

Just two pennies" worth from George. All the best ...
 
George J said:
On Wednesday, I was at a friend's house listening to Radio Three while trying to help box things up ready to move house on Sunday.

I did not realise my friend had adopted DAB as his chosen way of catching R3, and thought it was very good sounding. Not quite as pleasing as my Trough-Line [mono 1957] tuner feeding an ESL via a good modern Quad valve amp [Q II Forty]. But it was dynamic, clear, detailed, and just a bit un-naturally bright in the modern fashion of so much hifi.

They played a movement from Tchaik Four, which showed all the characteristics mentioned. It was a commercial recording, so no possibility of really saying if the sonic was more related to the recording or the radio set. But then some studio guests played live and it was very clear that sonics were actually from the radio receiving arrangements rather than a characteristic of a commercial recording. Plus another thing that actually I find disconcerting. An effect like a "suck out" or sort of filtering that silenced moments of ambience. Between The BBC presenter talking to the artists concerned and them starting their performance there was a profound silence of a few seconds, that that caused me to ask my friend if the radio had gone off!

I am sure that R3 on DAB is very impressive and actually rather good, but it lacks the natural sounding qualities of VHF. The old Trough-Line is remarkable at low level sonic cues that help place the unseen music making in a tangible space that you can imagine very easily, and thus forget and get on enjoying the music without artificial distractions.

I was going to start a thread on this, but this is an ideal place to post my observations fresh from only two days ago. The DAB tuner was a Pure - full width separate item - so probably not a bad example of the recent state of the art in DAB terms.

I shall be sticking with my Leak tuner and ESL, and as I positively dislike stereo, I have no plan to "upgrade" to stereophonic VHF/FM reception.

Just two pennies" worth from George. All the best ...
Click to expand...

‘An effect like a "suck out" or sort of filtering that silenced moments of ambience’

Like a vacuum draining all of the oxygen. This is what I was trying to describe earlier. I also find it in the streams. The fm tuner sound has a frisson, a breathing quality that appears to be lost in the streams and DAB. Though as I said before, and as you have identified, DAB is in no way crap. My FIL bought the first Arcam DAB years ago. He was initially impressed by the silent backgrounds but over time that seeming advantage seemed to become a detractor and he quickly went back to. Magnum Dynalab tuner. It’s his favourite source.
 
A radio engineer explained to me that the digital streams before analogue transmitters were 320 kbs at best.
FM does indeed deteriorate those already less than perfect streams further, not the opposite.
What we like, he told me, is distortion. And it makes perfect sense.
It’s a psycho-acoustic trick, like vinyl.
 
chartz said:
A radio engineer explained to me that the digital streams before analogue transmitters were 320 kbs at best.
FM does indeed deteriorate those already less than perfect streams further, not the opposite.
What we like, he told me, is distortion. And it makes perfect sense.
It’s a psycho-acoustic trick, like vinyl.
Click to expand...
Like vinyl.
 
Can't comment on non-BBC FM. However BBC FM tries to match the performance envelope of the FM stereo system.

In practice that means they apply some complex level compression. The audible result tends to make it sound 'warmer' as the sustain parts of notes/chords is lifted in level relative to starting transients. This means that you can hear the hall reverb more clearly, for example. The NICAM they use to send to the transmitters fits the same limits which arise in practice with FM.

Stereo on FM tends to lead to higher distortion, for reasons baked into the FM system before stereo came along. Hence you tend to get lower distortion and noise if listening in mono *particularly* if the source material being transmitted is also mono. Stereo was in reality an ingenious bodge. Amazing that it works as well as it does!

Shame that there is no-one now like Angus McKenzie or Fred Judd who used to explain these things in the maagzines, and who knew how to really check out FM tuners *and* what was transmitted. Magazines seem to have given up on FM.
 
Del monaco said:
The 402 sounds like a bit of a bargain.
Click to expand...

Just checked; that's the one I got (for £25) to replace my newly serviced 01 (sold £1250!!!!). Bargain is an understatement as I simply didn't suffer any downsides at all apart from the fiddly push-button tuning (oh yes, the colour too :)). My comparative analysis of the two only indicated very subtle differences and each gained or lost a smidgen, leaving a 'no loss, no gain' scenario, apart from the financial aspect.

One thing I like about radio is that someone else chooses the music and I occasionally hear new stuff. Being an 'anachrophile', though, I much prefer the old stuff.
 
Mike Reed said:
Just checked; that's the one I got (for £25) to replace my newly serviced 01 (sold £1250!!!!). Bargain is an understatement as I simply didn't suffer any downsides at all apart from the fiddly push-button tuning (oh yes, the colour too :)). My comparative analysis of the two only indicated very subtle differences and each gained or lost a smidgen, leaving a 'no loss, no gain' scenario, apart from the financial aspect.

One thing I like about radio is that someone else chooses the music and I occasionally hear new stuff. Being an 'anachrophile', though, I much prefer the old stuff.
Click to expand...
I’d heard that the NADs were good. Same for the Creek gear.I’ll look out for a well looked after T43 at some stage but the T40 is a bit of a gem. Probably a later iteration as it does not drift.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.


advertisement


Back
Top