Pioneer F-93

Nick_G

Well-Known Member
I bought one of these rare tuners a few days ago and it arrived today so I hooked it up and did some tuning around with it. First impressions:

It is in absolutely mint condition and came with some decent-looking audio cables.

It looks gorgeous with the gloss finish on the front and wood side-panels.

It has many useful features for a tuner nut including a rotary tuning knob, two FM aerial sockets, a signal strength display in dB femtowatts, high sensitivity/selectivity specs, fine-tuning in 10 kHz steps, and 5 levels of signal thresholds for automatic tuning from 12 to 50 dB. As this is a Euro version the display is pale blue rather than amber and instead of the 'Elite' badge it says 'Reference Digital Synthesizer Tuner" in a very cursive script.

Well, after fiddling around with it I noticed that signals were spreading more on the upper sidebands than the lower, which is particularly noticeable in Super Narrow. Further investigation using fine tuning on weak signals in Super Narrow showed that minimum distortion occurs about +30 kHz off-centre. So it looks like either the filters aren't matched very well or it needs an alignment. Given the fact that this is a very complex tuner with many adjustments that interact with each other, I'm not that surprised that it is not perfect in this regard. For people who just want to listen to locals it isn't an issue. But for DXers like me who like to hunt for weak signals it is noticeable. Sensitivity is good though. There's also a button marked "SSS" which apparently stands for Spectrum Simulated Stereo which is supposed to make weak mono signals sound like they are in stereo but it just sounds odd to me.

Sound quality is OK but doesn't blow me away. It's a bit like the Kenwood KT-1100SD in this respect, a little bit bland and underwhelming. Possibly this would also improve after a proper alignment. The ultimate selectivity is a smidge down on the Denon TU-800L, although the specs suggest it should be a touch better. On the other hand it is built much more ruggedly than the Denon and looks much more attractive.

Ultimately the Denon TU-800L, which cost about 1/13th of this Pioneer, is a better performer! That was a really lucky fluke of a bargain.


Regards,
Nick
 
Last edited by a moderator:
F-93

Hi Nick,

Pioneer F-91 looks to have slightly better specs than a F-93. I can find a SM for F-93, but I did not find one for F-91, but I assume that they are of similar design. Spec's on paper are very good, so I am confused about your reports of functionality.
The FM adj procedure for F-93 is straight forward, only 9 steps. It is a complicated design for sure, contains a ton of components.
If you can find a SM for F-91, I could dig a little more. Certainly would like to see how they accomplish "SSS":scratch2:

Rick
 
Thanks Rick. The selectivity specs for the F-93 are very good indeed and it's one of the reasons I wanted to try one (85 dB at +/- 300 kHz). I'm not convinced it's performing up to those specs because the Denon tuner seems to be rejecting splatter from very close stations just as effectively. I can only get the F-93 to equal it by going into fine-tuning mode and tweaking it that way which involves several button presses. So do you think that the off-centre tuning or filters would be easy to fix?

I will have a look and see if I can find a service manual for the F-91. This tuner selects narrow & wide IF automatically which I don't think would be as good if a nearby strong local was causing the circuitry to go into a wider bandwidth. Also, I don't believe it has the 10 kHz fine tuning steps that the F-93 has.

Regards,
Nick
 
Congrats on the F-93. I have a F-91. They look like brothers but I'm pretty sure they are different animals. Mine sounds good but has never blown me away. I've never tested dxing and the like as that's not something I go for. I tune, listen, enjoy. I don't try to find stations. Maybe I will...

Paul
 
Thanks Paul. I think the F-93 is a completely different tuner to the F-91. I've already emailed a tech about it to see if it could be aligned.

My Denon TU-800L and Yamaha T-2 remain my favourites so far.

Regards,
Nick
 
Thanks Paul. I think the F-93 is a completely different tuner to the F-91. I've already emailed a tech about it to see if it could be aligned.

My Denon TU-800L and Yamaha T-2 remain my favourites so far.

Regards,
Nick

If you find a tech who can do this then let me know as my tech said the T-2 was beyond his skill. So I assume any fairly high end tuner is beyond him as well. Techs with the required skill are not easy to find in the UK. I have a Luxman that needs aligning.

Regards,
Paul
 
Hi Nick,
I'm not convinced it's performing up to those specs?
How will we ever know? There is one thing to do the tuner adjustments, another thing, to verify all the spec's. It is a involved process, that I can say I am not adverse (expert) to and would require some testing research, additional TEquip, in order to accomplish this task. Makes you wonder if anyone has verified the spec's, to verify what Pioneer states? Maybe you can find an old stereo review where they sent it out to a lab to do this.
So do you think that the off-centre tuning or filters would be easy to fix? by going into fine-tuning mode
That I am not sure about? I know some old comm rx use a technique where they vary the LO/VCO to do this very fine tuning(we are talking Hz here), but I am not sure the fine tune method that the F-93 would use, unless I have a SM to see how the thing works.
This tuner selects narrow & wide IF automatically
To bad that you can not defeat this, not sure how it decides what to use?

P.S. We want a SM for F-93, I have one for F-91(from hi-fi engine), as we are not sure how much similar these designs are.
 
Not in my experience. The 91 has that squonky "ARTS" thing that takes control away from the User and "automatically" idealizes selectivity. In my experience (I've owned both 91's and 93s, along with 9500 II's, 9800's and an F-28, F-449 and F-90) the F-93 is the best tuner Pioneer made.
Maybe I overlooked something in the specs, but I'd wager that the 93's advertised specs are better than the 91's. If I'm mistaken please let me know what you're seeing and where you're seeing it. Listening wise they sound similar "audio" wise, but RF wise, I'll take the 93 every time. (It has the ability to fine tune in 10Khz increments.)
 
I bought two after owning an F-91 for a while. They are superb tuners that can pull in just about anything with minimal fuss. I like the sonic presentation of my McIntosh MR-77 a bit better, but in terms of low noise weak signal listening...no contest it's the F-93 every time.

I listen to an F-93 all day, every day in my office and have for about 7 years now. Hasn't skipped a beat....

jblnut
 
Hi Nick,

How will we ever know? There is one thing to do the tuner adjustments, another thing, to verify all the spec's. It is a involved process, that I can say I am not adverse (expert) to and would require some testing research, additional TEquip, in order to accomplish this task. Makes you wonder if anyone has verified the spec's, to verify what Pioneer states? Maybe you can find an old stereo review where they sent it out to a lab to do this.

That I am not sure about? I know some old comm rx use a technique where they vary the LO/VCO to do this very fine tuning(we are talking Hz here), but I am not sure the fine tune method that the F-93 would use, unless I have a SM to see how the thing works.

To bad that you can not defeat this, not sure how it decides what to use?

P.S. We want a SM for F-93, I have one for F-91(from hi-fi engine), as we are not sure how much similar these designs are.

This link should download a SM for the F-93 (not sure what the HEWZ and HEWZI references are though):

https://data2.manualslib.com/pdf4/84/8307/830653-pioneer/f93.pdf?b2fb3792ff47145485173b4fc26fbb8f
 
Thx Nick, a bit hard to follow and the quality is not very good, but better than nothing. Lots going on in there.
 
This link should download a SM for the F-93 (not sure what the HEWZ and HEWZI references are though):

https://data2.manualslib.com/pdf4/84/8307/830653-pioneer/f93.pdf?b2fb3792ff47145485173b4fc26fbb8f
I sent copies of all of the manuals section of the Yahoo Tuners group. It started showing up elsewhere shortly thereafter. If you belong to that group, you should be able to get it for free. That (at least) was my intention. I've started uploading things to HiFiEngine (and VinylEngine.) Their turnaround time between submission and publishing is tighter.
 
Last edited:
Stereophile liked the 93 well enough to award it "Class C" distinction. (I'm not really a fan of Stereophile's bias with respect to Tuners, I prefer TAS's reviews and analyses.) But they (and their publisher) had man crushes on low sensitivity Brit Tuners at the time. But even THEY admitted that the 93 trounced a Day-Sequerra and an MR-78 (the latter of which I also own a self-restored example).
I can understand folks who are partial to the Mac House sound (Pioneer's was an homage to it to my ears, but they're not identical, especially from the midrange down), but the 93's reputation should be corrected with respect to its RF performance. It's an All-Killer, no Filler Mo-Fo Tuner. I used to advocate for its reappraisal and since I started I can no longer affordably acquire them, so the two I have will have to suffice. My oddball F-91 (Mint condition and found in a thrift) has some kind of "data-type" cable coming out of the back of it. I've never seen another one like it and the mod is VERY professional. It appears to feed into the RF input section. It's time for me to go back into it and see if I can figure out what its deal is...
 
Stereophile liked the 93 well enough to award it "Class C" distinction. (I'm not really a fan of Stereophile's bias with respect to Tuners, I prefer TAS's reviews and analyses.) But they (and their publisher) had man crushes on low sensitivity Brit Tuners at the time. But even THEY admitted that the 93 trounced a Day-Sequerra and an MR-78 (the latter of which I also own a self-restored example).
I can understand folks who are partial to the Mac House sound (Pioneer's was an homage to it to my ears, but they're not identical, especially from the midrange down), but the 93's reputation should be corrected with respect to its RF performance. It's an All-Killer, no Filler Mo-Fo Tuner. I used to advocate for its reappraisal and since I started I can no longer affordably acquire them, so the two I have will have to suffice. My oddball F-91 (Mint condition and found in a thrift) has some kind of "data-type" cable coming out of the back of it. I've never seen another one like it and the mod is VERY professional. It appears to feed into the RF input section. It's time for me to go back into it and see if I can figure out what its deal is...

What is your opinion of the F-99x ? is it close to a f-91 or f-93
 
Stereophile liked the 93 well enough to award it "Class C" distinction. (I'm not really a fan of Stereophile's bias with respect to Tuners, I prefer TAS's reviews and analyses.) But they (and their publisher) had man crushes on low sensitivity Brit Tuners at the time. But even THEY admitted that the 93 trounced a Day-Sequerra and an MR-78 (the latter of which I also own a self-restored example).
I can understand folks who are partial to the Mac House sound (Pioneer's was an homage to it to my ears, but they're not identical, especially from the midrange down), but the 93's reputation should be corrected with respect to its RF performance. It's an All-Killer, no Filler Mo-Fo Tuner. I used to advocate for its reappraisal and since I started I can no longer affordably acquire them, so the two I have will have to suffice. My oddball F-91 (Mint condition and found in a thrift) has some kind of "data-type" cable coming out of the back of it. I've never seen another one like it and the mod is VERY professional. It appears to feed into the RF input section. It's time for me to go back into it and see if I can figure out what its deal is...

Just a guess but could it be used to feed an external RDS decoder?
 
Thanks for your response, Nick. Possibly. I didn't think of that. Thanks! I need to open that bad boy back up and take a look around...
 
Last edited:
Thanks for your response, PabloTincho. I think the F-90 is surprisingly good for the money for which it can be acquired. The FM Tuner group folks (who haven't updated their review of the F-93) really like those two tuners, but I lived through that time and Pioneer was having a sort of existential crisis. One year I was looking at drool-worthy state of the FM Art tuners like the TX-9800 or 9500 II (leaving aside the transitional F- Series 20 Tuners for a minute-I own a 28 and it sounds as much like a 93 as my 91 or 449 or the 9x00's) and then all of the sudden here came the F- 90 (which I also own, but I don't own the 99x) and my disappointment was palpable. I remember hearing them in the "salon" store that opened in my hometown in the early '80's. The 90 and 99x are pretty much the same tuner with some insignificant differences. I think they're probably not as "transient" (dynamic range) blessed as the bigger, heavier dreadnaught Tuners that Pioneer's known for, but I would say the RF performance is nothing to sneeze at and probably doesn't lag too far behind the Classics. The big difference to me is the Digital tuning. I prefer analog tuners. They work the way Armstrong meant for them to work. Once we got into the "chippity doo-dah" era the sound of many tuners changed and not for the better. It's not that all Digitally Synthesized Tuners are bad, but some are and there's a certain "richness" in analog technology (complete with environmentally influenced inconsistencies like temperature drift on non-quartz-lock models) that's (to my ear) pretty hard to beat. I'm still not so old, that I can't get up and give one of those big honking inertia loaded flywheels a spin. YMMV...
 
Last edited:
Just a word about my take on the Series 20 pieces: IMO, they were experimental, quite nice, and some of them made advances. But what worked and what didn't was culled out in later offerings at much lower prices. If you like that little photo-optical doo-hickey (in the 28) because of its uniqueness, that's a perfectly good reason to own one. But IMO, that's a case where a chip that does THAT particular thing doesn't do that thing any worse (and probably does it better) than the photo-coupler thing does. But it is interesting. But it also means you can't detune in a Broadcast band that's FAR more crowded now than was ever contemplated back in the day. (The 93 can tune FM in 10Khz increments, btw. But it's less useful than I find an analog flywheel. Strange but true...)
 
It's not that all Digitally Synthesized Tuners are bad, but some are and there's a certain "richness" in analog technology (complete with environmentally influenced inconsistencies like temperature drift on non-quartz-lock models) that's (to my ear) pretty hard to beat.
Yamaha had it CSL system using the Sanyo LC7210 chip that makes it operate like an analog tuner with AFC and none of the PLL generated phase noise.
I cannot tell the difference in sound quality when the T-85 is in PLL or CSL mode of operation.
I prefer analog tuners. They work the way Armstrong meant for them to work
Cute, so does a analog tuner using varactor diodes qualify? or does it have to be a mechanical device?
I do agree that fine tuning is good to have in a tuner when you have strong adjacent carriers.
Having selective IF filtering also important.
I have a SX-1980 on my bench and the tuner's mech var cap is in a scratchy messed up state. It needs lots of cleaning, years of smoke, grime, oxidization to remove, not the best device over time. I'll take the varactor diode :)
Armstrong's radio used tubes :) it was mono and had relatively high distortion probably even with L/C tuned IF filters.
 
Back
Top Bottom