Quad Fm3 question

[Tony L]

The newer PCB with RCA sockets was wonderfully made and and the caps didn’t leak. The only problem was dull sound because of ageing coupling caps.

Mine is a rev 6, so second to final, and has been fully recapped and the over-keen bass-sucking rumble-filter dramatically reduced. It is a really nice preamp and may well be where I end up (with a 303 and 149s) if I ever downsize. The only minor irritation is it doesn’t remember the last input when you turn it on and always defaults to tuner. I may alter this at some point, IIRC it can be changed by swapping some cap values on the switch board (I’d far prefer it defaulted to the phono stage).

 

[davidsrsb]

The FM3 uses the venerable MC1310 stereo decoder. These do suffer from centre frequency drift, there is a pot RV100 that needs to be adjusted to get the PLL circuit tuned correctly.
Don't touch any of the RF coils in this model

 

[Mike Reed]

Borrowed a friend's Troughline with T.de P. decoder a few years back. Lovely lush sound but no dynamics at all. Mind you, it prob. needed some interior attention.

Seriously, if one wanted to achieve optimum music listening quality from a tuner, a Quad is not the route I'd recommend; great for experimentation though. 'Orses for courses though.

 

[Tony L]

Seriously, if one wanted to achieve optimum music listening quality from a tuner, a Quad is not the route I'd recommend; great for experimentation though. 'Orses for courses though.

I don’t view FM as a hi-fi source anymore. It used to be, live R3 concerts and Peel Sessions used to sound amazing (and amazing via an FM3!), but now I’m all but certain they are just the DAB or web digital with the additional bandwidth limiting of FM. I spent quite some time comparing my Sony ST-5150 (a very nice 5-gang early-70s tuner) with BBC Sounds via my iPhone and the DAC of my Marantz SA-8003 SACD player on live Proms content a few years ago. My conclusion was the digital was ahead, not because it was “better”, but because the analogue was fed exactly the same and obviously had additional degrading FM encoding processes. My ears are no longer good enough to hear the bandwidth limitations of FM (it is out of the game around 14kHz IIRC), though I do think BBC quality has declined hugely in recent decades. I hear compression and limiting on everything now, whereas good live FM back in the ‘80s had a real liveness and ‘jump factor’ to it. It had dynamics.

As such I’d argue an FM3 was more than good enough to better anything on the airwaves it could pick up in the UK. R3 and R4 were the only good sounding stations aside from the very few live sessions on R1, and they are all hollowed-out shells of what they were. The BBC is really not in a good condition after decades of outsourcing etc.

 

[Mike Reed]

I don’t view FM as a hi-fi source anymore.

It certainly is for me, Tony, albeit only for a couple of prog's a week. I've never found the Proms' broadcast s.q. to be scintillating, even when I used to watch and listen on my 01 before digital created that time lapse. Sound straight from my TV (i.e. digital) via can amp/pre. is def. second best to what I can get from my tuner but I guess you meant other digital radio sources (which I don't have).

I listen to Music Planet (1600 Sat. aft's, which is a Marmite choice, albeit interesting in a global manner. When they have a group playing live in the studio or even their recordings of (folky) live events like the recent Glasgow one, the s.q. really is up there with other sources. Not sure one would attribute this level of quality and dynamics coming from 'steam radio'.

I've had a lot of tuners over the ages but those were with different systems/locations so not comparable. However, on my current system over the pst 4 or so years I've had 01, serviced 01 (same machine !), Cheapo NAD 402 and currenrly t.o.t.r. Akai from the late eighties. Same 6 element array on chimney and same coax, so comparisons can, I think, be fairly, if subjectively, compared. In true terms, the quality cannot match my CDP and esp. vinyl, but when listening to those occasional quality broadcasts, I'm simply not aware of any uptick when I go to one of my other sources directly after. I find myself continuing to listen to J-Z which follows, and I'm certainly not a modern jazz fan !

Like you, John Peel et el on seventies (and maybe later) radio were not just a delight, but the cause of recording activity on my R2R. Nothing like today then, in vinyl terms and no CD so radio def. was one of the chief sources. However, judging by what little I listen to, the potential s.q. from a good tuner is still very much up there; excluding internet as I've no idea about this medium, let alone experience.

 

[Tony L]

Sound straight from my TV (i.e. digital) via can amp/pre. is def. second best to what I can get from my tuner but I guess you meant other digital radio sources (which I don't have).

I was giving the digital a fair crack as it was from the BBC Sounds app on the iPhone via the inbuilt DAC of my Marantz SACD player. I’d expect that to be comfortably ahead of the standard analogue outs of a TV set. I was able to flick between the two sources, though there was a slight time delay.

The point I was trying to make is I think BBC FM is served exactly the same signal as FM. There seemed to be no difference in compression/limiting etc.

My suspicion is the FM stereo signal is no longer viewed by the BBC as a ‘high-end’ source and is just an additional process added to the digital stream so it can be picked up by what the BBC now no doubt view as ‘old fashioned radio sets’.

 

[Jim Audiomisc]

I don’t view FM as a hi-fi source anymore. It used to be, live R3 concerts and Peel Sessions used to sound amazing (and amazing via an FM3!), but now I’m all but certain they are just the DAB or web digital with the additional bandwidth limiting of FM. I spent quite some time comparing my Sony ST-5150 (a very nice 5-gang early-70s tuner) with BBC Sounds via my iPhone and the DAC of my Marantz SA-8003 SACD player on live Proms content a few years ago. My conclusion was the digital was ahead, not because it was “better”, but because the analogue was fed exactly the same and obviously had additional degrading FM encoding processes.

FM on pretty much all stations is now level compressed quite a lot. And when the mod level isn't low the required RF bandwidth limit means more intermod. So a different sound.

The iPlayer does dodge a lot of that for R3. But the other stations tend to have poor level control and added compression. Quite amazing how the level of R4 varies from one prog to another. No-one seems to keep an ear on that any more. Alas, I think most of the serious audio engineers have gone from the BBC so they playout whatever the programme makers supplied.

 

[Barrymagrec]

Quite amazing how the level of R4 varies from one prog to another. No-one seems to keep an ear on that any more. Alas, I think most of the serious audio engineers have gone from the BBC so they playout whatever the programme makers supplied.

I`m glad I`m not the only one to have noticed this. - have they given up on using PPMs or something?

 

[Tony L]

Quite amazing how the level of R4 varies from one prog to another. No-one seems to keep an ear on that any more. Alas, I think most of the serious audio engineers have gone from the BBC so they playout whatever the programme makers supplied.

Chances are the R4 programs are outsourced and made by entirely different production companies. R3 is likely more in-house, but even then I’d expect it to be a shadow of its former self. The BBC has been sold off, we just still get to pay for it!

Pop channels have always been terrible. The live studio sessions from the likes of Peel, Janis Long etc being the only exception. The rest was always compressed to sound ok on the mono speaker in a base-level Austin Maxi or whatever.

 

[The Captain]

Hi chaps,

update after testing the quad against my Arcam tuner. Like Tony I only intend to listen to R3. Not even Classic FM.

Actually the Arcam sounds a little -more- distorted than the Quad. But essentially the same, IE to me it seems/ feels like a reception issue. I will try shifting the Omni aerial back a bit in loft tmrw. Really my only option.

One thing I do notice though. The Arcam has a mono button, unlike the quad. Pressing this, the sound quality improves markedly. Almost perfect in fact. So I'll scoot back & read the replies- IIRC someone asked what the FM3 was like with the mono button engaged (another reply reminding them that alas it has no mono button).

Thanks, Capt

 

[ChrisS]

another reply reminding them that alas it has no mono button).

Try using the mono switch on the 32.5.

 

[Tony L]

To get true mono out of the FM3 without using a Quad 33 preamp you’ll need to wire up a special lead. The mono out is on one of the DIN pins.

 

[martin clark]

There's up to a full a 20dB SNR penalty for the decoding involved in using 'FM stereo' !
It's an artifact of how the whole thing works (& why some tuners have 'blend' controls; and why the FM4 handles such issues automatically - for example)

So - with a weak-ish signal, in fact even with a good one !: obvs 'Mono' is going to be very much quieter...

NB - let me check old notes, I made up a simple 2-way switch to add the further 2 choices of Blend (limiting stereo separation to about 10dB - which is all you really need, but with huge reduction in stereo noise - and a true-Mono [summed] outputs to my Onix BWD-1; very simple, utterly worth-it.

 

[The Captain]

Try using the mono switch on the 32.5.

Hi there Chris,

sorry I updated my post #1 to say I'll be using it with my Arcam alpha 3 amp, in my 2nd system upstairs (hence aerial a above the room in loft).

But surely my bad Quad stereo signal, in your suggestion, would still be a bad signal having been fed into the 32-5.. then on converted to mono-?

Anyway, what does this difference between my good mono signal, & my bad stereo signal, signify-? Simply a poor reception that I therefore cannot affect (with the omni aerial, in my loft: this is my only option: there seems little point spending £60 to pay a builder to hop onto my roof & attatch it there.. if I have etablished I -do- live a so-so area for FM reception, an expensive 'gamble' which might not be any different in results).

Thanks, Capt

 

[martin clark]

@The Captain

I would not worry about it - the 'noise' is an out-of-phase problem:
- so whether you fix it at the tuner-input (expensive, directional aerial, which may still-not-solve...)
- or, just use the 'mono' switch

== same thing: quiet signal, happy listening.

Listen more, worry less. Enjoy. ATB!

 

[The Captain]

@The Captain

I would not worry about it - the 'noise' is an out-of-phase problem:
- so whether you fix it at the tuner-input (expensive, directional aerial, which may still-not-solve...)
- or, just use the 'mono' switch

== same thing: quiet signal, happy listening.

Listen more, worry less. Enjoy. ATB!

Ho Martin,

b b but I don't have a mono switch on the FM3.

Capt

 

[martin clark]

... let me look into that ...

 

[Mike Reed]

One thing I do notice though. The Arcam has a mono button, unlike the quad. Pressing this, the sound quality improves markedly. Almost perfect in fact. So I'll scoot back & read the replies- IIRC someone asked what the FM3 was like with the mono button engaged (another reply reminding them that alas it has no mono button).

Think this was me, as I've found that to create a strong stereo signal requires a lot more aerial input than a mono one. This has been so on every tuner I can remember in this situation although in fairness I've always had more than adequate antennae (up to Galaxie 23 on rotator), so rarely did I have problems of a weak signal.

Almost to prove a point, my old bread 'n' butter Sony receiver in the kitchen area relies upon a simple metre plus internal aerial stuck up against a long high window as I have no access to installing an exterior one. As I predominately listen to news, I listen in mono as the stereo signal is both weak and variable and the Sony meter shows it clearly. If I stuck the Sony onto my main aerial rig it would probably start dancing.

I think you have indeed identified your problem though possibly it was a foregone conclusion. However, I could be wrong as different areas/topographies require different remedial solutions. I have no technical knowledge but a fair bit of tuner experience in Canterbury, Ramsgate and Norwich over 50 years. Even as a student in '72 or thereabouts I thought signal reception was key and clambered up the pitched roof from my third floor bedsit to affix an 8 element Antiference array onto a mast and on the chimney. As I'm hopeless with heights I simply can't understand why or how I did that as it was a 4 storey drop to concrete pavement. Must've been utterly mad but hifi was quite a popular pull then. Student time tuners were Stereofetic, Revox and upper Pioneer as I remember.

 

[davidsrsb]

Using the mono button on the amplifier (they are vanishing these days too) is not the same or as effective as disabling the stereo decoder.
Stereo uses a L-R difference signal that has been AM modulated onto a 38 KHz subcarrier. The upper sideband of this signal goes up to 53 KHz and is vulnerable to the IF filtering and neighbouring channels.
Looking at the schematic of the FM3, it has old style LC filtering, not the more accurate ceramic filters found in later tuners and no narrow/wide option, so it was probably developed with the pre-commercial radio band plan with widely spaced stations in mind

 

[Jim Audiomisc]

Chances are the R4 programs are outsourced and made by entirely different production companies. R3 is likely more in-house, but even then I’d expect it to be a shadow of its former self. The BBC has been sold off, we just still get to pay for it!

Yes. The problem with level consistency on R4 (and the other speech channels) is that the BBC has essentially dumped all its in-house balance engineering and rely on the ( "arm's length" nominally commercial) "BBC Studios" and/or "independent production companies" for a lot of its output. What they get in is also very compressed as delivered. They then simply play out the supplied recordings and let Optimod control any serious flaws. Judging the 'loudness' of speech or music is a skilled job. A PPM won't do it.

R3 is more in-house, but often under pressure due to factors like "drive time" in-car listening and people using crap receivers. So also pumps the Optimod more than it used to.

The top of the BBC is more concerned about TV, so give that most of the budget and attention.

Over all that is, of course, Tories who hate the BBC and look for any excuse to cut it, dilute it, or abolish it.

You can see a classic result in the way BBC Radio for *years* ran items on the Post Office scandle whilst BBC TV did virtually nothing. And I'm still awaiting the BBC notice what's happening on Teesside 'Free (sic) Ports' whilst PE has been reporting on it for a LONG time.