Is FM Radio Considered A "High-Fidelity" Medium

[ron-c]

Yes, very much so.

Ron-C

 

[BrianB]

Yes, 15k is the limit so it really shouldn't fit the "Hi-Fi" bill - especially considering the current trend toward super-high frequency response à la SACD (which, according to some, only dogs can hear )

True, most folks cannot hear pure tones above 20kHz. However, numerous psychoacoustic studies have demonstrated that people can indeed detect the presence or absence of such high-frequency tones in the context of music, speech, and other natural sounds. Why? Because these high-frequency tones affect the waveforms of sounds in our normal hearing range...

 

[Trawlerman]

You guys should come to the UK and listen to a real broadcaster. The BBC will show you how it should be done.

As has already been pointed out. When an FM receiver is correctly setup, that is with an antenna pointing directly at the transmitter with all the multipath signals having been rejected the sound quality is truly amazing.

Sadly, the independent broadcasters seem to be ina war to see who can get the loudest signal on the waveband using the most compression. They let the side down very very badly.

 

[BrianB]

Yes, FM is good enough when done right.

Agreed! However, fewer and fewer stations are truly "doing it right". At present, the vast majority of U.S. stations worth listening to (little if any compression, few if any ads, and decent program material) are either NPR affiliates or indy (mostly college) stations.

***edited for political content by Kamakiri....sorry Brian, we don't need to spin this***

Cheers,
Brian

 

[axel]

Trawlerman,
Is the BBC still considering DAB? Or was it (hopefully) discarded? I quit reading HFN&RR a few years ago so I don't know where that heated debate is at...

Trawlerman and I have the chance to have magnificent state radios (BBC and Radio France, respectively) that broadcast in truly hi-fi quality: very little compression and clean signals. Very little advertising in France, too.
Well received and with a good tuner, the 15k limit is no problem to my ears. In fact, given the quality of what's below that 15k, one may wonder if it's at all necessary to have 50 or 60k bandwidth... I'm sure it could be important but the necessary expense does shy me away (new speakers, new source, probably none of the records I'd want to find etc)

Byrdwyngs,
I wouldn't know about a 2000$ tuner beating SACD as I wouldn't spend that much on a single piece of gear anymore... FM is my main source (the one I use most often) ; in my current rig, my 5-gang tuner does not have the "best" sound, sure: bass is a little shy, stereo width isn't the widest plus the 15k limit and some other minor artifacts.
But it has a "naturalness" and easiest way to reproduce orchestral fortes I find in none of my other sources so far. And through the N7B V-FET it is even more fascinating!

 

[Punker X]

I would have a hard time telling the difference between my $125 Pioneer DV-563A SACD/DVD-A player and any $2000 SACD player. On the other hand I can tell the difference instantly between a $150 tuner and $2000 tuner. I'm not saying any tuner is worth $2000, but there is a reason some tuners bring in that much money.

X

 

[crooner]

Your "old 1978 Denon" what? Let's see a pic? I didn't even know Denon was around back then......you learn new things every day on here.

Denon has been around for a very long time. Around a century or so. Denon, or Nippon Columbia has been producing PCM digital recordings since 1972, for instance. The late Jean Pierre Rampal was one of the first artists that Denon recorded in 1973.

 

[Tullman]

I would have a hard time telling the difference between my $125 Pioneer DV-563A SACD/DVD-A player and any $2000 SACD player. On the other hand I can tell the difference instantly between a $150 tuner and $2000 tuner. I'm not saying any tuner is worth $2000, but there is a reason some tuners bring in that much money.

X

This quote makes me think that you have never compared your Pioneer to a $2,000 player.

 

[Icon]

i dont know about sound quality?

but one comparison would be that good radiostations for the tuner are becoming harder and harder to find, and good discs for the sacd are becomeing easier and easier to find :scratch2:

 

[ilimzn]

Actually, given some DSP you could push a tuner right up to the 19kHz pilot signal. Not that it would actually matter overly, although ultrasonics can be felt, they mostly contribute to the adgy feeling of the music, though, some sounds have a lot of them and would sound more natural if not recorder with the ultrasonic part cut off, but I'd be willing to bet real money it would not be a signifficant difference. The ear has quite high intermodulation distortion for high ultrasonic content (there is actually an intermodulation based system of sound reproduction based on ultrasound, patented and used in some setups that require directional full-range sound delivery - quite fascinating, actually). There are also psychoacustic studies that show limiting the upper ranges will be percieved as more pleasing than a rise in distortion in the same ranges (the later is actually quite typical).
The tuner can only be as good as the station you are listening to, and sadly there are ever fewer that do a good job. On the tuner side, a good PLL, pulse count or delay discriminator demodulator can achieve below 0.01% distortion, some can even come close to a whole order of magnitude less, assuming the front end does not get overdriven and the IF filters are accurate and have linear phase within the passband (this is actually a rather tall order). Good MPX decoders can achieve 0.002-0.005% distortion. Stereo separation on FM is fairly low (it requires very precise gain matching across the IF filter passband), but can be higher than even top notch vinyl, just like distortion. S/N ratio is not as esily compared, though 80dB is not impossible, assuming very good signal conditions. All in all, save for the frequency range, FM done right should at least rival vinyl, and I'd be starting a flame war if I asked if the latter is HiFi

 

[ilimzn]

BTW regarding stations, IMHO DAB is a step backwards since it's lossy compression, but to be honest, many stations have converted to playing their music off of MP3 libraries, rather than the original media...

 

[jpciii]

many stations have converted to playing their music off of MP3 libraries, rather than the original media...

yeah, including my local overly-compressed COLLEGE station :thumbsdn:

I can't wait to move away :worried:

 

[sydsfloyd67]

If you are fortunate to live in an area where you can get good program material presented to you in an uncompressed format through good broadcasting gear FM is very satisfying and does an excellent job of providing good sound.

Yes, that is correct.
-sf

 

[NoTransistors]

QUOTE from Ilimzm "Stereo separation on FM is fairly low (it requires very precise gain matching across the IF filter passband), but can be higher than even top notch vinyl, just like distortion."

Where do people get this stuff? My Scott and Fisher tuners have total separation during those Beatles songs that have music in one channel, and voice in the other one. This must represent al least 35db separation. Not enough for you? This reminds me of the uninformed PBS Nova Series narrator who said that digital is so much better than analog because "Analog has a finite sampling rate, when compared to digital."

Before 'digital-compress-itis' set in, F.M. was capable of true Hi-Fidelity.

Seth
Forever Analog

 

[axel]

I believe "fairly low" is meant in comparison with some of today's standards that go up to 90dB or more...

My analog Denon tuner claims 55dB stereo separation at 1kHz but probably much lower than that above and below - this sure isn't "hi-fi" compared to SACD and its stratospheric specs but it sound pretty good to my ears nevertheless!

 

[gyusher]

Any componet in the chain can be "HiFi" or "LoFi" just depends on what it is to you. Be it Cassette, Vinyl, SACD, DVDA, CD etc. etc.
In my mind a "Good Tuner" certainly qualifies for the term "HiFi" There are those who do not care for the format and prefer another.
I agree that there are too many so called tuners in most systems that are there for one reason, just to have a tuner, without regard to its sonic charachter. However true tuner fans understand what I am saying.

 

[cfoster]

If you want to hear good FM find a station that does not process their audio and listen to it on a tube tuner. Close enough to HiFi for me.

Clyde

 

[Chad Hauris]

You have to process the audio a little even if you don't use a lot of compression...there needs to be limiting before the transmitter so that you don't overdeviate/overmodulate the carrier with excessively strong peaks. The station I work for uses fairly gentle compression compared to other FM stations...on the modulation monitor, you can see the meters really move in response to loudness, whereas other stations will hang right around 100% and not move.

I can hear the distortion from excessive compression/limiting/clipping on many commerical FM stations...can sort of understand why they do this as it does help cut through noise especially in noisy vehicles, but it can be overdone. We have had to not use FM radio stations as signal sources to test newly repaired amps for sound quality due to the high distortion in the radio signals as sent out.

I would say 90% of all radio stations that play music, do it off of a computer hard drive, often with data compression. Our station (KOCV, Odessa, TX.) is one of the few that still plays right from the CD, as we have a live operator all the time to play the discs.

 

[Billfort]

Any componet in the chain can be "HiFi" or "LoFi" just depends on what it is to you.

Yes, for some 'hi-fi' is all about specs, science and measurements but for others (including myself) it's ALL about the reproduction of music and how it directly translates into the enjoyment of it in the home.

I have a fairly decent TT, a somewhat expensive SACD player (Sony 777ES) and a tube tuner (Scott 350) and every one of them can sometimes do what I consider 'hi-fi'. Now I'll have to qualify this by admitting that this statement is based on my enjoyment of music - some of these sources might not be considered 'hi-fi' by others who's yardstick is a test bench and whatever is currently being viewed as the performance levels needed to qualify.

 

[ilimzn]

Stereo separation on FM is fairly low (it requires very precise gain matching across the IF filter passband), but can be higher than even top notch vinyl, just like distortion.

Where do people get this stuff? My Scott and Fisher tuners have total separation during those Beatles songs that have music in one channel, and voice in the other one. This must represent al least 35db separation. Not enough for you?

I do not get the figures out of thin air, you can be sure of that. Read what Axel said below - I believe the words 'not enough for me' do not appear in what I wrote in any form. I was comparing to the channel separation of RtR or master tape, and digital. In practise, upwards of 30 dB is more than adequate, in fact totally separated channels are dubious since they are going to be emitted as sound in a common space, and, besides, our ears do not have very high separation. People who do a lot of headphone listenming will know that separation needs to be reduced for that sort of setup if completely discrete channels are used.
35dB separation would hardly be called 'total' but since the human ear has about that much instantaneous dynamic range, it is, as I said, more than adequate. However, given wide GDT filters (in areas where they can be used), upwards of 40dB separation is not uncommon on FM. Between 60 and 70 is possible if the IF and demodulation is done digitally. Last time I looked, this was higher than 35dB on a top vinyl setup. Wether that is NECESSARY was never the subject of this discussion.

This reminds me of the uninformed PBS Nova Series narrator who said that digital is so much better than analog because "Analog has a finite sampling rate, when compared to digital."

Well, you can shoot me if I ever say that

Before 'digital-compress-itis' set in, F.M. was capable of true Hi-Fidelity.

Oh, it's still eminently capable. The sad part is very few seem to care. With the current booom-csssss-boooom-csssss (with yadda-yadda-yadda as 'singing') music trends, it's really not surprising.