Fisher tube receivers vs integrateds?
- Thread starter bolero
- Start date
The better stand alone Fisher tuners employ more limiter stages in the FM IF strip, and an additional IF stage in the AM section. They also include muting functions on the FM side that the receivers don't have. The FM tuner section in the receivers is very similar to the stand alone KM-60 tuner, while the AM section in the 800C receiver is similar to that used in the mid grade Fisher consoles.
Likely the best, most practical stand alone tuner Fisher produced was the R-200, which on the FM side is a virtual copy of the FM-200B, which in itself has all of the best features of the vaulted FM-1000, without its unnecessary bells and whistles and small production price penalty. On the AM side, it employs dual IF stages, with bandwidth selection of both of these stages from the front panel. Both of these sections are a notable step above those used in the receivers -- which make no mistake, are no slouch by themselves!
Dave
Likely the best, most practical stand alone tuner Fisher produced was the R-200, which on the FM side is a virtual copy of the FM-200B, which in itself has all of the best features of the vaulted FM-1000, without its unnecessary bells and whistles and small production price penalty. On the AM side, it employs dual IF stages, with bandwidth selection of both of these stages from the front panel. Both of these sections are a notable step above those used in the receivers -- which make no mistake, are no slouch by themselves!
Dave
Look here: http://groupdiy.com/index.php?topic=54889.0 for past issues of Vacuum Tube Valley. They did an article on the FM-100 and loved it; I think the B was their favorite. The C has a solid-state MPX decoder if I recall correctly. Thank you to dcgillespie for the info on the R200!
KentTeffeteller
Gimpus Stereophilus!
The R-200 also proved to be a much less quirky and far more reliable tuner than the FM 1000 was, many had issues when new. One of the reasons why the FM/AM combo I engineered for then used HH Scott 312D tuners instead.
audiodon
Addicted Member
As is typical of development efforts, the stand-alone unit is better designed than the integral unit pre-packaged into something larger.
That being said, how much better is the stand-alone unit and is it better enough?
As a user with A VTV updated FM-100-B, and having multiple receivers, I'd say the standalone unit is not better enough to matter to the typical listener.
The stand-alone unit is certainly better on technical merit, has muting, lights, bells, whistles, and other stuff, but unless tuning is critical in your area for parallel station rejection or some other reason, I'd say the receiver tuners are fine. That's me though. You might feel differently.
That being said, how much better is the stand-alone unit and is it better enough?
As a user with A VTV updated FM-100-B, and having multiple receivers, I'd say the standalone unit is not better enough to matter to the typical listener.
The stand-alone unit is certainly better on technical merit, has muting, lights, bells, whistles, and other stuff, but unless tuning is critical in your area for parallel station rejection or some other reason, I'd say the receiver tuners are fine. That's me though. You might feel differently.
Last edited:
I own FM200B and a 800C, can't tell much difference in the tuning sections. Those FM1000's always had meter problems I have heard. With FM in decline I wouldn't pay the high dollar for one either, last 2 on that site went for 2K.
I'm with Don on this one. I don't detect any real advantage with the standalone vs the 800-C or my console rigs. I'm basing this on a 101-R Tuner (AM/FM Simulcast unit from 1959-60 (the one that Marantz used while their 1st tuner was in development).
Obviously if you are into separates then it makes sense to get a separate tuner, but that's about the only real plus i see.
But Dave's explanation bears a lot of weight. But it boils down to your personal preference(separates vs. receiver), signal strength and quality in your area.
Obviously if you are into separates then it makes sense to get a separate tuner, but that's about the only real plus i see.
But Dave's explanation bears a lot of weight. But it boils down to your personal preference(separates vs. receiver), signal strength and quality in your area.
That is good information!:thmbsp:
Dave, quick comparison question. Whenever I see Fisher tuners discussed, the FM-200B gets raves but the older, mono FM-200 is usually ignored. Besides having the multiplex decoder added, is there something inferior about the FM-200 design when compared with its descendant? I have an FM-200 that has apparently been modified (It's been around here for a number of years and I have yet to crack it open) which sounds fantastic either by itself or coupled with the FM-100 MPX decoder.
Last edited:
Sam -- If you can point me to a schematic for the FM-200, I'll take a look. Right off hand, I didn't see one readily available. Knowing Fisher however, the B version was likely primarily an effort to update the unit to include its own MPX decoder, with only minor changes in features to accommodate that change.
Hunter -- The 100C is a good tuner, but was clearly manufactured during changing times at Fisher. As Larry mentioned, a SS MPX decoder is used. I've never seen one, but looking at the schematic, it appears to operate on the exact same principle as their time switching vacuum tube decoders work on, so I would expect performance to be very similar. They also use SS switching for the Stereo Lamp as well. Additionally, they have eliminated one IF stage in the C (down to four), and while they made up for the lost gain by using the high performance 6HR6 in the first stage, it is still the loss of one tuned circuit from a selectivity standpoint. Finally, it also appears that they went to using nuvistor tubes in the front end of the C version as well. All in all, it should still be a very fine performer.
General -- As Don and Larry pointed out, they can hardly tell the difference between their stand alone tuners, and those included in their receivers. There's a reason for this.
Understand that the primary difference between the best stand alone Fisher tuners and those in their receivers is: (A) selectivity, and (B) noise limiting capability. NOT sensitivity. More to the point, the better tuners will show themselves in large urban areas where numerous stations can cause crowding which makes improved selectivity helpful, and in very rural areas where lower signal strength levels still allow full limiting action to take place which minimizes noise and static.
As a salient point then, once ANY FM tuner has properly captured a signal and driven the last limiter stage into full limiting, then the recovered audio quality will be identical from all of them. The improvements of the standalone tuners then are all about "reception" quality -- not the recovered audio quality. That is determined by the standards and caliber of the station tuned in.
Finally, since at any point in time, Fisher basically used the same MPX decoder in all of their production models, then the FM Stereo audio quality of from any Fisher FM Stereo tuner section will be virtually identical as well.
This explains why unless you live in a very congested signal area with numerous strong signals, or a very weak rural area, you almost surely won't notice the difference between the various tuner models and designs. Remember, these units were designed and built at a time when Broadcast Radio and TV were IT. There was no Internet or Satellite TV, and cable TV was something that was only used in large apartment complexes or high rises, where a multitude of antenna arrays were impractical. Therefore, building the best tuners to offer the best reception under the worst of reception conditions had a strong following, as the various tuner offerings of Fisher documents. Today however, most of the reception benefits of the better tuners are lost on the degradation of audio signal transmitted.
I hope this helps!
Dave
Hunter -- The 100C is a good tuner, but was clearly manufactured during changing times at Fisher. As Larry mentioned, a SS MPX decoder is used. I've never seen one, but looking at the schematic, it appears to operate on the exact same principle as their time switching vacuum tube decoders work on, so I would expect performance to be very similar. They also use SS switching for the Stereo Lamp as well. Additionally, they have eliminated one IF stage in the C (down to four), and while they made up for the lost gain by using the high performance 6HR6 in the first stage, it is still the loss of one tuned circuit from a selectivity standpoint. Finally, it also appears that they went to using nuvistor tubes in the front end of the C version as well. All in all, it should still be a very fine performer.
General -- As Don and Larry pointed out, they can hardly tell the difference between their stand alone tuners, and those included in their receivers. There's a reason for this.
Understand that the primary difference between the best stand alone Fisher tuners and those in their receivers is: (A) selectivity, and (B) noise limiting capability. NOT sensitivity. More to the point, the better tuners will show themselves in large urban areas where numerous stations can cause crowding which makes improved selectivity helpful, and in very rural areas where lower signal strength levels still allow full limiting action to take place which minimizes noise and static.
As a salient point then, once ANY FM tuner has properly captured a signal and driven the last limiter stage into full limiting, then the recovered audio quality will be identical from all of them. The improvements of the standalone tuners then are all about "reception" quality -- not the recovered audio quality. That is determined by the standards and caliber of the station tuned in.
Finally, since at any point in time, Fisher basically used the same MPX decoder in all of their production models, then the FM Stereo audio quality of from any Fisher FM Stereo tuner section will be virtually identical as well.
This explains why unless you live in a very congested signal area with numerous strong signals, or a very weak rural area, you almost surely won't notice the difference between the various tuner models and designs. Remember, these units were designed and built at a time when Broadcast Radio and TV were IT. There was no Internet or Satellite TV, and cable TV was something that was only used in large apartment complexes or high rises, where a multitude of antenna arrays were impractical. Therefore, building the best tuners to offer the best reception under the worst of reception conditions had a strong following, as the various tuner offerings of Fisher documents. Today however, most of the reception benefits of the better tuners are lost on the degradation of audio signal transmitted.
I hope this helps!
Dave
You should. If you're in even a remotely acceptable reception area, your 400 should do well for you if it is operating properly. Swirling noises are most typically associated with MPX issues, but can be tuner related as well. If components are all good, then a good alignment of both areas will usually take care of things.
Good luck with your 400!
Dave
Good luck with your 400!
Dave
Similar threads
