FM Tuners

As a former owner of an NAD 4155, I can tell you that both the reception and especially the sound are bettered by my current AudioLab 8000T (out of production, but I think this basic, "A"-rated unit is now being produced in an updated version by AL's successor TAG-McLaren, although I don't know if it's being imported). Of course the Magnum-Dynalabs are highly regarded, but I wanted AM and presets. But with any decent tuner, the issue of reception is most dependent on the antenna used, and particularly its location, with outdoor-mounted being preferred.

I will second the Fanfare FT-1A. I purchased this a year ago after researching through the 'net. I narrowed it down to the Fanfare because of the reviews I read and it's convenience of a remote, I have no regrets! By far my most used source, and I hadn't had a tuner in my system since the 1980's; it wasn't much of a system then.

At the same price range I would recommend an old McIntosh MR-78, not from experience, just from research.

Electrostaticman,

The Fanfare antenna guys are right. The myth about tuners is sensitivity when in fact SELECTIVITY is where it's at. The ability to tune out closely adjacent signals and listen only to the one you want.

The Dynalabs are great, and expensive. Might try one of the older Luxmans as they are quite selective and sound great too. Warm, very analog. Good luck.

I would say that the sound quality of the specific NAD that i mentioned was "mid pack". In other words, it wasn't phenomenal and wasn't the worst. Then again, i have never even bothered to hook it up to even a wire dipole since that "piece of coax" seemed to be doing the job. I'm sure that applying a stronger input signal would further increase the signal to noise ratio, improve imaging, increase dynamic range, etc...

Needless to say, i'm not using this as my primary source of FM reception. Even if i was, i don't think that i would be drastically disappointed with its' overall performance or sonics. Most FM is limited by the "compressed and EQ'd" broadcast quality and not the tuner. I don't doubt that other tuners could easily outperform this one under ideal circumstances though. Like anything else, a more specialized and expensive product SHOULD easily outperform a "cut corner" mass produced piece of gear.

I simply mentioned this specific model because of the excellent sensitivity and capture ratio that it seems to offer. I know that many folks visiting this site are "out in the boonies". Besides that, who wants to pay megabucks for a tuner when SOOOO much of what is broadcast is junk to start off with ??? You should be able to find this or an equivalent product for pennies on the dollar. As such, it will probably do a bang up job for those looking to add yet another source of "free" musical entertainment to their systems.

Quite honestly, i found this tuner in a pawn shop for $29. It was in excellent shape and appeared to be fully functional, so i snagged it just out of curiosity. It may be the best $29 ( in terms of audio ) that i ever spent. Sean
>

I've found great tuners in Pawn Shops also. My favorite was a high end Yamaha I paid $180 for. Decided I did not care for the sound and sold it for $350.

In my opinion the biggest mistake some people make with tuners it not using quality interconnects, like they will for their CD players. I am talking about mid-fi tuners like NAD, Rotel, Onkyo Integra, Cambridge Audio. They have a sub $100 pair of cables for the most part. I use Siltech ST-18G3 cables ($300 per meter) on my two mid-fi tuners and they sound pretty close to my friend's $1000+ tuners with cheaper cables.