Tuners UKP150 and less
 

In article ,
Jim Lesurf wrote:
Or didn't bother - as Quad with the FM3.

Afraid I am not sure what you mean. The diagrams and descriptions I have
for the FM3 show third-order (?) LP filters after the output from the
1310 stereo decoder. These follow the time-contants which also tend to
roll down HF. Do you mean something else, or an earlier tuner?

It caused 'whistles' on both my 1/4" tape machines by beating with the
bias. I ended up adding a Toko filter that you mentioned earlier. Mine is
a very early FM3, though.

--
*The first rule of holes: If you are in one, stop digging!

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

Tuners UKP150 and less
 

In article , Jim Lesurf wrote:
We both also felt the FM was 'warmer' (or similar attempts to describe the
difference in English! ;- ).

Yes. My first take was that compared to DVB the FM sound was "fatter",
perhaps "busier". I settled for "warmer" but that may also be used for
other effects.

Our opinions divided as to which we preferred at the time. :-)

I first of all wondered about whether I liked this "thin", "cold" DVB
BBC Radio 3 sound after listening to live FM broadcasts on a Quad FM4
for many years. However I soon found R3/DVB to just as enjoyable.

I suspect most people have their immediate preferences but they do adapt
and enjoy any reasonable music source.

--
John Phillips

Tuners UKP150 and less
 

In article , Dave Plowman (News)
wrote:
In article , Jim Lesurf
wrote:
Or didn't bother - as Quad with the FM3.

Afraid I am not sure what you mean. The diagrams and descriptions I
have for the FM3 show third-order (?) LP filters after the output from
the 1310 stereo decoder. These follow the time-contants which also
tend to roll down HF. Do you mean something else, or an earlier tuner?

It caused 'whistles' on both my 1/4" tape machines by beating with the
bias. I ended up adding a Toko filter that you mentioned earlier. Mine
is a very early FM3, though.

I can't recall details off-hand, but I think that the Toko filters tended
to be higher order than 3rd.[1] Hence they probably suppress the 38kHz,
etc, more efficiently than the simple active filters in the FM3. Also, for
all I know, early FM3's may not have had the same filter arrangement as in
the circuit I have.

FWIW with the same decoder IC, the Armstrong 600 used the Toko filters.
They just 'did the job' as passive cans we just bought and fitted with no
need to twiddle or align values. Making up your own filters was a pain for
various reasons. Not surprising that Toko and Alps ended up being the guts
of many UK tuners. :-)

[1] My memory is saying 6th or 8th, but that may be incorrect.

Slainte,

Jim

--
Electronics http://www.st-and.ac.uk/~www_pa/Scot...o/electron.htm
Audio Misc http://www.st-and.demon.co.uk/AudioMisc/index.html
Armstrong Audio http://www.st-and.demon.co.uk/Audio/armstrong.html
Barbirolli Soc. http://www.st-and.demon.co.uk/JBSoc/JBSoc.html

Tuners UKP150 and less
 

Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
Jim Lesurf wrote:
Or didn't bother - as Quad with the FM3.

Afraid I am not sure what you mean. The diagrams and descriptions I
have for the FM3 show third-order (?) LP filters after the output
from the 1310 stereo decoder. These follow the time-contants which
also tend to roll down HF. Do you mean something else, or an earlier
tuner?

It caused 'whistles' on both my 1/4" tape machines by beating with the
bias. I ended up adding a Toko filter that you mentioned earlier.
Mine is a very early FM3, though.


Hence the MPX (mulitplex) filters on tape decks - those which don't have a
switch generally have it on all the time. Which reminds me, must get my
cassette deck fixed one day...


--
slightly greasy solar atoms...

Tuners UKP150 and less
 

In article ,
Tim S Kemp wrote:
It caused 'whistles' on both my 1/4" tape machines by beating with the
bias. I ended up adding a Toko filter that you mentioned earlier. Mine
is a very early FM3, though.


Hence the MPX (mulitplex) filters on tape decks - those which don't have
a switch generally have it on all the time. Which reminds me, must get
my cassette deck fixed one day...

Given that it's not an audio signal, it's the job of the tuner to remove
it. Filtering the input to a tape machine is fine if it's switchable, but
not, given that it's within the audible range. Assuming the tape machine
is capable of recording and reproducing it, of course.

--
*Yes, I am an agent of Satan, but my duties are largely ceremonial

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

Tuners UKP150 and less
 

Hi,

In message , "Dave Plowman (News)"
writes
In article ,
Jim Lesurf wrote:
The difference seemed to be that transients on FM were being compressed
by up to 6dB relative to DAB. The result on the piano music we had
recorded was that on FM the sustained body of notes and chords seemed to
be more noticable compared with the transients. In effect, the result
was more 'sustain' and 'warmth'.

Our opinions divided as to which we preferred at the time. :-)

My early VideoLogic DAB tuner sounded very bright compared to any of my FM
tuners, so I simply rolled it off to match. I sort of assumed this was
done deliberately to make it sound 'better' than FM at the time. It wasn't
just my sample either - a second one I tried was the same.

If it was the first revision of the 601 (if I recall the model number
correctly) then it was deliberate. They later issued a revision with the
higher frequencies tamed; the ES suffix I believe. I was working at
VideoLogic at that time, and there was some disagreement over how it
should be 'voiced'. I didn't like the early version at all.

--
Regards,
Glenn Booth

Tuners UKP150 and less
 

In article , Glenn Booth
writes
Hi,

In message , "Dave Plowman (News)"
writes
In article ,
Jim Lesurf wrote:
The difference seemed to be that transients on FM were being compressed
by up to 6dB relative to DAB. The result on the piano music we had
recorded was that on FM the sustained body of notes and chords seemed to
be more noticable compared with the transients. In effect, the result
was more 'sustain' and 'warmth'.

Our opinions divided as to which we preferred at the time. :-)

My early VideoLogic DAB tuner sounded very bright compared to any of my FM
tuners, so I simply rolled it off to match. I sort of assumed this was
done deliberately to make it sound 'better' than FM at the time. It wasn't
just my sample either - a second one I tried was the same.

If it was the first revision of the 601 (if I recall the model number
correctly) then it was deliberate. They later issued a revision with the
higher frequencies tamed; the ES suffix I believe. I was working at
VideoLogic at that time, and there was some disagreement over how it
should be 'voiced'. I didn't like the early version at all.


"Voiced" indeed!, should be referred to what's transmitted

Hurrumpp!...
--
Tony Sayer

Tuners UKP150 and less
 

In article ,
Glenn Booth wrote:
My early VideoLogic DAB tuner sounded very bright compared to any of my
FM tuners, so I simply rolled it off to match. I sort of assumed this
was done deliberately to make it sound 'better' than FM at the time. It
wasn't just my sample either - a second one I tried was the same.

If it was the first revision of the 601 (if I recall the model number
correctly) then it was deliberate. They later issued a revision with the
higher frequencies tamed; the ES suffix I believe. I was working at
VideoLogic at that time, and there was some disagreement over how it
should be 'voiced'. I didn't like the early version at all.

Interesting. Why anyone should decide to 'voice' something purported to
offer the ultimate in radio quality - as was thought at the time - defeats
me. It certainly wasn't subtle - IIRC it was about +6dB at 5k.

Was the alteration in hardware or software? Mine feeds a distribution
system, so I tweaked the buffer amp.

--
*When the going gets tough, use duct tape

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

Tuners UKP150 and less
 

Hi,

In message , "Dave Plowman (News)"
writes
In article ,
Glenn Booth wrote:
My early VideoLogic DAB tuner sounded very bright compared to any of my
FM tuners, so I simply rolled it off to match. I sort of assumed this
was done deliberately to make it sound 'better' than FM at the time. It
wasn't just my sample either - a second one I tried was the same.

If it was the first revision of the 601 (if I recall the model number
correctly) then it was deliberate. They later issued a revision with the
higher frequencies tamed; the ES suffix I believe. I was working at
VideoLogic at that time, and there was some disagreement over how it
should be 'voiced'. I didn't like the early version at all.

Interesting. Why anyone should decide to 'voice' something purported to
offer the ultimate in radio quality - as was thought at the time - defeats
me. It certainly wasn't subtle - IIRC it was about +6dB at 5k.

I never understood why either, but 6dB sounds about right. It always
sounded really harsh and bright to me, and prone to the high frequency
'twittering' (if you'll excuse the technical terminology!) that can
sometimes happen with DAB.

Was the alteration in hardware or software? Mine feeds a distribution
system, so I tweaked the buffer amp.

Sorry, I don't remember how the eq was done. I seem to recall that the
later version had a a -3dB treble shelf above about 1.5kHz on the
analogue outputs, so that much at least was probably hardware.

--
Regards,
Glenn Booth

Tuners UKP150 and less
 

Glenn Booth wrote:

Was the alteration in hardware or software? Mine feeds a distribution
system, so I tweaked the buffer amp.

Sorry, I don't remember how the eq was done. I seem to recall that the
later version had a a -3dB treble shelf above about 1.5kHz on the
analogue outputs, so that much at least was probably hardware.


So that's why the FM pass-through sounds so crap!


--
Steve - www.digitalradiotech.co.uk - Digital Radio News & Info

DAB sounds worse than FM, Freeview, digital satellite, cable and
broadband internet radio