![]() ![]() |
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
72.59.78.199
In Reply to: RE: Decision time..Denon vs. various tube tuners posted by popsy on August 02, 2009 at 10:34:39
I modified a few tube tuners including Scott 350C, 350D, Fisher KM-60, Eico ST-97 & 2200 plus an older Kenwood I believe was KW-550 & others. The tube tuners require a lot of work with the Fisher KM-60 fairly good in stock form after tune rolling. The Scott were most difficult. All tube tuners should have the power supplies rebuilt for best reliability & re-aligned, of course. I can state best tubes & parts can cost upwards of $200. For example, I like Brimar CV4004 & E80CC in audio out amp positions- neither are inexpensive tubes.
Another issue with the tube tuners is HD radio that is becoming quite popular in the NE and likely else where that drops so many artifacts in the signal that I am forced to listen in mono. The HD signal on the band skirts trashes the tube type multiplexers that does not have the benefit of upstream filtering or a HD radio immune multiplexer design.
I am not familiar with the Denon, but can tell you the Rotel RT-950BX is a great FM tuner. The Scott tuners I upgraded did not sound near as good as the unmodified Rotel. The best I own in tube design is the modified Eico 2200 & Fisher KM-60. Both are slightly better than the Rotel in the upper frequencies due to extended range. The Rotel has at least equal midrange and stronger bass if slightly less musical. My two top performing tube type tuners have a slightly superior soundstage presentation, but the Rotel has better stereo seperation with a ever so slight euphoric presentation that is quite pleasing.
I think you can save a lot of grief by buying the Rotel or buy a rebuilt & modified tube tuner for a lot more money.
On the other hand, if beauty is your passion too, the McIntosh MR67 is a nice tuner and per some discussions should be better than the more expensive 10B or MR71 with a different filter & feedback design.
Follow Ups:
I would take "euphoric" presentation anyday over tubes,with the possible exception of the 10B.
The Fisher KM-60 is killer. Way under the radar still, even though the prices on a nice aligned and slightly modded one is running $200-$300 now. I know a Fisher tech here locally and he likes the KM-60 more then any other Fisher tuner, MAC tuner or dare I say Marantz tuner. He has a KM-60 in his main system for "proof". Just one mans opinion of course, bet he has heard and worked on all the old tuners.
The KM-60 is the best tuner I have right now for SOUND QUALITY, but its not quite as quiet or has the RF rejection of my modded Sansui TU-717 or Magnum Dynalab FT-10. The more filters in those units help, but man the top end treble and mids on the KM-60 just stomp the others. Just so "pure" and unmolested sounding compared to the somewhat "processed" and by comparison very slight "unmusical sound" the solid state tuners I have put out (I have a very nice Pioneer TX-7500 too). That is, as compared to the KM-60.
Regards,
Joel
For unmodified, the KM60 is superior to the Eico by a fair amount. What I really need are those high audio frequencies that make a difference in realism. Put it this way, I could recognize radio announcers by voice if I met them in person out in the public thanks to my modded tuners.
thanks for the reply and as noted in your reply and in your seperate thread the 940ax is much easier to find...i can zillions of those but not one 950ax...will have to keep looking :)
I wish I owned a RT-940AX to compare to the RT-950BX. One or two 950BX usually shows up every month on eBay.
i do too :)
well, got a fisher km-60 for a real nice deal...will let everyone know how it sounds...
thanks for all the help!
Post a Followup:
FAQ |
Post a Message! |
Forgot Password? |
|
||||||||||||||
|
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors: