I own a top-end model ( back then) Zenith 26 " T.V, with A.M & F.M,
Turntable Console and a mid 70's Kenwood Eleven model reciever. Why
is the tuner portion of the Kenwood so small (and held in high esteem
by some) and the tuner in the Zenith mammoth in comparison? Did
technolgy advance that much in just 5 to 7 years? Or is the older
Zenith a better tuner?

In , on 06/28/04
at 09:36 PM, (Bryan Dibble) said:

I own a top-end model ( back then) Zenith 26 " T.V, with A.M & F.M,
Turntable Console and a mid 70's Kenwood Eleven model reciever. Why
is the tuner portion of the Kenwood so small (and held in high esteem
by some) and the tuner in the Zenith mammoth in comparison? Did
technolgy advance that much in just 5 to 7 years? Or is the older
Zenith a better tuner?

By modern standards neither tuner is very good.

TV tuners used different technology that was physically larger back
then. The TV tuner stepped through the channels with a big mechanical
switch and the receiver tuned using a continuous method. TV tuners also
need to tune over a wider band than radio.

-----------------------------------------------------------
spam:
wordgame:123(abc):14 9 20 5 2 9 18 4 at 22 15 9 3 5 14 5 20 dot 3 15
13 (Barry Mann)
[sorry about the puzzle, spammers are ruining my mailbox]
-----------------------------------------------------------

In , on 06/28/04
at 09:36 PM, (Bryan Dibble) said:

I own a top-end model ( back then) Zenith 26 " T.V, with A.M & F.M,
Turntable Console and a mid 70's Kenwood Eleven model reciever. Why
is the tuner portion of the Kenwood so small (and held in high esteem
by some) and the tuner in the Zenith mammoth in comparison? Did
technolgy advance that much in just 5 to 7 years? Or is the older
Zenith a better tuner?

By modern standards neither tuner is very good.

TV tuners used different technology that was physically larger back
then. The TV tuner stepped through the channels with a big mechanical
switch and the receiver tuned using a continuous method. TV tuners also
need to tune over a wider band than radio.

-----------------------------------------------------------
spam:
wordgame:123(abc):14 9 20 5 2 9 18 4 at 22 15 9 3 5 14 5 20 dot 3 15
13 (Barry Mann)
[sorry about the puzzle, spammers are ruining my mailbox]
-----------------------------------------------------------

In , on 06/28/04
at 09:36 PM, (Bryan Dibble) said:

I own a top-end model ( back then) Zenith 26 " T.V, with A.M & F.M,
Turntable Console and a mid 70's Kenwood Eleven model reciever. Why
is the tuner portion of the Kenwood so small (and held in high esteem
by some) and the tuner in the Zenith mammoth in comparison? Did
technolgy advance that much in just 5 to 7 years? Or is the older
Zenith a better tuner?

By modern standards neither tuner is very good.

TV tuners used different technology that was physically larger back
then. The TV tuner stepped through the channels with a big mechanical
switch and the receiver tuned using a continuous method. TV tuners also
need to tune over a wider band than radio.

-----------------------------------------------------------
spam:
wordgame:123(abc):14 9 20 5 2 9 18 4 at 22 15 9 3 5 14 5 20 dot 3 15
13 (Barry Mann)
[sorry about the puzzle, spammers are ruining my mailbox]
-----------------------------------------------------------

I'm not at all sure I would agree regarding the Kenwood tuner. My experience
with a number of Kenwood tuners and receivers from back then is they were
much better tuners than the average crap that's sold today. More sensitive,
better sounding, beats them just about every which way.

I had a long thread regarding this type of thing with Trevor Wilson a while
back. Bottom line in my opinion is that while it is certainly possible to
make an excellent digital tuner, most manufacturers simply use the latest
technology to make tuners, and tuner sections, CHEAPER TO MANUFACTURE, not
to perform better. The excellent Yamaha and Nakamichi tuners Trevor was
favoring were themselves 10-15 years old or more.


Mark Z.

--
Please reply only to Group. I regret this is necessary. Viruses and spam
have rendered my regular e-mail address useless.


"Barry Mann" wrote in message
om...
In , on 06/28/04
at 09:36 PM, (Bryan Dibble) said:

I own a top-end model ( back then) Zenith 26 " T.V, with A.M & F.M,
Turntable Console and a mid 70's Kenwood Eleven model reciever. Why
is the tuner portion of the Kenwood so small (and held in high esteem
by some) and the tuner in the Zenith mammoth in comparison? Did
technolgy advance that much in just 5 to 7 years? Or is the older
Zenith a better tuner?

By modern standards neither tuner is very good.

TV tuners used different technology that was physically larger back
then. The TV tuner stepped through the channels with a big mechanical
switch and the receiver tuned using a continuous method. TV tuners also
need to tune over a wider band than radio.

-----------------------------------------------------------
spam:
wordgame:123(abc):14 9 20 5 2 9 18 4 at 22 15 9 3 5 14 5 20 dot 3 15
13 (Barry Mann)
[sorry about the puzzle, spammers are ruining my mailbox]
-----------------------------------------------------------

I'm not at all sure I would agree regarding the Kenwood tuner. My experience
with a number of Kenwood tuners and receivers from back then is they were
much better tuners than the average crap that's sold today. More sensitive,
better sounding, beats them just about every which way.

I had a long thread regarding this type of thing with Trevor Wilson a while
back. Bottom line in my opinion is that while it is certainly possible to
make an excellent digital tuner, most manufacturers simply use the latest
technology to make tuners, and tuner sections, CHEAPER TO MANUFACTURE, not
to perform better. The excellent Yamaha and Nakamichi tuners Trevor was
favoring were themselves 10-15 years old or more.


Mark Z.

--
Please reply only to Group. I regret this is necessary. Viruses and spam
have rendered my regular e-mail address useless.


"Barry Mann" wrote in message
om...
In , on 06/28/04
at 09:36 PM, (Bryan Dibble) said:

I own a top-end model ( back then) Zenith 26 " T.V, with A.M & F.M,
Turntable Console and a mid 70's Kenwood Eleven model reciever. Why
is the tuner portion of the Kenwood so small (and held in high esteem
by some) and the tuner in the Zenith mammoth in comparison? Did
technolgy advance that much in just 5 to 7 years? Or is the older
Zenith a better tuner?

By modern standards neither tuner is very good.

TV tuners used different technology that was physically larger back
then. The TV tuner stepped through the channels with a big mechanical
switch and the receiver tuned using a continuous method. TV tuners also
need to tune over a wider band than radio.

-----------------------------------------------------------
spam:
wordgame:123(abc):14 9 20 5 2 9 18 4 at 22 15 9 3 5 14 5 20 dot 3 15
13 (Barry Mann)
[sorry about the puzzle, spammers are ruining my mailbox]
-----------------------------------------------------------

I'm not at all sure I would agree regarding the Kenwood tuner. My experience
with a number of Kenwood tuners and receivers from back then is they were
much better tuners than the average crap that's sold today. More sensitive,
better sounding, beats them just about every which way.

I had a long thread regarding this type of thing with Trevor Wilson a while
back. Bottom line in my opinion is that while it is certainly possible to
make an excellent digital tuner, most manufacturers simply use the latest
technology to make tuners, and tuner sections, CHEAPER TO MANUFACTURE, not
to perform better. The excellent Yamaha and Nakamichi tuners Trevor was
favoring were themselves 10-15 years old or more.


Mark Z.

--
Please reply only to Group. I regret this is necessary. Viruses and spam
have rendered my regular e-mail address useless.


"Barry Mann" wrote in message
om...
In , on 06/28/04
at 09:36 PM, (Bryan Dibble) said:

I own a top-end model ( back then) Zenith 26 " T.V, with A.M & F.M,
Turntable Console and a mid 70's Kenwood Eleven model reciever. Why
is the tuner portion of the Kenwood so small (and held in high esteem
by some) and the tuner in the Zenith mammoth in comparison? Did
technolgy advance that much in just 5 to 7 years? Or is the older
Zenith a better tuner?

By modern standards neither tuner is very good.

TV tuners used different technology that was physically larger back
then. The TV tuner stepped through the channels with a big mechanical
switch and the receiver tuned using a continuous method. TV tuners also
need to tune over a wider band than radio.

-----------------------------------------------------------
spam:
wordgame:123(abc):14 9 20 5 2 9 18 4 at 22 15 9 3 5 14 5 20 dot 3 15
13 (Barry Mann)
[sorry about the puzzle, spammers are ruining my mailbox]
-----------------------------------------------------------

In , on 06/29/04
at 04:51 AM, "Mark D. Zacharias" said:

I'm not at all sure I would agree regarding the Kenwood tuner. My
experience with a number of Kenwood tuners and receivers from back
then is they were much better tuners than the average crap that's sold
today. More sensitive, better sounding, beats them just about every
which way.

I had a long thread regarding this type of thing with Trevor Wilson a
while back. Bottom line in my opinion is that while it is certainly
possible to make an excellent digital tuner, most manufacturers simply
use the latest technology to make tuners, and tuner sections, CHEAPER
TO MANUFACTURE, not to perform better. The excellent Yamaha and
Nakamichi tuners Trevor was favoring were themselves 10-15 years old
or more.

The early solid state tuners had front end overload problems in US
urban areas. In relatively easy surburban or remote areas they were
fine. The designers had never been to the US and could not appreciate
how many strong stations we had. In the mid 70's more robust designs
emerged from the industry leaders.

I home brewed a solid state tuner that was wonderful in the suburbs,
but was barely usable in the city.

I agree that most current tuners are a disappointment, particularly AM
tuners. I'm now seeing a few overload problems that were gone in the
80's and 90's. The current tuners are inexpensive, very stable, but
don't seem to have any "heart". Part of the cost cutting is removal of
some of the adjustment points. It's true that we have much better
production control over the tuner components and a simpler alignment
(adjustment) scheme is possible, but I think we've gone too far and
taken out too many adjustments. (Some of the older, really fine tuners
are exteremly difficult to align, but they are wonderful when freshly
aligned)

-----------------------------------------------------------
spam:
wordgame:123(abc):14 9 20 5 2 9 18 4 at 22 15 9 3 5 14 5 20 dot 3 15
13 (Barry Mann)
[sorry about the puzzle, spammers are ruining my mailbox]
-----------------------------------------------------------

In , on 06/29/04
at 04:51 AM, "Mark D. Zacharias" said:

I'm not at all sure I would agree regarding the Kenwood tuner. My
experience with a number of Kenwood tuners and receivers from back
then is they were much better tuners than the average crap that's sold
today. More sensitive, better sounding, beats them just about every
which way.

I had a long thread regarding this type of thing with Trevor Wilson a
while back. Bottom line in my opinion is that while it is certainly
possible to make an excellent digital tuner, most manufacturers simply
use the latest technology to make tuners, and tuner sections, CHEAPER
TO MANUFACTURE, not to perform better. The excellent Yamaha and
Nakamichi tuners Trevor was favoring were themselves 10-15 years old
or more.

The early solid state tuners had front end overload problems in US
urban areas. In relatively easy surburban or remote areas they were
fine. The designers had never been to the US and could not appreciate
how many strong stations we had. In the mid 70's more robust designs
emerged from the industry leaders.

I home brewed a solid state tuner that was wonderful in the suburbs,
but was barely usable in the city.

I agree that most current tuners are a disappointment, particularly AM
tuners. I'm now seeing a few overload problems that were gone in the
80's and 90's. The current tuners are inexpensive, very stable, but
don't seem to have any "heart". Part of the cost cutting is removal of
some of the adjustment points. It's true that we have much better
production control over the tuner components and a simpler alignment
(adjustment) scheme is possible, but I think we've gone too far and
taken out too many adjustments. (Some of the older, really fine tuners
are exteremly difficult to align, but they are wonderful when freshly
aligned)

-----------------------------------------------------------
spam:
wordgame:123(abc):14 9 20 5 2 9 18 4 at 22 15 9 3 5 14 5 20 dot 3 15
13 (Barry Mann)
[sorry about the puzzle, spammers are ruining my mailbox]
-----------------------------------------------------------

In , on 06/29/04
at 04:51 AM, "Mark D. Zacharias" said:

I'm not at all sure I would agree regarding the Kenwood tuner. My
experience with a number of Kenwood tuners and receivers from back
then is they were much better tuners than the average crap that's sold
today. More sensitive, better sounding, beats them just about every
which way.

I had a long thread regarding this type of thing with Trevor Wilson a
while back. Bottom line in my opinion is that while it is certainly
possible to make an excellent digital tuner, most manufacturers simply
use the latest technology to make tuners, and tuner sections, CHEAPER
TO MANUFACTURE, not to perform better. The excellent Yamaha and
Nakamichi tuners Trevor was favoring were themselves 10-15 years old
or more.

The early solid state tuners had front end overload problems in US
urban areas. In relatively easy surburban or remote areas they were
fine. The designers had never been to the US and could not appreciate
how many strong stations we had. In the mid 70's more robust designs
emerged from the industry leaders.

I home brewed a solid state tuner that was wonderful in the suburbs,
but was barely usable in the city.

I agree that most current tuners are a disappointment, particularly AM
tuners. I'm now seeing a few overload problems that were gone in the
80's and 90's. The current tuners are inexpensive, very stable, but
don't seem to have any "heart". Part of the cost cutting is removal of
some of the adjustment points. It's true that we have much better
production control over the tuner components and a simpler alignment
(adjustment) scheme is possible, but I think we've gone too far and
taken out too many adjustments. (Some of the older, really fine tuners
are exteremly difficult to align, but they are wonderful when freshly
aligned)

-----------------------------------------------------------
spam:
wordgame:123(abc):14 9 20 5 2 9 18 4 at 22 15 9 3 5 14 5 20 dot 3 15
13 (Barry Mann)
[sorry about the puzzle, spammers are ruining my mailbox]
-----------------------------------------------------------

Barry Mann wrote:
In , on 06/29/04
at 04:51 AM, "Mark D. Zacharias" said:


I'm not at all sure I would agree regarding the Kenwood tuner. My
experience with a number of Kenwood tuners and receivers from back
then is they were much better tuners than the average crap that's sold
today. More sensitive, better sounding, beats them just about every
which way.


I had a long thread regarding this type of thing with Trevor Wilson a
while back. Bottom line in my opinion is that while it is certainly
possible to make an excellent digital tuner, most manufacturers simply
use the latest technology to make tuners, and tuner sections, CHEAPER
TO MANUFACTURE, not to perform better. The excellent Yamaha and
Nakamichi tuners Trevor was favoring were themselves 10-15 years old
or more.


The early solid state tuners had front end overload problems in US
urban areas. In relatively easy surburban or remote areas they were
fine. The designers had never been to the US and could not appreciate
how many strong stations we had. In the mid 70's more robust designs
emerged from the industry leaders.

I home brewed a solid state tuner that was wonderful in the suburbs,
but was barely usable in the city.

I agree that most current tuners are a disappointment, particularly AM
tuners. I'm now seeing a few overload problems that were gone in the
80's and 90's. The current tuners are inexpensive, very stable, but
don't seem to have any "heart". Part of the cost cutting is removal of
some of the adjustment points. It's true that we have much better
production control over the tuner components and a simpler alignment
(adjustment) scheme is possible, but I think we've gone too far and
taken out too many adjustments. (Some of the older, really fine tuners
are exteremly difficult to align, but they are wonderful when freshly
aligned)

-----------------------------------------------------------
spam:
wordgame:123(abc):14 9 20 5 2 9 18 4 at 22 15 9 3 5 14 5 20 dot 3 15
13 (Barry Mann)
[sorry about the puzzle, spammers are ruining my mailbox]
-----------------------------------------------------------

My impression is that since no one cares about FM anymore, what with
satellite and MP3 radio opening up new horizons, manufacturers have
followed suit. A brand new FM tuner of today doesn't have half the
capabilities of those of 10 or so years ago. I happily prefer used
tuners these days. Here's agreat link of FM tuner enthusiasts, and
Kenwoods still seem to ROCK;


http://fmtunerinfo.com/



CD

Barry Mann wrote:
In , on 06/29/04
at 04:51 AM, "Mark D. Zacharias" said:


I'm not at all sure I would agree regarding the Kenwood tuner. My
experience with a number of Kenwood tuners and receivers from back
then is they were much better tuners than the average crap that's sold
today. More sensitive, better sounding, beats them just about every
which way.


I had a long thread regarding this type of thing with Trevor Wilson a
while back. Bottom line in my opinion is that while it is certainly
possible to make an excellent digital tuner, most manufacturers simply
use the latest technology to make tuners, and tuner sections, CHEAPER
TO MANUFACTURE, not to perform better. The excellent Yamaha and
Nakamichi tuners Trevor was favoring were themselves 10-15 years old
or more.


The early solid state tuners had front end overload problems in US
urban areas. In relatively easy surburban or remote areas they were
fine. The designers had never been to the US and could not appreciate
how many strong stations we had. In the mid 70's more robust designs
emerged from the industry leaders.

I home brewed a solid state tuner that was wonderful in the suburbs,
but was barely usable in the city.

I agree that most current tuners are a disappointment, particularly AM
tuners. I'm now seeing a few overload problems that were gone in the
80's and 90's. The current tuners are inexpensive, very stable, but
don't seem to have any "heart". Part of the cost cutting is removal of
some of the adjustment points. It's true that we have much better
production control over the tuner components and a simpler alignment
(adjustment) scheme is possible, but I think we've gone too far and
taken out too many adjustments. (Some of the older, really fine tuners
are exteremly difficult to align, but they are wonderful when freshly
aligned)

-----------------------------------------------------------
spam:
wordgame:123(abc):14 9 20 5 2 9 18 4 at 22 15 9 3 5 14 5 20 dot 3 15
13 (Barry Mann)
[sorry about the puzzle, spammers are ruining my mailbox]
-----------------------------------------------------------

My impression is that since no one cares about FM anymore, what with
satellite and MP3 radio opening up new horizons, manufacturers have
followed suit. A brand new FM tuner of today doesn't have half the
capabilities of those of 10 or so years ago. I happily prefer used
tuners these days. Here's agreat link of FM tuner enthusiasts, and
Kenwoods still seem to ROCK;


http://fmtunerinfo.com/



CD

Barry Mann wrote:
In , on 06/29/04
at 04:51 AM, "Mark D. Zacharias" said:


I'm not at all sure I would agree regarding the Kenwood tuner. My
experience with a number of Kenwood tuners and receivers from back
then is they were much better tuners than the average crap that's sold
today. More sensitive, better sounding, beats them just about every
which way.


I had a long thread regarding this type of thing with Trevor Wilson a
while back. Bottom line in my opinion is that while it is certainly
possible to make an excellent digital tuner, most manufacturers simply
use the latest technology to make tuners, and tuner sections, CHEAPER
TO MANUFACTURE, not to perform better. The excellent Yamaha and
Nakamichi tuners Trevor was favoring were themselves 10-15 years old
or more.


The early solid state tuners had front end overload problems in US
urban areas. In relatively easy surburban or remote areas they were
fine. The designers had never been to the US and could not appreciate
how many strong stations we had. In the mid 70's more robust designs
emerged from the industry leaders.

I home brewed a solid state tuner that was wonderful in the suburbs,
but was barely usable in the city.

I agree that most current tuners are a disappointment, particularly AM
tuners. I'm now seeing a few overload problems that were gone in the
80's and 90's. The current tuners are inexpensive, very stable, but
don't seem to have any "heart". Part of the cost cutting is removal of
some of the adjustment points. It's true that we have much better
production control over the tuner components and a simpler alignment
(adjustment) scheme is possible, but I think we've gone too far and
taken out too many adjustments. (Some of the older, really fine tuners
are exteremly difficult to align, but they are wonderful when freshly
aligned)

-----------------------------------------------------------
spam:
wordgame:123(abc):14 9 20 5 2 9 18 4 at 22 15 9 3 5 14 5 20 dot 3 15
13 (Barry Mann)
[sorry about the puzzle, spammers are ruining my mailbox]
-----------------------------------------------------------

My impression is that since no one cares about FM anymore, what with
satellite and MP3 radio opening up new horizons, manufacturers have
followed suit. A brand new FM tuner of today doesn't have half the
capabilities of those of 10 or so years ago. I happily prefer used
tuners these days. Here's agreat link of FM tuner enthusiasts, and
Kenwoods still seem to ROCK;


http://fmtunerinfo.com/



CD

In , on 06/29/04
at 11:57 AM, Codifus said:

[ ... ]

My impression is that since no one cares about FM anymore

[ ... ]

In the late 80's manufacturers tried to hold or lower prices. I started
to see some of the "beef" being taken out, then home theater hit and
continues to distract everyone. Using modern techonology it is possible
to cheapen tuners in a way that does not show up when tested with
service and commercial grade test equipment and methods. The savings is
then used to add other features that are easier to sell. (It takes a
while to teach, then demonstrate the benefits of a better tuner, but a
flashy button sells itself in a second.)

Also, the reviewers are so fascinated with the gizmos, they don't pay
much attention to the bread and butter stuff.

I'm also not seeing very many customers who appreciate a good tuner. If
a radio seems to "pull in" their favorite station, it must be OK.

I'm also wondering if there are many broadcasters who are obsessed with
quality. Most, seem to be following some sort of corporate formula that
attempts to maximize revenue. In my area it's mostly follow the market
leader because the other guy's format is "greener".

-----------------------------------------------------------
spam:
wordgame:123(abc):14 9 20 5 2 9 18 4 at 22 15 9 3 5 14 5 20 dot 3 15
13 (Barry Mann)
[sorry about the puzzle, spammers are ruining my mailbox]
-----------------------------------------------------------

In , on 06/29/04
at 11:57 AM, Codifus said:

[ ... ]

My impression is that since no one cares about FM anymore

[ ... ]

In the late 80's manufacturers tried to hold or lower prices. I started
to see some of the "beef" being taken out, then home theater hit and
continues to distract everyone. Using modern techonology it is possible
to cheapen tuners in a way that does not show up when tested with
service and commercial grade test equipment and methods. The savings is
then used to add other features that are easier to sell. (It takes a
while to teach, then demonstrate the benefits of a better tuner, but a
flashy button sells itself in a second.)

Also, the reviewers are so fascinated with the gizmos, they don't pay
much attention to the bread and butter stuff.

I'm also not seeing very many customers who appreciate a good tuner. If
a radio seems to "pull in" their favorite station, it must be OK.

I'm also wondering if there are many broadcasters who are obsessed with
quality. Most, seem to be following some sort of corporate formula that
attempts to maximize revenue. In my area it's mostly follow the market
leader because the other guy's format is "greener".

-----------------------------------------------------------
spam:
wordgame:123(abc):14 9 20 5 2 9 18 4 at 22 15 9 3 5 14 5 20 dot 3 15
13 (Barry Mann)
[sorry about the puzzle, spammers are ruining my mailbox]
-----------------------------------------------------------

In , on 06/29/04
at 11:57 AM, Codifus said:

[ ... ]

My impression is that since no one cares about FM anymore

[ ... ]

In the late 80's manufacturers tried to hold or lower prices. I started
to see some of the "beef" being taken out, then home theater hit and
continues to distract everyone. Using modern techonology it is possible
to cheapen tuners in a way that does not show up when tested with
service and commercial grade test equipment and methods. The savings is
then used to add other features that are easier to sell. (It takes a
while to teach, then demonstrate the benefits of a better tuner, but a
flashy button sells itself in a second.)

Also, the reviewers are so fascinated with the gizmos, they don't pay
much attention to the bread and butter stuff.

I'm also not seeing very many customers who appreciate a good tuner. If
a radio seems to "pull in" their favorite station, it must be OK.

I'm also wondering if there are many broadcasters who are obsessed with
quality. Most, seem to be following some sort of corporate formula that
attempts to maximize revenue. In my area it's mostly follow the market
leader because the other guy's format is "greener".

-----------------------------------------------------------
spam:
wordgame:123(abc):14 9 20 5 2 9 18 4 at 22 15 9 3 5 14 5 20 dot 3 15
13 (Barry Mann)
[sorry about the puzzle, spammers are ruining my mailbox]
-----------------------------------------------------------

Interest in FM tuners has waned because the sonic and musical quality
of FM broadcast has declined a lot. The use of Optimod and Orban
processing to achieve "dial impact", microformatted playlists, the
extensive use of crappy prosumer and PC audio gear in the signal
chain,etc. has made FM pretty undesirable to listen to. XM and Sirius
have some better programming but their audio is not as good as
traditional FM was.

A good hobby project is to get an old Delco or Philco car radio and
turn it into a good stereo FM tuner. The old car radios had superb
front ends, had to, and can be stripped of their audio amplifier
sections in any of several ways, or an earlier mono set may be used
with an MPX adapter clone-the coils are still available-by coming off
the IF section,if you have a car radio with the right second IF
frequency. The big problem is that you will need a stereo multiplex
generator, but I think that with some of the ICs out there you can
build one and cal it with a scope and an audio generator.

Interest in FM tuners has waned because the sonic and musical quality
of FM broadcast has declined a lot. The use of Optimod and Orban
processing to achieve "dial impact", microformatted playlists, the
extensive use of crappy prosumer and PC audio gear in the signal
chain,etc. has made FM pretty undesirable to listen to. XM and Sirius
have some better programming but their audio is not as good as
traditional FM was.

A good hobby project is to get an old Delco or Philco car radio and
turn it into a good stereo FM tuner. The old car radios had superb
front ends, had to, and can be stripped of their audio amplifier
sections in any of several ways, or an earlier mono set may be used
with an MPX adapter clone-the coils are still available-by coming off
the IF section,if you have a car radio with the right second IF
frequency. The big problem is that you will need a stereo multiplex
generator, but I think that with some of the ICs out there you can
build one and cal it with a scope and an audio generator.

Interest in FM tuners has waned because the sonic and musical quality
of FM broadcast has declined a lot. The use of Optimod and Orban
processing to achieve "dial impact", microformatted playlists, the
extensive use of crappy prosumer and PC audio gear in the signal
chain,etc. has made FM pretty undesirable to listen to. XM and Sirius
have some better programming but their audio is not as good as
traditional FM was.

A good hobby project is to get an old Delco or Philco car radio and
turn it into a good stereo FM tuner. The old car radios had superb
front ends, had to, and can be stripped of their audio amplifier
sections in any of several ways, or an earlier mono set may be used
with an MPX adapter clone-the coils are still available-by coming off
the IF section,if you have a car radio with the right second IF
frequency. The big problem is that you will need a stereo multiplex
generator, but I think that with some of the ICs out there you can
build one and cal it with a scope and an audio generator.

Comments inserted.

"Sam Byrams" wrote in message
om...
Interest in FM tuners has waned because the sonic and musical quality
of FM broadcast has declined a lot. The use of Optimod and Orban
processing to achieve "dial impact", microformatted playlists, the
extensive use of crappy prosumer and PC audio gear in the signal
chain,etc. has made FM pretty undesirable to listen to.

I agree, the signal processing is atrocious. There's 2 college stations in
my area which offer reasonably good sound. One especially is brilliant.
About 50 miles away, but worth recording on my PC and keeping as MP3's,
which I do.

XM and Sirius
have some better programming but their audio is not as good as
traditional FM was.

I was under the impression that these two digital services offered sound
about on a par with good MP3 sound. If true, this would exceed the
capabilities of traditional FM.


A good hobby project is to get an old Delco or Philco car radio and
turn it into a good stereo FM tuner. The old car radios had superb
front ends, had to, and can be stripped of their audio amplifier
sections in any of several ways, or an earlier mono set may be used
with an MPX adapter clone-the coils are still available-by coming off
the IF section,if you have a car radio with the right second IF
frequency. The big problem is that you will need a stereo multiplex
generator, but I think that with some of the ICs out there you can
build one and cal it with a scope and an audio generator.

Now there's a project for all us "old farts" !


Mark Z.

Comments inserted.

"Sam Byrams" wrote in message
om...
Interest in FM tuners has waned because the sonic and musical quality
of FM broadcast has declined a lot. The use of Optimod and Orban
processing to achieve "dial impact", microformatted playlists, the
extensive use of crappy prosumer and PC audio gear in the signal
chain,etc. has made FM pretty undesirable to listen to.

I agree, the signal processing is atrocious. There's 2 college stations in
my area which offer reasonably good sound. One especially is brilliant.
About 50 miles away, but worth recording on my PC and keeping as MP3's,
which I do.

XM and Sirius
have some better programming but their audio is not as good as
traditional FM was.

I was under the impression that these two digital services offered sound
about on a par with good MP3 sound. If true, this would exceed the
capabilities of traditional FM.


A good hobby project is to get an old Delco or Philco car radio and
turn it into a good stereo FM tuner. The old car radios had superb
front ends, had to, and can be stripped of their audio amplifier
sections in any of several ways, or an earlier mono set may be used
with an MPX adapter clone-the coils are still available-by coming off
the IF section,if you have a car radio with the right second IF
frequency. The big problem is that you will need a stereo multiplex
generator, but I think that with some of the ICs out there you can
build one and cal it with a scope and an audio generator.

Now there's a project for all us "old farts" !


Mark Z.

Comments inserted.

"Sam Byrams" wrote in message
om...
Interest in FM tuners has waned because the sonic and musical quality
of FM broadcast has declined a lot. The use of Optimod and Orban
processing to achieve "dial impact", microformatted playlists, the
extensive use of crappy prosumer and PC audio gear in the signal
chain,etc. has made FM pretty undesirable to listen to.

I agree, the signal processing is atrocious. There's 2 college stations in
my area which offer reasonably good sound. One especially is brilliant.
About 50 miles away, but worth recording on my PC and keeping as MP3's,
which I do.

XM and Sirius
have some better programming but their audio is not as good as
traditional FM was.

I was under the impression that these two digital services offered sound
about on a par with good MP3 sound. If true, this would exceed the
capabilities of traditional FM.


A good hobby project is to get an old Delco or Philco car radio and
turn it into a good stereo FM tuner. The old car radios had superb
front ends, had to, and can be stripped of their audio amplifier
sections in any of several ways, or an earlier mono set may be used
with an MPX adapter clone-the coils are still available-by coming off
the IF section,if you have a car radio with the right second IF
frequency. The big problem is that you will need a stereo multiplex
generator, but I think that with some of the ICs out there you can
build one and cal it with a scope and an audio generator.

Now there's a project for all us "old farts" !


Mark Z.

XM and Sirius
have some better programming but their audio is not as good as
traditional FM was.

This statement is total nonsense.

XM and Sirius
have some better programming but their audio is not as good as
traditional FM was.

This statement is total nonsense.

XM and Sirius
have some better programming but their audio is not as good as
traditional FM was.

This statement is total nonsense.

"D Ray" wrote in message
m
XM and Sirius
have some better programming but their audio is not as good as
traditional FM was.

This statement is total nonsense.

In some people's eyes it comes down to dueling artifacts. FM has plenty of
them unless you have ideal reception. Not that FM is free of artifacts when
you have ideal reception. Sirius and XM technology is based on perceptual
coding, so it still has some audible artifacts on the best day of its life.
Mostly different ones.

Right now the sound quality of FM is dominated by something other than the
limitations of the respective formats, so the discussion of the limitations
of the respective formats is not as important.

The real problem with FM is the hyper-processing that is almost totally
endemic.

"D Ray" wrote in message
m
XM and Sirius
have some better programming but their audio is not as good as
traditional FM was.

This statement is total nonsense.

In some people's eyes it comes down to dueling artifacts. FM has plenty of
them unless you have ideal reception. Not that FM is free of artifacts when
you have ideal reception. Sirius and XM technology is based on perceptual
coding, so it still has some audible artifacts on the best day of its life.
Mostly different ones.

Right now the sound quality of FM is dominated by something other than the
limitations of the respective formats, so the discussion of the limitations
of the respective formats is not as important.

The real problem with FM is the hyper-processing that is almost totally
endemic.

"D Ray" wrote in message
m
XM and Sirius
have some better programming but their audio is not as good as
traditional FM was.

This statement is total nonsense.

In some people's eyes it comes down to dueling artifacts. FM has plenty of
them unless you have ideal reception. Not that FM is free of artifacts when
you have ideal reception. Sirius and XM technology is based on perceptual
coding, so it still has some audible artifacts on the best day of its life.
Mostly different ones.

Right now the sound quality of FM is dominated by something other than the
limitations of the respective formats, so the discussion of the limitations
of the respective formats is not as important.

The real problem with FM is the hyper-processing that is almost totally
endemic.

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message ...
"D Ray" wrote in message
m
XM and Sirius
have some better programming but their audio is not as good as
traditional FM was.

This statement is total nonsense.

In some people's eyes it comes down to dueling artifacts. FM has plenty of
them unless you have ideal reception. Not that FM is free of artifacts when
you have ideal reception. Sirius and XM technology is based on perceptual
coding, so it still has some audible artifacts on the best day of its life.
Mostly different ones.

Right now the sound quality of FM is dominated by something other than the
limitations of the respective formats, so the discussion of the limitations
of the respective formats is not as important.

The real problem with FM is the hyper-processing that is almost totally
endemic.

Forgetting the fomat type or artificles (not specified), if an old
Declo or Phillips has a great front end, and process the signal well,
and can cleanly send it on to the amlifier section (better than a
Kenwood )(1974),why can' the Zenith, depending on who manufactured it,
compete or exceed the Kenwood's ability (not to mention whatever the
unusable FM Dolby circuit might add}.

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message ...
"D Ray" wrote in message
m
XM and Sirius
have some better programming but their audio is not as good as
traditional FM was.

This statement is total nonsense.

In some people's eyes it comes down to dueling artifacts. FM has plenty of
them unless you have ideal reception. Not that FM is free of artifacts when
you have ideal reception. Sirius and XM technology is based on perceptual
coding, so it still has some audible artifacts on the best day of its life.
Mostly different ones.

Right now the sound quality of FM is dominated by something other than the
limitations of the respective formats, so the discussion of the limitations
of the respective formats is not as important.

The real problem with FM is the hyper-processing that is almost totally
endemic.

Forgetting the fomat type or artificles (not specified), if an old
Declo or Phillips has a great front end, and process the signal well,
and can cleanly send it on to the amlifier section (better than a
Kenwood )(1974),why can' the Zenith, depending on who manufactured it,
compete or exceed the Kenwood's ability (not to mention whatever the
unusable FM Dolby circuit might add}.

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message ...
"D Ray" wrote in message
m
XM and Sirius
have some better programming but their audio is not as good as
traditional FM was.

This statement is total nonsense.

In some people's eyes it comes down to dueling artifacts. FM has plenty of
them unless you have ideal reception. Not that FM is free of artifacts when
you have ideal reception. Sirius and XM technology is based on perceptual
coding, so it still has some audible artifacts on the best day of its life.
Mostly different ones.

Right now the sound quality of FM is dominated by something other than the
limitations of the respective formats, so the discussion of the limitations
of the respective formats is not as important.

The real problem with FM is the hyper-processing that is almost totally
endemic.

Forgetting the fomat type or artificles (not specified), if an old
Declo or Phillips has a great front end, and process the signal well,
and can cleanly send it on to the amlifier section (better than a
Kenwood )(1974),why can' the Zenith, depending on who manufactured it,
compete or exceed the Kenwood's ability (not to mention whatever the
unusable FM Dolby circuit might add}.

Forgetting the fomat type or artificles (not specified), if an old
Declo or Phillips has a great front end, and process the signal well,
and can cleanly send it on to the amlifier section (better than a
Kenwood )(1974),why can' the Zenith, depending on who manufactured it,
compete or exceed the Kenwood's ability (not to mention whatever the
unusable FM Dolby circuit might add}.



Nobody gave a **** and/or they didn't want the build cost. Keep in
mind anyone in the sixties or seventies that bought a console was , by
definition, not an audiophile. You could buy a pair of AR speakers and
turntable and a Dynaco PAS preamp and Stereo 70 amp, and a television,
and a piece of solid wood furniture to put it all on, cheaper than the
big consoles. While not that great by modern standards they were
radically better than the consoles. Console-selling stores and
salesmen were "the enemy" in those days to real stereo buffs!

Forgetting the fomat type or artificles (not specified), if an old
Declo or Phillips has a great front end, and process the signal well,
and can cleanly send it on to the amlifier section (better than a
Kenwood )(1974),why can' the Zenith, depending on who manufactured it,
compete or exceed the Kenwood's ability (not to mention whatever the
unusable FM Dolby circuit might add}.



Nobody gave a **** and/or they didn't want the build cost. Keep in
mind anyone in the sixties or seventies that bought a console was , by
definition, not an audiophile. You could buy a pair of AR speakers and
turntable and a Dynaco PAS preamp and Stereo 70 amp, and a television,
and a piece of solid wood furniture to put it all on, cheaper than the
big consoles. While not that great by modern standards they were
radically better than the consoles. Console-selling stores and
salesmen were "the enemy" in those days to real stereo buffs!

Forgetting the fomat type or artificles (not specified), if an old
Declo or Phillips has a great front end, and process the signal well,
and can cleanly send it on to the amlifier section (better than a
Kenwood )(1974),why can' the Zenith, depending on who manufactured it,
compete or exceed the Kenwood's ability (not to mention whatever the
unusable FM Dolby circuit might add}.



Nobody gave a **** and/or they didn't want the build cost. Keep in
mind anyone in the sixties or seventies that bought a console was , by
definition, not an audiophile. You could buy a pair of AR speakers and
turntable and a Dynaco PAS preamp and Stereo 70 amp, and a television,
and a piece of solid wood furniture to put it all on, cheaper than the
big consoles. While not that great by modern standards they were
radically better than the consoles. Console-selling stores and
salesmen were "the enemy" in those days to real stereo buffs!

(Sam Byrams) wrote in message om...
Forgetting the fomat type or artificles (not specified), if an old
Declo or Phillips has a great front end, and process the signal well,
and can cleanly send it on to the amlifier section (better than a
Kenwood )(1974),why can' the Zenith, depending on who manufactured it,
compete or exceed the Kenwood's ability (not to mention whatever the
unusable FM Dolby circuit might add}.



Nobody gave a **** and/or they didn't want the build cost. Keep in
mind anyone in the sixties or seventies that bought a console was , by
definition, not an audiophile. You could buy a pair of AR speakers and
turntable and a Dynaco PAS preamp and Stereo 70 amp, and a television,
and a piece of solid wood furniture to put it all on, cheaper than the
big consoles. While not that great by modern standards they were
radically better than the consoles. Console-selling stores and
salesmen were "the enemy" in those days to real stereo buffs!


That does not surprize me at all. Thanks for the info.

(Sam Byrams) wrote in message om...
Forgetting the fomat type or artificles (not specified), if an old
Declo or Phillips has a great front end, and process the signal well,
and can cleanly send it on to the amlifier section (better than a
Kenwood )(1974),why can' the Zenith, depending on who manufactured it,
compete or exceed the Kenwood's ability (not to mention whatever the
unusable FM Dolby circuit might add}.



Nobody gave a **** and/or they didn't want the build cost. Keep in
mind anyone in the sixties or seventies that bought a console was , by
definition, not an audiophile. You could buy a pair of AR speakers and
turntable and a Dynaco PAS preamp and Stereo 70 amp, and a television,
and a piece of solid wood furniture to put it all on, cheaper than the
big consoles. While not that great by modern standards they were
radically better than the consoles. Console-selling stores and
salesmen were "the enemy" in those days to real stereo buffs!


That does not surprize me at all. Thanks for the info.

(Sam Byrams) wrote in message om...
Forgetting the fomat type or artificles (not specified), if an old
Declo or Phillips has a great front end, and process the signal well,
and can cleanly send it on to the amlifier section (better than a
Kenwood )(1974),why can' the Zenith, depending on who manufactured it,
compete or exceed the Kenwood's ability (not to mention whatever the
unusable FM Dolby circuit might add}.



Nobody gave a **** and/or they didn't want the build cost. Keep in
mind anyone in the sixties or seventies that bought a console was , by
definition, not an audiophile. You could buy a pair of AR speakers and
turntable and a Dynaco PAS preamp and Stereo 70 amp, and a television,
and a piece of solid wood furniture to put it all on, cheaper than the
big consoles. While not that great by modern standards they were
radically better than the consoles. Console-selling stores and
salesmen were "the enemy" in those days to real stereo buffs!


That does not surprize me at all. Thanks for the info.