Are Tuners - Audiophile quality


I am a high-end listener. I have a stand-alone analog Kenwood KT-1000 tuner (15 years old). This was $ 500 in 1984. Very good reviews. I packed it up in 1985 due to the horrible quality from the tuner. I recenlty dusted it off and plugged it in and found that it still is e
dcaudio

Showing 2 responses by fanmarv

The person who said that th4e FM band exists between channels 6 and 7 on the TV dial is correct about that and somewhat inaccurate about the rest.

The fact the FM band exists where it does will allow a TV antenna to "broadband" th FM signal, but with no elements actually dedicated to the FM frequencies, the actual gain at 100MHz could be less than unity (0dB). The signal could be noisy because the antenna's design makes it susceptible to harmonics of other frequencies with can become just plain noise. This type of problem does not occur with a dedicated FM antenna because it is tuned narrowly to the FM band, and in doing so has sufficient gain at the FM frequency band to disregard low signal harmonic interference. The analogy here might be that hi-test gas is a rip-off if it does not provide better performance for a high performance engine.
Some of you have alluded to the fact that a good FM tuner can provide results that are quite acceptable to the audiophile sense of what sonic accuracy truly is. We at Fanfare join you in that belief.

Proof for one person might be playing a CD in synch with the same selection playing in a radio broadcast (a tricky fete, but do-able) and A/B'ing them. Fanfare has such a client, and has vindicated the FT-1A's claim of sonic accuracy many times over. You'll find his further comments in a review of the FT-1A under "Tuners", "Fanfare" at Audioreview.com". His name is "Roger".

Another is splitting the output of a CD player to the line stage of a reasonably high resolution audio system, and at time, to the exciter stage of an FM transmitter which is connected to a dummy load so it can only transmit locally within the same room. The receiver hooked up to the system to receive the airborn version is a Fanfare FT-1 FM tuner. Based on our count, the vast majority of the audience at both CES exhibits where this was performed could not tell the difference between the broadcast and the direct feed, and even the detractors couldn't be certain on a double-blind test, including me.

Through the type of "objective" comparisons illustrated above is how we judge the accuracy of a tuner, and in this case the Fanfare FT-1 and the FT-1A. We do not deal in speculation or aesthetic response. Our specific goal is to provide the high quality performance our customers have come to expect in a Fanfare product.

As for David Rich's comments, he doesn't speak about the quality of the internal workmanship in the FT-1A inside. What he, in his own personal judgement does(and he's never built anything for the market that's known to me), is speak about what he feels are weaknesses in the design. He is entitled to his opinion. However, in the final analysis, upon listening to the FT-1A's transparent sound, the quietness in its background (no hiss) and its unique station acquisition capabilities (better in all ways than its Canadian competitor), I suspect no one who is a self-thinker would give a damn what anyone says otherwise.

The FT-1A is a design that works for everyone, save the few heretics who feel the world should move to their side of the boat, no matter what the consequence.

Soon a more definitive comment on David Rich's review will appear on our website at "http://www.fanfare.com/reviews.html/"
Thank you for your time.

Marv Southcott, President, Fanfare Electronics