Home Radio Road

Which tuner to get and getting the most from it. Thank God, for the radio!

Revox B-160

66.74.72.231

Mates,

Since about 1990, I;ve been using a 1965 McIntosh MX110 as the tuner in my Audio Reserach system (Oracle III/SMEV, SP10/II, D115/II, Vandersteen 2CE. The MX110 is supposed to have more or less an MR67 inside as the tuner, and I had generally good results and like the soft sound of the McIntosh, but the stations I listen to in Los Angeles are often over hills and a long distance- 60 miles or more. I live in more or less a dale, plus I listen to stations that are all over the dial from 88 to 105 and presets are preferable to spinning the dial on the MX110. I have a Scott 330D AM/FM mono tube tuner also, that I intend to use in an office system with a Dynco PAS3 and ST70. My other tuners are in receivers: Marantz 2235 and 2275 and a Fisher 800.

Against my better judgement, I recently bought a Revox B-160 tuner. The judgement was lacking as I'd never heard one of these, but I liked it's cousin the B-260 and the older B-760.

My first choice was the B-760, but these are getting expensive- and elderly. I would expect Revox products to be reliable, but in the end, due to my limited tuner use, I chose the B-160 as the price- $270, is about half of a good B-760 now- and those can go up to $800-900 if very nice. It's not important really, but I also like the idea that the B-160 is the same age as my Audio Research stuff. Other potential choices included McIntosh MR74, 77, and 7082, the aforementioned B-760, and various Marantz- 20B, 120, 125, and 150.

The B-160 is from about 1988 and cost, according to where I read it, cost either $990, $1150, or $1350 new. Mine is prepared for RDS which reads out station information, but is lacking the board to do it. The B-260, which looks identical was about $2000 to $2500 for the "S" model- which I think included the RDS readout and some better compnents internally. I had read on German audio sites about the relationship between the 160 and 260, and there seems to be agrement that the 160 is a simpler 260 by virtue of less features, but a similar sound.

I had a look inside the B160 and it's beautifully made- heavy boards that cover the entire chassis with thick traces, a transformer bigger than my 100W receiver's and a very clean layout with a lot of clearance between each piece. There is only one clear IC I can see. This tuner weighs quite a bit, but is not in the league of the B760. The specs the 160 is listed as 7kg while a 760 is 10, or more than 6 lbs more. The components and switches are some of the best I remember on modern audio stuff. Most recently I had a look in a Magnum Dynalab 101A, Nakamichi ST-7, and a Marantz ST6000 and both those shocked me by the small volume the components take in the interior and the lightness construction and controls. The Nakamichi really seems to ave put all it's cost on the outside!

The multi-labguage manual is clear and complete including an intrguing block diagram of the various sections of the electronics and how they are linked. I'll need to study!

I probably shouldn't comment too much on the sound, as my short dipole antenna from my office Sony receiver is only producing a signal of "1" on a scale of 11. This scale, by the way, has 31 steps and is extremely sensitive- the merest touch to the antenna produces a change in the reading. What's amazing is how many stations this receives in the wide mode on this poor antenna and the solidity of the sound with the low signal strength. At the moment, switching to narrow reduces the stations to 1/10th of the wide setting. In wide, there is a station for every few Mhz.

The most immediate noticeable quality of the sound is the bass, which is the best I've heard on a tuner- certianly this is a whole other world from the MX110 and my various tube tuners. I'm listening at the moment to the Trout Quintet and I've never heard such a clear, strong detailed double bass on FM before, yet the other instruments are still distinct and dynamic. A couple of ventures into rock and jazz stations and I could see this tuner being great in that realm as well- very dynamic and punchy. The mids are wonderful too, voices have a very palpable, immediate quality. The treble I have to think about more, as I think the better antenna is causing a little suffering there- it's running very near to treble distortion, which a touvh to the antenna will produce now. The treble is slightly recessed and all I've read suggests the 260 and 160 have quite forward trebles. Imaging is better than I expected with a good depth, but again I think it should improve with better reception.

There are so many controls and settings, including separate scans controls for the presets and general frequncies, wide, narrow, mute, blend, a "jump" feature between the last two stations, and many more I haven't figured out yet that programme a whole series of settings to each preset.

All in all, I think the sound is, as advertised, quite comparable to the 260 and the bass is so amazingly good, the 160 is especially worth keeping in mind for those who are looking for a boost in that department. Also, the construction quality is just as good and Swiss as can be, with those wonderful controls.

The B-160 seems to be less known among Revoxes, and some may not like the no-nonsense styling, but I think I prefer the sound is to the McIntosh 7082 and 7083s that are selling for 2 and 3 times as much and of similar construction quality and certainly more than the Magnum 101 which is not the end-all in build quality. As long as the prices reflect this uncertainty, they're one of the best tuner values I've seen since I undertook my 3 months of looking around. One key to the B160 is how much higher the prices are in Europe where there is more of a reputation and B-160s there have been upwards of $400 and $500.

Now, I need to attack the antenna problem..

Anyone alse using a Revox Tuner?

Cheers,

Bambi B


This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:
  Sonic Craft  


Topic - Revox B-160 - Bambi B 13:40:10 03/18/05 (2)


You can not post to an archived thread.