In Reply to: Re: A far better return for your money would posted by 2 channel man on January 28, 2006 at 19:16:31:
I guess Werner didn't give you an answer you wanted to hear.However, your shoddy response was uncalled for. If you don't like the suggestions (and that's all they are) offered - go somewhere else - we don't need your ilk.
Don Scott, who has reviewed tuners for years in Stereophile(and has great ears I may add) has worked on many FT's. He told me that their "stock" SOUND can be improved significantly by upgrading op amps and capacitors.
Regarding this ongoing debate between classic(tube?)/modern(digital?) tuners, their "superiority" depends on what you are looking (hearing?) for and where you live. If it's in an urban setting with many close spaced stations, most "classic" tuners have trouble cleanly receiving a desired station amongst(between?) the pileup.
I've found that many "modern" tuners do not sound good and attribute that to shoddy design or implementation of the amplifying sections following the multiplex decoder - the RF design/implementation may be fine. To demonstrate this I've substituted a "high quality", tube-based line stage as close to the output of the multiplex decoder as I can get on a number of tuners and the difference in sound is amazing - primarily in clarity and dynamics. Even then, when enjoying a tuner shootout at our local audio society, the differences in PERSONAL LISTENING TASTES or you could call them biases, becomes readily apparent.
Carles King
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:
Follow Ups
- Whoa! - WHOA ! 01/29/0606:00:24 01/29/06 (4)
- Re: Whoa! - 2 channel man 14:12:44 01/29/06 (0)
- If I may chime in here...I agree that his response was - audiogatorjim 08:10:22 01/29/06 (2)
- I asked if anyone had sent back their DYNALAB and what they thought of it that's all (nt) - 2 channel man 13:49:05 01/29/06 (0)
- I asked if antone had sent back their DYNALAB and what they thought of it that's all (nt) - 2 channel man 13:48:04 01/29/06 (0)