Tuners UKP150 and less
 

I need to replace my analogue tuner (Denon TU260 Mk1) which has died
following damage while in storage. I was going to simply go for a MkII,
but noticed that there are a lot of Arcam tuners around second-hand
(mostly T61). I found four around £150 and would stretch to that if it
represented a major step up. Does it?
--
Nic

Tuners UKP150 and less
 

In article , Nicolas Hodges
writes
I need to replace my analogue tuner (Denon TU260 Mk1) which has died
following damage while in storage. I was going to simply go for a MkII,
but noticed that there are a lot of Arcam tuners around second-hand
(mostly T61). I found four around £150 and would stretch to that if it
represented a major step up. Does it?

Don't think so, get a TU260 MK2 an excellent performer!. Buy from
Richersounds quite expensive elsewhere.

But most important of all make sure the aerial system is as good as it
can be, that's even more important than the tuner:)
--
Tony Sayer

Tuners UKP150 and less
 

"Nicolas Hodges" wrote in message
...
I need to replace my analogue tuner (Denon TU260 Mk1) which has died
following damage while in storage. I was going to simply go for a MkII,
but noticed that there are a lot of Arcam tuners around second-hand
(mostly T61). I found four around £150 and would stretch to that if it
represented a major step up. Does it?


Not in my book.

I have yet to hear a tuner that is better than my £20 Luxman. Right now I'm
listening to Strav's Petrushka (sp?) with various percussion in the left
speaker and various toots in the right speaker. Not impressed? - I am, the
bloody tuner's switched to mono! (See Tony's post about aerials...)

There's 761 tuners on eBay atm - eBay Auction No 5710494843 is a 4 year old
Kenwood tuner at £5 with 16 hours to go....

Tuners UKP150 and less
 

Keith G writes

"Nicolas Hodges" wrote in message
...
I need to replace my analogue tuner (Denon TU260 Mk1) which has died
following damage while in storage. I was going to simply go for a MkII,
but noticed that there are a lot of Arcam tuners around second-hand
(mostly T61). I found four around £150 and would stretch to that if it
represented a major step up. Does it?

Not in my book.

Thanks.

I have yet to hear a tuner that is better than my £20 Luxman.

Not wanting to be facetious, but what else have you heard? (I was just
offered a mid-range Magnum Dynalab for £450 for example...)

re aerial: I am getting someone round to do sort it out. Are all FM
aerials the same? (I am 20 miles from a big transmitter.)

re Ebay: I'd prefer something new, so the Denon mkII at Richer (£85)
sounds good to me.
--
Nic

Tuners UKP150 and less
 

"Nicolas Hodges" wrote in message
...
Keith G writes

"Nicolas Hodges" wrote in message
...
I need to replace my analogue tuner (Denon TU260 Mk1) which has died
following damage while in storage. I was going to simply go for a MkII,
but noticed that there are a lot of Arcam tuners around second-hand
(mostly T61). I found four around £150 and would stretch to that if it
represented a major step up. Does it?

Not in my book.

Thanks.

I have yet to hear a tuner that is better than my £20 Luxman.

Not wanting to be facetious, but what else have you heard?


Many - *only yesterday* I listened to a Trio (Kenwood) KT-917 and Sony
STD777ES in the same house and would not swap my Lux for either of them - to
give you a clue, the plonker who owns them was trying to demonstrate them
with Classic FM (and DAB on the Sony)..... :-)


(I was just
offered a mid-range Magnum Dynalab for £450 for example...)


OK, haven't heard one of them but if you're a bit prone to 'names' then how
about these:

Sugden DT28 on 5710478782 @ £77 atm

Marantz ST-17 on 5710517402 @ £190 atm.....

Denon TU-260L on 5710060490 @ £5 atm....

(and another on 5710547727 @ £10 atm)

Sony STD 777ES on 5710670853 @ £155 atm...

or a Technics STGT1000 on 5710556855 @ £160 atm (had one of these - gave it
away!)

- all with less than a day to go!

(personally, I would also be looking at the Armstrong duo on 5710087956...)



re aerial: I am getting someone round to do sort it out. Are all FM
aerials the same?


No.


(I am 20 miles from a big transmitter.)

.... can be a mixed blessing..... ;-)


re Ebay: I'd prefer something new, so the Denon mkII at Richer (£85)
sounds good to me.


Oki doki, it's your money......

Tuners UKP150 and less
 

Nicolas Hodges wrote:

re Ebay: I'd prefer something new, so the Denon mkII at Richer (£85)
sounds good to me.

If you're near richer, you must try the Cambridge T500. Just buy that one.

--
slightly greasy solar atoms...

Tuners UKP150 and less
 

I have yet to hear a tuner that is better than my £20 Luxman.

Not wanting to be facetious, but what else have you heard?

Hi!

I agree with all the comments about Ebay.

I bought a Trio KT-7500 for about £50 from there and haven't regretted it.

As other posters have said though its the aerial that really makes the
difference.

Regards

David

Tuners UKP150 and less
 

In article , Nicolas Hodges
writes
Keith G writes

"Nicolas Hodges" wrote in message
...
I need to replace my analogue tuner (Denon TU260 Mk1) which has died
following damage while in storage. I was going to simply go for a MkII,
but noticed that there are a lot of Arcam tuners around second-hand
(mostly T61). I found four around £150 and would stretch to that if it
represented a major step up. Does it?

Not in my book.

Thanks.

I have yet to hear a tuner that is better than my £20 Luxman.

Not wanting to be facetious, but what else have you heard? (I was just
offered a mid-range Magnum Dynalab for £450 for example...)

re aerial: I am getting someone round to do sort it out. Are all FM
aerials the same? (I am 20 miles from a big transmitter.)

No their not, you'd do well to get a Triax or Antiference that have
proper matching devices in their dipole connectors. The ones used by
most riggers are the cheap and cheerful Maxview contract ones. Get one
from www.CPC.co.uk and ask him to put it up about four elements is a
good compromise re gain freedom from multipath etc...

re Ebay: I'd prefer something new, so the Denon mkII at Richer (£85)
sounds good to me.

Yes they are we know of someone who uses these for re-broadcast purposes
and they do measure very well too!......

--
Tony Sayer

Tuners UKP150 and less
 

In article , Keith G
writes

"Nicolas Hodges" wrote in message
...
Keith G writes

"Nicolas Hodges" wrote in message
...
I need to replace my analogue tuner (Denon TU260 Mk1) which has died
following damage while in storage. I was going to simply go for a MkII,
but noticed that there are a lot of Arcam tuners around second-hand
(mostly T61). I found four around £150 and would stretch to that if it
represented a major step up. Does it?

Not in my book.

Thanks.

I have yet to hear a tuner that is better than my £20 Luxman.

Not wanting to be facetious, but what else have you heard?


Many - *only yesterday* I listened to a Trio (Kenwood) KT-917 and Sony
STD777ES in the same house and would not swap my Lux for either of them - to
give you a clue, the plonker who owns them was trying to demonstrate them
with Classic FM (and DAB on the Sony)..... :-)

Christ!, Who's that who's got the KT917?, is he interested in selling
it?.

BTW what did you do for a signal Keith;?......


(I was just
offered a mid-range Magnum Dynalab for £450 for example...)


OK, haven't heard one of them but if you're a bit prone to 'names' then how
about these:

Sugden DT28 on 5710478782 @ £77 atm

Marantz ST-17 on 5710517402 @ £190 atm.....

Denon TU-260L on 5710060490 @ £5 atm....

(and another on 5710547727 @ £10 atm)

Sony STD 777ES on 5710670853 @ £155 atm...

or a Technics STGT1000 on 5710556855 @ £160 atm (had one of these - gave it
away!)

- all with less than a day to go!

(personally, I would also be looking at the Armstrong duo on 5710087956...)



re aerial: I am getting someone round to do sort it out. Are all FM
aerials the same?


No.


(I am 20 miles from a big transmitter.)

... can be a mixed blessing..... ;-)


re Ebay: I'd prefer something new, so the Denon mkII at Richer (£85)
sounds good to me.


Oki doki, it's your money......



I'd still got for the MK2 Denon or a REVOX B261 or similar or an
Audiolab T8000 if you can find one:)
--
Tony Sayer

Tuners UKP150 and less
 

In article ,
Nicolas Hodges wrote:
re aerial: I am getting someone round to do sort it out. Are all FM
aerials the same? (I am 20 miles from a big transmitter.)

No. And the round omni types that are so popular with riggers are about
the worst possible choice.

--
*'ome is where you 'ang your @ *

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

Tuners UKP150 and less
 

Nicolas Hodges wrote:

I need to replace my analogue tuner (Denon TU260 Mk1) which has died
following damage while in storage. I was going to simply go for a MkII,
but noticed that there are a lot of Arcam tuners around second-hand
(mostly T61). I found four around £150 and would stretch to that if it
represented a major step up. Does it?

I'm very happy with my Mk2. On a recent trip to Richer Sounds I noticed it
was available for around £90.

--
Now Playing: something else

Tuners UKP150 and less
 

"tony sayer" wrote


Christ!, Who's that who's got the KT917?, is he interested in selling
it?.


Answered direct, but it's the geezer whose DM2As I'm auditioning and I bet
he ain't selling it....!! ;-)


BTW what did you do for a signal Keith;?......


Just the same yard of wet string you've seen, which gives me this sort of
thing:


http://www.apah69.dsl.pipex.com/keit.../radioclip.mp3


Not a particularly impressive piece of recording (much chopped up to keep
the filesize down) but gives you an idea of what my £20 Lux sounds like and
reminds me that I've heard a lot of poor voiceovers and interviews lately -
with a very 'boggy' sound (as in recorded in a public bog) that I get with
my own efforts at open mic recordings.....


.......and also raises the issue that I *really* will have to something about
a proper aerial before it's too damn late - when either FM or I will get
switched off!!

When FM radio (2 in the evenings often and 3 most of the time) hits the
spot, which it frequently does, it really is the best 'audio' you can get
and is altogether better than any TV or digital sound!

(The pictures are better as well......)

Tuners UKP150 and less
 

Nicolas Hodges wrote:
Keith G writes

"Nicolas Hodges" wrote in message
...
I need to replace my analogue tuner (Denon TU260 Mk1) which has died
following damage while in storage. I was going to simply go for a
MkII, but noticed that there are a lot of Arcam tuners around
second-hand (mostly T61). I found four around £150 and would
stretch to that if it represented a major step up. Does it?

Not in my book.

Thanks.

I have yet to hear a tuner that is better than my £20 Luxman.

Not wanting to be facetious, but what else have you heard? (I was just
offered a mid-range Magnum Dynalab for £450 for example...)

re aerial: I am getting someone round to do sort it out. Are all FM
aerials the same? (I am 20 miles from a big transmitter.)

re Ebay: I'd prefer something new, so the Denon mkII at Richer (£85)
sounds good to me.


If you can get a Magnum for £450 buy it, ok there not cheep but I wish I
had bought one years ago.

I have the "Etude" now replaced by the MD-100 never heard anything better in
25 years plus.

I listen to enough radio, that if FM switch off gets put back, 10 years I
would upgrade to the MD-108 :-)



--
Dave xxxx
www.davewhitter.myby.co.uk

Music is Art - Audio is Engineering
Steam is Fun

Tuners UKP150 and less
 

In article , Keith G wrote:

When FM radio (2 in the evenings often and 3 most of the time) hits the
spot, which it frequently does, it really is the best 'audio' you can get
and is altogether better than any TV or digital sound!

I agree entirely on the superb quality of analogue FM broadcasts when
they do hit the spot.

However, on the subject of "better than any ... digital sound" sorry to
quibble but I believe the UK national "analogue FM" transmtter network
is fed with digital NICAM-encoded content. Assuming I'm right, even
though the transmission is analogue FM the source is still digital.
And what's more it's just 14-bit digital at 32 ksamples/sec before we
even get to the issue of 10-bit NICAM transcoding.

Back to BBC Radio 3 FM, I think the signal is compressed to prevent
over-deviation and keep low-level detail above the transmission system's
noise floor. It certainly sounds "warm" to me compared to DAB (yes I
know about the arguments but at least R3 gets some bandwidth). This does
not detract from my keen enjoyment of the best of R3 on FM, BTW.

--
John Phillips

Tuners UKP150 and less
 

In article , Fleetie wrote:
"John Phillips" wrote
In article , Keith G wrote:

When FM radio (2 in the evenings often and 3 most of the time) hits the
spot, which it frequently does, it really is the best 'audio' you can get
and is altogether better than any TV or digital sound!

I agree entirely on the superb quality of analogue FM broadcasts when
they do hit the spot.

However, on the subject of "better than any ... digital sound" sorry to
quibble but I believe the UK national "analogue FM" transmtter network
is fed with digital NICAM-encoded content. Assuming I'm right, even
though the transmission is analogue FM the source is still digital.
And what's more it's just 14-bit digital at 32 ksamples/sec before we
even get to the issue of 10-bit NICAM transcoding.

32ks/s (==16kHz bandwidth)? Isn't FM capable of up to 19kHz? ISTR hearing
that, or at least, that the difference signal (?) is stuck up 19kHz above
the main signal.

You are right about there being a pilot tone at 19 kHz and the stereo
difference signal above this centred on 38 kHz but the audio bandwidth
of FM is only 15 kHz (you need margin for anti-alias filtering
relative to the 16 kHz max for 32 ksample/s). See for example
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu.../radio.html#c2

--
John Phillips

Tuners UKP150 and less
 

"John Phillips" wrote
In article , Keith G wrote:

When FM radio (2 in the evenings often and 3 most of the time) hits the
spot, which it frequently does, it really is the best 'audio' you can get
and is altogether better than any TV or digital sound!

I agree entirely on the superb quality of analogue FM broadcasts when
they do hit the spot.

However, on the subject of "better than any ... digital sound" sorry to
quibble but I believe the UK national "analogue FM" transmtter network
is fed with digital NICAM-encoded content. Assuming I'm right, even
though the transmission is analogue FM the source is still digital.
And what's more it's just 14-bit digital at 32 ksamples/sec before we
even get to the issue of 10-bit NICAM transcoding.

32ks/s (==16kHz bandwidth)? Isn't FM capable of up to 19kHz? ISTR hearing
that, or at least, that the difference signal (?) is stuck up 19kHz above
the main signal.


Martin
--
M.A.Poyser Tel.: 07967 110890
Manchester, U.K. http://www.fleetie.demon.co.uk

Tuners UKP150 and less
 

On Sun, 25 Jul 2004 17:13:33 GMT, "Fleetie"
wrote:

"John Phillips" wrote
In article , Keith G wrote:

When FM radio (2 in the evenings often and 3 most of the time) hits the
spot, which it frequently does, it really is the best 'audio' you can get
and is altogether better than any TV or digital sound!

I agree entirely on the superb quality of analogue FM broadcasts when
they do hit the spot.

However, on the subject of "better than any ... digital sound" sorry to
quibble but I believe the UK national "analogue FM" transmtter network
is fed with digital NICAM-encoded content. Assuming I'm right, even
though the transmission is analogue FM the source is still digital.
And what's more it's just 14-bit digital at 32 ksamples/sec before we
even get to the issue of 10-bit NICAM transcoding.

32ks/s (==16kHz bandwidth)? Isn't FM capable of up to 19kHz? ISTR hearing
that, or at least, that the difference signal (?) is stuck up 19kHz above
the main signal.

Yes, it is, which means a 'brick-wall' filter from 15kHz to suppress
the pilot tone, since brick walls weren't so high back in the '50s!
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

Tuners UKP150 and less
 

In article , John Phillips
writes
In article , Keith G wrote:

When FM radio (2 in the evenings often and 3 most of the time) hits the
spot, which it frequently does, it really is the best 'audio' you can get
and is altogether better than any TV or digital sound!

I agree entirely on the superb quality of analogue FM broadcasts when
they do hit the spot.

However, on the subject of "better than any ... digital sound" sorry to
quibble but I believe the UK national "analogue FM" transmtter network
is fed with digital NICAM-encoded content. Assuming I'm right, even
though the transmission is analogue FM the source is still digital.
And what's more it's just 14-bit digital at 32 ksamples/sec before we
even get to the issue of 10-bit NICAM transcoding.

Which is quite OK for the 15 K that is required for the FM system. In
fact its referred to as NICAM "728" which is give or take the odd bit
the bitrate in use. Most all modern FM modulators are very high spec'ed
units these days, so not too surprising that the FM signal is as good as
it is:)

Course it can suffer from distortions added in via multipath etc so
that's why you still need a good aerial system to get the best from it.

If the BBC saw digital transmission as a real high quality format they'd
declare DAB to be a low quality "quantity over quality" system and make
digital satellite really motor. They could transmit linear PCM over that
and hardly notice it, they could have even used 256 K/bits like some
German broadcasters do, but we're stuck with 192 so digital quality has
a wholly different meaning when applied to broadcast:(

Back to BBC Radio 3 FM, I think the signal is compressed to prevent
over-deviation and keep low-level detail above the transmission system's
noise floor. It certainly sounds "warm" to me compared to DAB (yes I
know about the arguments but at least R3 gets some bandwidth). This does
not detract from my keen enjoyment of the best of R3 on FM, BTW.

Sometimes the processor settings do alter as the day wears on.....


--
Tony Sayer

Tuners UKP150 and less
 

In article , Fleetie
writes
"John Phillips" wrote
In article , Keith G wrote:

When FM radio (2 in the evenings often and 3 most of the time) hits the
spot, which it frequently does, it really is the best 'audio' you can get
and is altogether better than any TV or digital sound!

I agree entirely on the superb quality of analogue FM broadcasts when
they do hit the spot.

However, on the subject of "better than any ... digital sound" sorry to
quibble but I believe the UK national "analogue FM" transmtter network
is fed with digital NICAM-encoded content. Assuming I'm right, even
though the transmission is analogue FM the source is still digital.
And what's more it's just 14-bit digital at 32 ksamples/sec before we
even get to the issue of 10-bit NICAM transcoding.

32ks/s (==16kHz bandwidth)? Isn't FM capable of up to 19kHz? ISTR hearing
that, or at least, that the difference signal (?) is stuck up 19kHz above
the main signal.


Martin

No its rolled off very sharply at just over 15 kHz as the stereo pilot
tone sits on 19 kHz which is doubled and forms the 38 kHz basis for the
"stereo difference" signal.....
--
Tony Sayer

Tuners UKP150 and less
 

In article , Dave Plowman (News)
writes
In article ,
Nicolas Hodges wrote:
re aerial: I am getting someone round to do sort it out. Are all FM
aerials the same? (I am 20 miles from a big transmitter.)

No. And the round omni types that are so popular with riggers are about
the worst possible choice.


In fact the losses on these are around 15 odd dB's!!, much better is the
vertical single dipole, but sod all aerial riggers know that much about
FM these days:(

In a lot of instances you'd be better off doing the job yourself:)
--
Tony Sayer

Tuners UKP150 and less
 

On Mon, 26 Jul 2004 09:40:05 +0100, tony sayer
wrote:

In article , Dave Plowman (News)
writes
In article ,
Nicolas Hodges wrote:
re aerial: I am getting someone round to do sort it out. Are all FM
aerials the same? (I am 20 miles from a big transmitter.)

No. And the round omni types that are so popular with riggers are about
the worst possible choice.


In fact the losses on these are around 15 odd dB's!!, much better is the
vertical single dipole, but sod all aerial riggers know that much about
FM these days:(

In a lot of instances you'd be better off doing the job yourself:)

I would never recommend a vertical dipole for FM. By far the worst
problem that causes distortion in FM is multipath reception, and a
vertical dipole does nothing for that. Just like for analogue TV, you
need as much directivity as you can put on your roof to get a decent
FM signal. A nice, big Yagi is the way to do that.

Of course, if you aren't interested in Hi Fi quality, but just want to
get as many stations as you can from all round, then by all means go
with the vertical dipole.

d
Pearce Consulting
http://www.pearce.uk.com

Tuners UKP150 and less
 

In article ,
Stewart Pinkerton wrote:
32ks/s (==16kHz bandwidth)? Isn't FM capable of up to 19kHz? ISTR
hearing that, or at least, that the difference signal (?) is stuck up
19kHz above the main signal.

Yes, it is, which means a 'brick-wall' filter from 15kHz to suppress the
pilot tone, since brick walls weren't so high back in the '50s!

Or didn't bother - as Quad with the FM3.

--
*Make it idiot-proof and someone will make a better idiot.

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

Tuners UKP150 and less
 

"Don Pearce" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 26 Jul 2004 09:40:05 +0100, tony sayer
wrote:

In article , Dave Plowman (News)
writes
In article ,
Nicolas Hodges wrote:
re aerial: I am getting someone round to do sort it out. Are all FM
aerials the same? (I am 20 miles from a big transmitter.)

No. And the round omni types that are so popular with riggers are about
the worst possible choice.


In fact the losses on these are around 15 odd dB's!!, much better is the
vertical single dipole, but sod all aerial riggers know that much about
FM these days:(

In a lot of instances you'd be better off doing the job yourself:)

I would never recommend a vertical dipole for FM. By far the worst
problem that causes distortion in FM is multipath reception, and a
vertical dipole does nothing for that. Just like for analogue TV, you
need as much directivity as you can put on your roof to get a decent
FM signal. A nice, big Yagi is the way to do that.

Of course, if you aren't interested in Hi Fi quality, but just want to
get as many stations as you can from all round, then by all means go
with the vertical dipole.

d
Pearce Consulting
http://www.pearce.uk.com

But if you want Hi Fi quality and also the means of getting as many stations
as you can from all round then get that nice big Yagi and a rotator....but
actually logging all those 'new' stations is a tad anorak ;-)

Tuners UKP150 and less
 

On Mon, 26 Jul 2004 10:55:55 +0100, "Mike Gilmour"
wrote:


"Don Pearce" wrote in message
.. .
On Mon, 26 Jul 2004 09:40:05 +0100, tony sayer
wrote:

In article , Dave Plowman (News)
writes
In article ,
Nicolas Hodges wrote:
re aerial: I am getting someone round to do sort it out. Are all FM
aerials the same? (I am 20 miles from a big transmitter.)

No. And the round omni types that are so popular with riggers are about
the worst possible choice.


In fact the losses on these are around 15 odd dB's!!, much better is the
vertical single dipole, but sod all aerial riggers know that much about
FM these days:(

In a lot of instances you'd be better off doing the job yourself:)

I would never recommend a vertical dipole for FM. By far the worst
problem that causes distortion in FM is multipath reception, and a
vertical dipole does nothing for that. Just like for analogue TV, you
need as much directivity as you can put on your roof to get a decent
FM signal. A nice, big Yagi is the way to do that.

Of course, if you aren't interested in Hi Fi quality, but just want to
get as many stations as you can from all round, then by all means go
with the vertical dipole.

d
Pearce Consulting
http://www.pearce.uk.com

But if you want Hi Fi quality and also the means of getting as many stations
as you can from all round then get that nice big Yagi and a rotator....but
actually logging all those 'new' stations is a tad anorak ;-)


Overkill. Just have a Yagi and an omni on the roof. Plug in the Yagi
for Hi Fi listening, and the omni for all those other stations.

d
Pearce Consulting
http://www.pearce.uk.com

Tuners UKP150 and less
 

In article , John Phillips
wrote:


Back to BBC Radio 3 FM, I think the signal is compressed to prevent
over-deviation and keep low-level detail above the transmission system's
noise floor. It certainly sounds "warm" to me compared to DAB (yes I
know about the arguments but at least R3 gets some bandwidth). This
does not detract from my keen enjoyment of the best of R3 on FM, BTW.

I am not sure how representitive it was, but a friend and I did a
comparison a year or two ago. He recorded onto CDR from his DAB tuner.
(Forgotten the model.) I recorded the same concert from FM (Yamaha CT7000)
onto a CDR. We then made copies and swapped them for comparison. The
broadcast was a lunchtime concert R3 broadcast of various solo piano items.

We both also felt the FM was 'warmer' (or similar attempts to describe the
difference in English! ;- ).

However I also did a statistical analysis of the two. The FM loudness
distribution showed a 'kink' starting at about the -12dB level w.r.t peaks.
This took about 6dB off the peak level of the FM relative to the steady
level compared with DAB.

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. :-)

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
 

In article , Stewart Pinkerton
wrote:
On Sun, 25 Jul 2004 17:13:33 GMT, "Fleetie"
wrote:


32ks/s (==16kHz bandwidth)? Isn't FM capable of up to 19kHz? ISTR
hearing that, or at least, that the difference signal (?) is stuck up
19kHz above the main signal.

Yes, it is, which means a 'brick-wall' filter from 15kHz to suppress the
pilot tone, since brick walls weren't so high back in the '50s!

IIRC It was common on some of the early stereo decoders to use notch
filters to kill the 19 and/or 38 kHz, combined with a relatively slow lpf.
This was a fiddle to set up for nulling the 19 kHz, but meant you could
avoid having a more demanding design to make on a production line.

Again IIRC the 'Toko' filters that were often used in the 1970's and 80's
also had an alignment that notched down at these frequencies to give
improved 19/38 rejection values without having to have ultra-high brickwall
cutoff for their LP slope.

By way of comparion, an old mono Leak Troughline I have leaks 19, 38, and
indeed, IF, like a sieve from its audio outputs. Filters? What are they?
Its got a time-constant. What more do you want?... 8-]

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
 

In article , Dave Plowman (News)
wrote:
In article , Stewart
Pinkerton wrote:
32ks/s (==16kHz bandwidth)? Isn't FM capable of up to 19kHz? ISTR
hearing that, or at least, that the difference signal (?) is stuck up
19kHz above the main signal.

Yes, it is, which means a 'brick-wall' filter from 15kHz to suppress
the pilot tone, since brick walls weren't so high back in the '50s!

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?

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
 

In article , Don Pearce
writes
On Mon, 26 Jul 2004 09:40:05 +0100, tony sayer
wrote:

In article , Dave Plowman (News)
writes
In article ,
Nicolas Hodges wrote:
re aerial: I am getting someone round to do sort it out. Are all FM
aerials the same? (I am 20 miles from a big transmitter.)

No. And the round omni types that are so popular with riggers are about
the worst possible choice.


In fact the losses on these are around 15 odd dB's!!, much better is the
vertical single dipole, but sod all aerial riggers know that much about
FM these days:(

In a lot of instances you'd be better off doing the job yourself:)

I would never recommend a vertical dipole for FM. By far the worst
problem that causes distortion in FM is multipath reception, and a
vertical dipole does nothing for that. Just like for analogue TV, you
need as much directivity as you can put on your roof to get a decent
FM signal. A nice, big Yagi is the way to do that.

Of course, if you aren't interested in Hi Fi quality, but just want to
get as many stations as you can from all round, then by all means go
with the vertical dipole.

d
Pearce Consulting
http://www.pearce.uk.com

Quite Don, I was concurring with Dave that if you want a simple FM
aerial up from the bit of wire or rabbits ears, than a Vert dipole was
better than a Halo, course a directional array 4 or 5 elements is the
way to go....
--
Tony Sayer

Tuners UKP150 and less
 

In article , tony sayer wrote:
In article , John Phillips
writes
However, on the subject of "better than any ... digital sound" sorry to
quibble but I believe the UK national "analogue FM" transmtter network
is fed with digital NICAM-encoded content. Assuming I'm right, even
though the transmission is analogue FM the source is still digital.
And what's more it's just 14-bit digital at 32 ksamples/sec before we
even get to the issue of 10-bit NICAM transcoding.

Which is quite OK for the 15 K that is required for the FM system. In
fact its referred to as NICAM "728" which is give or take the odd bit
the bitrate in use. Most all modern FM modulators are very high spec'ed
units these days, so not too surprising that the FM signal is as good as
it is:)

Quite right. You make the point more eloquently than I did that digital
audio even at a rather lower spec. than normal today can and does sound
superb in spite of it being digital.

--
John Phillips

Tuners UKP150 and less
 

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.

--
*Ah, I see the f**k-up fairy has visited us again

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

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