FM Tuner Shootouts

[Number 9]

http://www.fmtunerinfo.com/shootouts.html#MR80

I know some of you also hang out at the Yahoo discussion group for FM tuners.

FYI for those that don't, the MR80 just recently went up in the shootout against other vintage tuners and is now in the #15 spot (brief review at link above).

The MR78 is down to the 48 spot. With more shootouts to come, it is undobtely going to drop below the top 50. A shame given the lofty reputation and expensive pedigree the MR78 has.

Jim Rivers, who does the reviews, indicates that a tube tuner shootout, which will include an MR67 and MR71, is planned in the future.

[rhinofly]

I follow those shootouts closely.

I have at home a tu-717, f-99x, and a Luxman t-02 which is supposed to be very close to the t-117 (and which I find identical in performance to the tu-717).

Him putting the mr80 between the f-99x and the tu-717 gives me a very good idea of its performance as I find his rankings of my tuners matches very well with my own experiences.

I am really looking forward later this week to comparing the mx113 I just aquired with the other tuners I own. I like the sound of the mx113 alot....it just remains to be seen how well it pulls in stations. From what I have heard the tuner section in the mx113 is very similar to the mr74. Anyone know for sure if this is true?

[ron-c]

I will not try to defend the MR80 since it was quieter on two weak station 'problem childs'. One of the hallmarks of a great tuner is how it performs on a weak signal. The high end Kenwoods, Sansuis, Yamahas, and others all have made great tuners in the past.
The problem I have with this series of reviews is the low ranking of the MR78, Sequera, MR80, and most of all the 10B Marantz. Having owned all of these I will say they do vary in sound and performance ( except the Sequera) so the question is who aligned and checked out the tuners? A properly operating 10B will deliver an amazing performance of not only the musical presentation and reception but also on a scope.
The 10B has one of the best presentations on a weak signal and the MR78 can be real close if it is aligned and working properly. In the super narow mode the 78 will pull stations that do not exist on most tuners. If sound quality is an issue with the 78 the few old caps in the audio output can be changed to modern parts.
If you enjoy high end analog don't be so quick to dismiss the classic high end tuners. There is a reason they command the resale values they have.
Ron-C

[rhinofly]

Also, there is a very good ricochet discussion of the mr78 at TIC.

[Number 9]

You must remember that to many, the MR80 is considered the ultimate McIntosh tuner. Look at Terry DeWick's site or Audio Classics, these are very expensive as far as what vintage tuners sell for, and even when new were very expensive.

If you read between the lines of Jim Rivers' review, I'm surprised it does not rate higher, because reception wise, the MR80 held up its own very well (that has always been Mac's forte). Sound wise, well by the time the MR80 rolled around, best sound did not appear to be the priority for the Mac tuner designers.

My observation with tuners, owning a few myself and reading a lot of the commentary on Audio Asylum & the Yahoo discussion board, is that results vary widely. Case in point: the Sansui 717. While some think highly of this tuner, others are not at all impressed. Some of the Pioneer's also tend to get polarized opinions too.

The reason I settled on a MR67 is that there is a general consensus that the 71 and 67 (and even 65B) sound sweet. In email exchanges with a few people who have owned and heard all of these, the 67 was given a slight edge. Sensitivity and selectivity for a tube tuner is not going to be as good as solid-state tuner however, but can hold up quite well. Tube tuners invariably require maintenance at this point in their life (caps, caps, caps).

Supposedly, another Sequerra is going to make its way into the shootouts.

[rhinofly]

The quality of tu-717's may vary..I dont know. Mine is excellent and is, as far as I know, stock.

Who specificaly doesnt think much of the tu-717? The only one on the yahoo forum I can think of that really comes down on the 717 is Ryan...and he comes down hard on almost all the vintage analog tuners.

In my opinion the tu-717 is one of the best bangforthebuck tuners out there.

[Number 9]

I'm pretty sure Thrassy felt he had heard better tuners (though I know for sure he really likes the 9900). I recall seeing several posts on Audio Asylum that were not necessarily positive regarding the 717.

But, that was not my point ... it seems it is hard to find a tuner that everyone overwhelmingly gives a thumbs up to. The maxim YMMV seems to apply more so here than other hifi gear.

[hotgas]

This shoot-out is probably the most absurd thing I've ever seen. Sorry folks! :pity: But I don't see any scientific evidences or logic behind the rating! Maybe I am wrong but the way I see it is that this "audiophile" tests two supposedly top tuners side by side. Uhmmmm something is not right right here. His ears are golden I guess so he is the ONE that tells us one is better than the other! Gimme a break! To statistically tell something is better than the other you need at least 25 listeners. Well if 25 is too many and not "fun" like the "audiophile " said then use 5 so the results may be worth while. Then this "audiophile" said "In order to conclusively rank one tuner above another, you'd need to test at least 3 fully aligned and measured samples of every tuner." Whoa! where the hell does this number 3 come from? To objectively test something as easy as strength of adhesion by die shear method we spent weeks trying to come up with a meaningful number of samples and had to repeat a number of times to make sure one is better than the other and many times found even with 5 samples the results are not correct due to the fact that material and measuring machine/techniques are not perfect. Let alone something as subjective as listening!

He gave a ranking based on a stunning logic that if A>B and A>C then B>C! Just look at the 1st two shootouts and you know what I mean.

I understand that he is doing it for fun but it looks like peole are taking his words so seriously ... :blah: :p:

[dewickt]

OK, here I go, this is my personal list for McIntosh tuners, I have not included the tuner preamp combinations yet, may add them someday plus add a few more tuner onlys.

Preference List of McIntosh Tuners

Performance Best to Good
Sensitivity-Selectivity-Adjacent Channel- etc.

MR80
MR78
MR75
MR71 (tube)
MR77
MR67 (tube)
MR74


Sound Quality Best to Good
Musical Sound-Body-Distortion etc.

MR71 (tube)
MR67 (tube)
MR80
MR78
MR77
MR75
MR74

[Number 9]

Originally posted by hotgas
This shoot-out is probably the most absurd thing I've ever seen.
I understand that he is doing it for fun but it looks like peole are taking his words so seriously ... :blah: :p:

hotgas ...If you have followed eBay for the past couple of years, you will have surely noticed that the -C- rated top class tuners have significantly appreciated in selling price. Who would have thunk to pay more than $200 for a Sansui 717 or a Philips 6731 a few years ago? No one. But now people do, and often, so obviously this ranking is being noticed and read.

Are they fools? Well is someone an idiot to pay the big $$ for some of the top-rated tuners on the list? Who knows, because there are spare few people on the planet who have had the opportunity to listen to the top 50 tuners ever made in some objective fashion. Is this ranking scientific - not by any stretch - Jim Rivers is the first to admit that. But its worth a try. You can't go down to your local dealer and listen to all these vintage tuners and decide.

Let's put it this way: Would you spend your hard-earned money in good conscience on a $1400 MR80 which ranks #15 on the list, when a Sansui 717 can be had for under $300 and has better performance (supposedly)? Makes me pause and think at least. I think that is the value in the excercise.

Let's face it, on a sheer performance level, some of the Mac gear is considerably over-priced and lives on the fumes of vintage myth. Its the black and chrome we like. Someone who is not a mac-addict would think a buyer has a hole in their head to spend $1500 on an MR78 when a Luxman 02 can be head at 1/5 the price.

So no, it is not absurd IMHO. Looking at Terry DeWick's list above, it seems real sad to me that the $1400 MR78, which is #2 performance wise, and #4 sound wise, will not even make it into the top 50 when all is said and done. Poor-value (though resale is another thing altogether). Someone spending the big $ on an MR78 or MR80 should think twice if they think they are getting one of the best tuners ever. They are not, and being fleeced.

[rhinofly]

I find the shootouts very useful.

Do I always agree with them? Of course not. Its a guide, not gospel.

But unlike MOST of the people who read his shootouts Jim has had the oportunity of actually hearing many many different tuners. I respect his opinions even if I dont always agree with them.

And yes his shootouts most definitely effect the ebay prices.

[Punker X]

I find the shootouts interesting. But do I believe them? NO.. I will never get to listen to most of the tuners on the list and the way the reviews affect prices I will probably never will.

It seems like a lot of credit is given to design, this tuner has 9 gangs and this one only has 3 so the 9 gang must sound better.

Case in point. I have lived with a lowly Marantz 2110 for 15 years. This tuner bearly gets mentioned. Just said if you have to have a tuner with a scope this is it, but it only has 3 gangs. I recently got a 2130 and it is a much better tuner, it does sound better and picks up more stations. However, is it worth the price difference? I don't think so, I've put the 2110 agaist a lot of tuners over 15 years and it has always been my favorite for sound quality. It has only recently been replaced by the 2130 in my standings, but is worth 3 times as much? Performance wise I would only rate it about 1.5 to 2 times better.

I sort of look forward to something being nocked down in the rankings. Means that it won't command the higher prices on Ebay. Be happy the MR78 is moving down, means that you may soon be able to afford one.

X

[grumpy]

I am just waiting for them to say what a POS the MR75 is so i can finally afford one :p:

[hotgas]

Number 9,

Quote:"If you have followed eBay for the past couple of years, you will have surely noticed that the -C- rated top class tuners have significantly appreciated in selling price. Who would have thunk to pay more than $200 for a Sansui 717 or a Philips 6731 a few years ago? No one. But now people do, and often, so obviously this ranking is being noticed and read."

This is the power of Internet. There is no doubt his site has a lot of followers/readers. The price increases on these items is sometimes a reflect of ignorance! I may be too blunt but that is how I look at the way things are going at Ebay now.

The MAC may be overprice, no doubt about that. Like Mercedes, it is over-price too but people are buying them because of the prestige from these 2 companies.

When I took a lookmore closely at the analysis, reasoning from Jim, I was shocked to see that this guy does not have any mathematic background and people are taking his "dumb" (sorry) words for it. Gawd! It is amazing how people blindly follow a preacher without any considerations.

To tell the truth when I first look at the shoot out (I think #20 or something) I thought this is done by a team of people. AND I BELIEVE IT! I took his words very seriously. But my god, when I read it again more carefully I realize how wrong this guy is, and he does have followers! That is a sad part, isn't it? Remember a preacher who had few hundred people commited suiside with him ~20 to 25 years ago(Tom Jones??) If this preacher had a web site I bet he could get more people to go down the drain with him too.

[ron-c]

It was Jim Jones, Tom Jones is the ageing Vegas singer!
I do not know about Texas FM as I live in the N. Ca. Bay Area where I can pick up KSCM on a dipole. My tuners all pull at least 35 stations cleanly and the MR78 will pull over 40 if the selectivity is adjusted. Haveing sold most of the tuners in this discussion,since I have beeen in the buss. since 1972, I would take these rankings with a grain of salt.
What baffles me is the lack of aligning and measurment of performance on a proper test bench before each shootout. The performance of a tuner depends on the design and the individual unit's calibration. Almost all tuners would benefit from a tweaking when new and I doubt they have improved over the last 30 years.
By the way the 10B Marantz is as sensitive and selective as almost any solid state tuner. If you look at the square sholder of the tuning trace on a scope, why are all other tuners rounded off? Hint, they are not as selectve.
Yea, I know the 10B is expensive to buy and maintain but this does not mean it is not worth it.
Ron-C

[grumpy]

HG

Its obvious the tuner info site is run by tuner fanatics and I would say they are as qualified as any other "schmuck"on the internet to state their opinions. There is no need to call them dumb for that. Now if folks take their word as the gospel ( without their own side by side comparisons ) then they are just playing keep up with the Jones and want to be led. Gawd knows there are enough followers in this world and not enopugh true leaders...

Grumpy

[Number 9]

Originally posted by hotgas
But my god, when I read it again more carefully I realize how wrong this guy is, and he does have followers!

And how is he so wrong (other than having a set of ears which is all that matters IMHO)?

:confused:

[hotgas]

I think I explained before. Here it is again.

1)The logic he used:

A is better than B
B is better than C

and he concluded B is better than C without any direct comparision between B and C. :dunno: :confused:

2) The samples he used: One and One is not enough.

3) Number of listeners: He is the Only guy .

4) And he forgets one important thing - Subjective methods should not be used to rate equipments! Audio listening is very subjective! You can have a hundred different opinions on 1 model. To be statistically correct you must have many listeners sitting in the same room doing A/B blind testing, then MAYBE the results are reliable.

I guess someone can start looking at amp or preamp or record player shoot-outs and with some convincing/rhetoric words (i.e. adjective and color words like punching bass, dry,shy, inoffensive, thin, cold, etc..) can change the world like Jim does.

I actually blame more on the followers than him because he confessed his rating is no where scientific (in a wrong way though about 3 samples each) and just for fun. Why do people take his FUN work so seriously? :dunno:

[grumpy]

Regardless of How the tests were done its all kinda irrelevant since its all subjective. I learned a while ago stats on tuners don't mean squat. The only thing that matters is what I hear and that applies to everyone.

Grumpy

[hotgas]

Subjective stats method is still the better of the two devils and can convince skeptical people like me. Single person's subjective method ? No way. And then it is me to decide if I agree with the majority.

[Billfort]

Originally posted by hotgas
...Subjective methods should not be used to rate equipments!
Oh Reeeeaaaallly! This is certainly a matter of opinion hotgas! Personally, subjective is all I give a rats ass about. It's ALL about the sound, the music - I gave up "listening" to spec sheets and scientific "data" a long time ago.

Thanks, but I'll stick with "objectively" bad gear that CURRENT science says is all wrong/outdated but sounds like music. I have a very nice NAD tuner that probably does quite well in a laboratory but I've heard too many 40 year old tube tuners that kick it's ass when it comes to music to deny that they might just be better in my system. I know, not scientific or objective, I must be wrong.

Billfort

[hotgas]

Maybe I need to clarify my statement a little bit more. Subjective method from a SINGLE individual should not be used to rate equipments. I hope you understand what I mean. Data here does not mean it only comes from laboratory. It should be both. Data must come from human listening (with large enough number of audiences) as well as lab report.

[grumpy]

I think the point we were trying to make is as with any audio gear the listener should make his own decisions once they have evaluated the piece. If we let labs influence us we would all have BPC systems.

Grumpy

[Don C]

I have not investigated their comparison methods, but I always enjoy my visits to their web site. Maybe it is not perfect, but it is the best tuner information site that I have seen.

[Number 9]

I think there is a method to Jim Rivers' testing, which is quite defensible.

If you look carefully, he tests each to see if they can pick up some difficult stations on the dial (the same ones in each and every test) against his reference tuner (which has been the Kenwood L02T for a very long time). Its a good "real-life" test for sensitivity and selectivity, though admitedly, does not provide empirical data.

The subjective audio quality test is always done using the exact same equipment, at the exact same time, in a direct A to B. Nothing wrong with that either.

If you need graphs and stats look elsewhere, but I am not convinced you need all of that to determine wether you should spend $300 on a Sansui 717 and how it stacks up relatively to a Magnum Dynalab FT102 selling for $750. You also learn about darkhorses such as the Pioneer F99x which goes for a song. Or overpriced stuff like the MR78 and MR80.

[Brian]

I found the site just after I acquired my Philips 6731 and before I hooked it up. When the 77 and 78 were current production, I choose the 77 becasue it had superior sound and I did not need cutting edge DX'ing ability of the 78. I've put more than a couple of the tuners listed on the shootout against it over the years and for sound (not as much for the DX'ing) the 77 edged them all out. When I hooked up the 6731, I had to listen long and hard before deciding it was a tuner I could actually live with and give up the 77. from the main system.

His shootout is in some ways very informative in that though he makes sure the tuners are working and aligned, he essentially takes them as you and I would generally receive them and compares, hence aging is a factor accounted for to some extent. It really is no different then when we talk about our finds and compare them to other things on the shelf. We listen, hear and give a subjective evaluation many times not even knowing if the units are anywhere near in spec. If we demonize what he is doing, then we in turn are demonizing ourselves and our activities on his site.

As for his criteria, rmember it is an offshoot of the DX'ing group and this is almost, if not more important than the overall sound. You'll notice, he almost spends no time discussing the actual sound of the tuner but goes into detail for the the DX abilities. Also, other factors creep in such as in the 78 ranking. It gets banged becasue it is expensive and had to modify for better DX'ing than other tuners. AS far as I remember, it is the only one he bangs on this.

[hotgas]

Folks,

I do not think you understand my reasoning. It is very clear to me his ranking of tuners is wrong, period! I am not here to argue whether I should spend less to get a better sound tuner like #9 kept saying. It is not the point. I am only challenging his ranking method.

In all the shootouts from #1 to #51 he only compared Kenwood L-02T against another tuners. Then he ranked them 1,2,3,.... blah blah .. based on his own ears. All the conclusions and descriptions in the ranking are about how the tuners sound ... For example

1: -C- Kenwood L-02T - Most natural sound, good bass. Pinpoint imaging. Lifelike, three-dimensional sound.
2: -C- Sansui TU-919 - The prince who could be king.
3: -C- Sansui TU-X1 - Very good sound top to bottom. Big soundstage, three-dimensional. Very slight diffuse sound.
4: -C- Audiolab 8000T - Good bass, natural but diffuse sound, sweet extended highs.
5: -C- Philips AH-6731 - A very natural, neutral sound. Stereo separation best with a good signal.
6: -C- Revox B760 - Great bass, lifelike midrange and extended highs.

.....
.....

How can one compare Kenwood L-02T vs. Sansui TU-919, Kenwood L-02T vs. Sansui TU-X1 , Kenwood L-02T vs. Sansui TU-919 , etc .. then conclude because Kenwood L-02T is better than the other 50 tuners then Kenwood L-02T is the best , Sansui TU-919 second, blah blah ... The best senario he could do is like this. He compared Kenwood L-02T and Sansui TU-919, then since knowing Kenwood L-02T is the better of the two he could compare the lesser to Sansui TU-X1 . And if the Sansui Tu-X1 is better then he could compare it against the Kenwood L-02T. This is what call round-robin shoot-out and is more logical but still debatable because of single listener's subjectiveness.

His logic is seriously flawed and not acceptable. The same analogy is like this. 10 is more than 7, 10 is also larger than 5 then 10 is the largest, then comes 5 and 7. This is ridiculous!

I am not here to defend McIntosh gears because I don't own one yet. I am not defending the 78 at all because I don't have a single clue how it sounds. There is no doubt his shoot-outs are very informative. But being informative and being accurate are not the same!

[bully]

At the TIC site, there is a 'rebuttal' section. Yes, the comments are the opinion of another individual.
Also, at the TIC's group list (a Yahoo! group mail list), there is a lot of comments concerning the shootout(s) as they are posted.
So, there IS a lot more going on with the shootouts than just the one list and one individual's opinion.
I am in an easy FM reception area (Nebraska), and I listen primarily to local stations. Where *I* sit, the Onkyo T-9 is without question the most musical tuner I've enjoyed hearing.
I have a bunch of tuners, and I listen a LOT to FM.
What is so neat about the shootouts is that it provides a beginning for sorting out the tuners. I think it is great.
Don't excoriate the guy, I'm kinda jealous HE has the opportunity to listen to so many very fine tuners!

[grumpy]

Am I the only one who has to get out the ole dictionary to understand Bully's post some times ?:nerd: :yes:

[Number 9]

Originally posted by hotgas
Folks,

I do not think you understand my reasoning. It is very clear to me his ranking of tuners is wrong, period!

His logic is seriously flawed and not acceptable. The same analogy is like this. 10 is more than 7, 10 is also larger than 5 then 10 is the largest, then comes 5 and 7. This is ridiculous!

There is no doubt his shoot-outs are very informative. But being informative and being accurate are not the same!

Sure they are informative but not accurate. No argument there.

Is the logic flawed? Well I don't follow your analogy. If he is doing all the listening, then surely he would have some idea when a tuner ranks better than another, so in theory, he should not wind up transposing a 5 and 7 grade tuner in the hierarchy as you suggest.

However with 50+ tuners in the excercise now, I will admit that, that can happen. In fact, Jim mentioned the same thing on the discussion board. Origianlly, he contemplated only looking at 20 tuners. But with 50, things get quite grey. If you have your eyes set on a tuner ranked at #32, would you dismiss #33 or 34 with certainty that 32 is surely better? Not.

But, you clearly can see based on the rankings what are the elite class -C- tuners. And you can safely expect tangible differences in performance between tuners ranked in the teens vs. the 40s. That's all. What more can you ask?

Certainly more informative to me than Stereophile's methods of Class A, B, C ranking involving different reviewers, different equipment matching, different points in time, different rooms, different source material, blah, blah, blah.

IMHO the most trustworthy way to review equipment is the way UHF Magazinze does it. There is one reference system in a refererence room, and all equipment candidates are tested against the "reference" system. There are at least three reviewers, to provide varied opinions on each piece of equipment.

[hotgas]

"Is the logic flawed? Well I don't follow your analogy. If he is doing all the listening, then surely he would have some idea when a tuner ranks better than another, so in theory, he should not wind up transposing a 5 and 7 grade tuner in the hierarchy as you suggest."

In theory he is wrong! He compared A and B then A and C and drew conclusions wihtout comparing B and C. That is definitely wrong. And as he went further and further into many more shootouts the inaccuracy was getting even worse and you also agree with that. "Some idea" is not enough in ranking one above the other without direct comparision.

[Number 9]

If your reasoning were used elsewhere, then there would be no Olympic diving, gymnastic or figure-skating competitions.

Developing a hierarchy based on one-to-one comparisons is not the only way to do it. People do have enough of a capacity to assign relative rank ...

Anyways, based on my priorities, I'm glad I did not spend ridiculous bucks on an MR78 or MR80. Thank-you Jim!

[hotgas]

Olympic rating can't be used to compare with tuner shootout. They are different like day and night!

In skating for example, there are 10 (?) judges to judge all competitors. Here we have only ONE judge. Secondly, points are given by a systematic and standarized system; here only an individual with his subjective and questionable listening skill controls the rating. Thirdly, bias scores like too high or too low will be eliminated so the average score would be objective; here there is only one person to judge the whole dann 51 tuners thus is subjected to mucho bias. Forthly, the tuners are compared side by side with A to compare with B, A with C, A with D, and so on ... not like in Olympic skating all the competitors are compared all together. In boxing, Mohamed Ali could beat both Frazier and Foreman. But can you tell Frazier is better than Foreman? No way!

[moondog]

and the saga continues... ;)

[timoteus]

This is an excellent thread, good points are being made and I think I'm enjoying reading this about as much as I enjoy reading the shootouts.

But ultimately what I'm hoping will find it's way into the shootouts is a comparison beween a modded (pick your favorite) tuner vs. the top tier shootout survivors.

The way it is now, fully aligned tuner X with 25 year old caps sounds slightly better than borrowed tuner XX with dry? caps. This isn't really a complaint, they state that the tuners they test are real world samples just like you would get on the used market, you just have to realize that the comparison is partly based on how well that particular unit has stood the test of time.

It would be nice to have your first choice tuner picked for selectivity, DXing, aesthetics, or brand loyalty for $200 and do another $200 worth of mods and have it be more musical than a stock hyped $1000 Ebay tuner.

Maybe the shootouts will evolve in this direction over time once the initial rankings are more or less finalized.

[rhinofly]

Jim has talked about doing a modded shootout. It would be interesting indeed. However, I think it would be tough to have a consitent comparison because the effectiveness of mods could vary greatly depending on the skill of the person doing the modification.

One of the more interesting pages talking about mods is the new page at Antenna Performance where they list the modification services they provide for certain tuners.

[Number 9]

:rolleyes:

Anyone notice the MR78 is now not even in the top 50?

If it was any other tuner, I would not care, but given for what it sells for, this is too huge of a disconnect.

[rhinofly]

Yes its odd about the MR78. It really seems to imply that the MR78 is seriously overpriced. I wish I knew someone nearby with an MR78. Id love to compare it to the other tuners I own....especially the tu-717 and 600t. I am almost tempted to buy one if I can find one cheap enough just to test and resell it.

I have compared my other tuners with the tuner section in the mx113 and it is only average as a tuner. It is not even in the same class as the tu-717, for example. Not really a fair comparison, but its the only mcintosh tuner I have.

Anyone here have an MR78 and another tuner at home to do a comparison?

[Brian]

In what why do you find the 113 deficient? When the 78 was in production I compared it to the 77 and 113. It bettered both in terms of sensitivity, selectivity, etc. But each walked all over it in terms of the most important thing to me - sound quality. It sounded like a (forgive anyone who is sensitive) whore acts. Plenty of sex but not emotion or feeling. Comparing today, it is more difficult b/c of the ages and depending on how the units have been maintained. About a year ago I had an oppurtunity to buy a 78 for a very reasonable amount and tried it against my 77. Same result so I passed. A good Mc tuner should pass the musical emotion and feeling, the resonances of the instruments to the listener. This is what they were best at and it was never about numbers (except the 78 and to a lesser degree the 71). If your is not, then it is possible that it is in need of some high quality TLC.

[rhinofly]

Talking to people about tuners is interesting. To some people only the sound quality matters. To others its DX ability. Both are valid but it can be confusing when the two folks start comparing how "good" a tuner is.

My mx113 sounds very good on strong signals. It sounds like crap on the rest. In my area this leaves me with roughly three stations I find worth listening to. To me this is not acceptable in a tuner. So what if it sounds good if you cant get the stations in quiet stereo in the first place? I would rather have a very slightly dimished sound on strong signals in exchange for much better sound on the weak signals. So for my uses and in my area the Sansui tu-717, Luxman T-02, Kenwood 600t EASILY outperform the mx113. Especially the 600t. That thing is simply amazing.

The mx113 and tu-717 are both old and would probably benefit from an alignment.

[Lefty]

I have also followed the shootouts that Jim has published sense he began.

I have enjoyed his 'mission' even though I normally don't give much creedence to subjective reviews alone that don't include any measurable specifications. The sad true is I will never be able to personally play with many of these classic vintage tuners.

While I do own a Kenwood L-07T II and a Luxman T-02 that I enjoy alot, I will never be able to compare them against the dozens of other classics. So therefore I will continue to read Jim's reviews just for the second hand knowlege gained.

I did once post on the FM forum to Jim about what I thought was a fundemental flaw in his ranking of past shootouts. As already stated, comparing tuner A to tuner B, then tuner A to tuner C does not mean you really compared tuner B to tuner C. Couple that with the fact that inserting a tuner into the list where the prior rankings were done months or even years earlier requires a audio memory that I don't believe humans have.

Jim replied that he agreed that his is not a perfect method but did stand by his rankings.

I far better method to me would be, after he completes a comparison he places the tuner in one of three groups:

Better then average
Average
Below average

This would give readers in my opinion a more accurate placement of a specific tuner then the existing numeric ranking that is just flawed and not defendable in my opinion.

Lefty

[Number 9]

Despite the less than perfect methodology, with the MR78 ranked so low, will likely lead to people having apprehension in sheeling out upwards of $1000 or more on an MR78. I think rightly so (having not even heard one myself). Fewer sight unseen, no previous listening trial purchases on eBay based on lore (B.S.) and hear-say.

If the MR78 sold for $300, then so be it. But it commands a hefty premium in the market - supposedly because it is a "great" tuner. If it were in the Top 25, well then, there is wiggle room for debate. But with its placement outside the Top 50 (!) leads me to conclude it is significantly over-priced and a poor value performance wise, and its "reputation" is no longer merited.

[bully]

While a prepped piece would be best in a comparison, Jim has commented on that subject in several of his reviews.
I have a Denon 600 that sounds pretty nice. The sample Jim reviewed was obviously out of sorts, and he did mention that that seems to be a problem with that model.
What I like about the shootouts is that it is getting something down in writing-- a starting point for discussion.
I happen to have a couple Onkyo T-9's, and I think that model is the cat's meow. The TIC cannot even get a review, though it remains on their 'batter's circle' list.

[tunerinfo]

Hi guys - I know this is a stale thread, but I just noticed it.

Anyone who wants to discuss the Shootout methodology, or anything else about TIC, is welcome in our FMTuners group on Yahoo. As far as Jim's efforts are concerned, it's a lot of work to do what he's done for the past year, and anyone else who would like to try it is welcome to do so. I've personally offered a shootout page on TIC to several other people who either expressed interest in telling the world their own opinions, or had a problem with Jim's methodology. So far, no takers. So if anyone thinks he can do better, bring it on!

Most people know instinctively to take this subjective stuff with a grain of salt. Jim's rankings are based only on how stock tuners, "as found," sound in his own system, not relative values, or RF capability, or anything else. For those intellectually challenged people who can't figure that out, we've beefed up our disclaimer so that no one, no matter how ignorant, should believe that Jim is the last word on tuners. And he's not trying to convince anyone of his opinion, either - he certainly hasn't convinced our panelist David, who has a technical background and has often tested multiple pieces of each tuner. We created the Ricochets page specifically to highlight that there can be tremendous variation even from piece to piece of the same tuner. Jim isn't about to start aligning and modifying tuners that don't belong to him (most of the Shootout tuners are loaners), so if he gets a bad one and some MR 78 fan or CT-7000 fan doesn't like where his favorite tuner placed, he can deliver one to Dallas and Jim will listen to that one, too. Or, establish your own credentials and we'll give you a whole page on our site to tell us why the MR 78, or the 10B, or whatever tuner is the best ever. We don't claim to be the last word on tuners - but unless you count the anonymous people who write semi-coherent and self-congratulatory reviews on Audioreview, TIC is the only thing out there on the Internet. So instead of complaining or disparaging, join us and make us better.

And Ron, Jim has never tested a 10B. None of us on the panel has. I'm not sure where you got the idea that what we've reported on the 10B is based on first-hand knowledge. And once again, we present several different views on the 10B, good and bad. Just establish for us why we should pay particular attention to *your* opinions, and we'll put them up for the world to see. -Eric

[Bob@FM]

Hi guys, I'm also on board here now, so if anyone wants to exhale more hot gas about tuner reviews, I'll jump in as well.

-Bob

[Don C]

Thanks for your work on the FM tuner info site. I understand that it is not a perfect site, and that it is not created with unlimited resources. It is in my opinion just the best site of it's type, making the most of limited resources that are actually available. By the way, I have a tuner that is on on your wanted list, the Sony ST-J55. Do you guys want to borrow it or something?

[Brian]

Tunerinfo: I don;t understand your last sentence related to the 10b. You state that none of the panel has ever tested the 10b, then you sort of again reinforce the statement that what you've reported is not based on first hand knowledge of the 10b. But in the comments, it says that panelist Jim had 2 10bs and Peter, "our contributor" has a suggestion and contritutor Paul explains. Sounds like these are more than members such as myself or joe average, especially related to Jim. Have I missed something?

[rhinofly]

Tunerinfo and Bob....welcome to Audiokarma!

[3moons]

Hello Brian, I, jim..., have not "tested" a 10B yet. Testing being having a working one in my home, seriously listening, maybe A/B against others, writing listening notes,DX notes,etc. and writing a serious review. What I remember saying was I've had three different 10B's in my home over the last 15 years and the first two would not play in stereo. A common problem, now more easily repaired I hear. I have had a working one in my home several months ago but have been too swamped with other projects to give it the review/tests it deserves. I returned it to the owner who lives close by and will borrow it again some day. jim...
Originally posted by Brian
Tunerinfo: I don;t understand your last sentence related to the 10b. You state that none of the panel has ever tested the 10b, then you sort of again reinforce the statement that what you've reported is not based on first hand knowledge of the 10b. But in the comments, it says that panelist Jim had 2 10bs and Peter, "our contributor" has a suggestion and contritutor Paul explains. Sounds like these are more than members such as myself or joe average, especially related to Jim. Have I missed something?

[3moons]

I've reread the quote on fmtunerinfo that reads .... Our panelist Jim says, “I've had two different Marantz 10Bs and both only played in mono because the opto couplers went bad” What I should have said was "I've borrowed two different Marantz 10Bs and both only played in mono because the opto couplers went bad” Sorry for the confusion. And all this time, I thought we were perfect. jim...

[Bob@FM]

hotgas wrote the following here about tuner shootoputs at TIC -

“This shoot-out is probably the most absurd thing I've ever seen.”

“It is very clear to me his ranking of tuners is wrong, period”

“His logic is seriously flawed and not acceptable. “

”But my god, when I read it again more carefully I realize how wrong this guy is, and he does have followers!

and lastly, my favorite -

”All the conclusions and descriptions in the ranking are about how the tuners sound”

This stuff is a hoot for me to read! Obviously, hotgas has mistaken us for Consumer Reports, or some other “for profit” audio magazine with paid subscribers. We are not either. We are a bunch of tuner enthusiasts having fun, and telling it like it is, our way. But the comments are so serious, I wanted to respond in general. This is not a funded engineering research project, or a paid job for us. So please don’t compare a method you use at work, to what we do, to have fun with our hobby.
If you can’t decide which tuner you like best, and which sounds bland, without 5 samples and a panel of 25 people, OK. You must have lots of fun at the stereo dealers.

We can, and do, and that is basicly what this is all about.

I think you owe Jim an apology, especially when you draw the comparison to a preacher that sadly forced his congregation to an untimely passing. This analogy has no place in the discussion, and comparing a fun loving guy like Jim to a clearly deranged individual is irresponsible and clueless.

And the last comment – Jim writes extensively in each shootout about the ability of the tuners to get hard to receive stations – the DX’ing capability. This basicly has nothing to do with the sound, and is clearly a black and white capability of the tuner – it gets the station clearly, or not. In case you missed it.

But yes, the rankings are also about the sound. That is point, expressed up front. If you want a better tuner ranking with scientific methodology, your way, please go for it ! Round up 5 copies of each tuner, a panel of 25 listeners, and find the time to go to it. Sound likely to happen soon? Piece of cake, right? Send us your results, and we’ll put them on the site. We call it the HOTGAS page.

In the meantime, until you do, we’ll continue to have fun in our spare time posting more shootout results.

-Bob

[tunerinfo]

Don C., thanks for the offer. Although people do occasionally ship tuners to one of us and they sometimes get passed around the country (with the owner's consent), I don't think we need to have you go through the trouble for a ST-J55 because I have an ST-J60 here and we have a -75 available for testing as well.

Jim, I've made the change to TIC about the two 10Bs. Hey, I don't think I even knew or remembered that you had a 10B available for a Shootout.

Brian, thanks for your post. Regarding Jim, I guess I misspoke when I said he'd never used a 10B. As far as Paul and Peter are concerned, they're just faceless people on the Internet who have passed our informal and subjective credibility tests - which is truly not difficult. Paul has never used any of what we consider to be the top tuners, but he seems to be fairly knowledgable so his comments on the tuners he's used (good ones but not the top tier) are of interest. Peter is actually very sharp and technically skilled. But a lot of people whose comments appear on TIC are, indeed, just "average" guys. We're not interested in putting up statements like "this tuner sounds great" or stupid jargon like anything including the word "musical," but we encourage ANYONE who has used any of the tuners we list (or even many of the ones we don't yet list) to post in our FMTuners group on Yahoo with their impressions - particularly compared to other tuners that they've used. Sticking to facts, like sensitivity, quieting or selectivity either stock or modified, is better than meaningless subjective praise, but all input is appreciated, even from "average" people ;-) Thanks - Eric

[hotgas]

Dear Bob@FM,

I am sorry I did not answer right away as I was on business trip for a while. I only noticed it today as I am not a fan of McIntosh so I seldom step in this forum.

Bob, I think you are defensive! My reasoning and arguments are purely based on logic and I had no intention to defame anyone. While the shootout sounds like a fun report to read , its inept reasoning can cause more harm than help an individual pick a tuner. You can see many individuals already become believers of the report! They blindly think the report is like a tuner bible because the writer is so good in his writing regardless of his analysis skill, or he may have the knowledge but deliberately try not to use it (either way it is inaccurate.) The mass is like that! That is why Marx and Lenin were successful in attracting the mass and human can only prove them wrong after many years of bloodshed and economic crisis. I just use this as an example of how absurd reasoning and attractive rhetoric can do to the mass. In this case while Jim may not intend to be a preacher, his success in attracting followers give him a false sense of power and he continues doing what he thinks it is fun in a wrong way. My point is that no matter how good or attractive a report sounds, it must bear some accuracy to be granted "report". You can’t say because it is fun nobody should criticize it! I am not mistaken you for Consumer report at all. If you read the thread carefully you should have noticed I only argue with Number9 because he BELIEVED your report is accurate.

I only say what I believe and I have no intention to insult Jim’ shootouts so I don’t think I own anyone an apology! I find it ironically that a fun report can attract believers like honey attracts flies. Please continue doing what you believe and I’ll continue doing it my way. There is nothing can beat a scientific research and a fun report can’t be considered too seriously no matter how fun the intention is!

This is my last response as I think I made my point clear enough.

[Bob@FM]

"While the shootout sounds like a fun report to read , its inept reasoning can cause more harm than help an individual pick a tuner."

Well, I am all ears for reports of harm it has caused anyone. Last I checked, McIntosh tuner prices had not fallen off in a dramatic way.

And, on the other hand, we continue to get positive comments from emails, and our 1300 FMTuners discussion group members on the shootouts. Many people, who have owned the tuners mentioned for extended periods, agree with Jim's conclusions. Some disagree on placement of certain models, and there is ample ink given, both on the TIC site, and in the discussion group, to that discussion.

So, in a nutshell, we disagree with you. You are, by far, in the minority about feeling the shootouts are worthless. That, for your logical analysis side, is a fact.

Enjoy.

-Bob

[Number 9]

Originally posted by hotgas

If you read the thread carefully you should have noticed I only argue with Number9 because he BELIEVED your report is accurate.


Yes, I do "BELIEVE" that the shootouts provide a pretty good, general idea of tuners. Is it absolutely accurate? No. Not my expectation either. Its like arguing about your favorite colour. But the information is very useful... these tuners are not sitting on a shelf at my local dealer waiting for me to try out.

Relative to anything else out there ...fmtunerinfo.com and the discussion group are the best thing going (and I'm sure for others too) in distinguishing plums from lemons. Why try to discredit Jim and his reviewing methodology because it is not perfect?
-----------
I wish there were more information of all the Macs ... The 65B, 67, 71. 74, 77, 78 and 80. The Mac tuners are now spread across SS and tube sections on the website. thus the picture is somewhat sketchy and incomplete. For example, little is mentioned of the 67 and 71. Given such a great choice of tuners, and the sheer number being hocked on eBay, it may be worth the effort to have a Mac page on fmtunerinfo.com. What do you think Bob@FM?

[smollett5]

I've been a member of the FMtuner Yahoo group for about a year now. On occasion, some very helpful information is published, and the shootouts are fun. But Jim's opinion is his own - and he states that clearly.
Many people in the Group pursue the DXing Holy Grail with almost every hitherto underappreciated Japanese tuner from the '70's and early '80's.
On the other hand, I've achieved quite excellent sound, especially in light of my advantageous geographical position 35 miles north of midtown Manhattan on a hill, with my MR-67. When I want increased selectivity, I can switch to my MR 7082, or for different sound, the tuner sections in my MAC 1700, MAC 1900, and Pioneer SX-980. But the MR 67, usually trashed by the DXphiles, sounds wonderful to my ears.