| Search | Login/Register
   Home » Off Air Audio» Where are our good Tuners? (44 posts, 3 pages)
  Print Thread | 1st Post |  
Page 3 of 3 (44 items) Select Pages:  « 1 2 3
   Target    Threads for related reading   Most recent post in related threads   Forum  Replies   Views   Started 
  »  New  The best audio source EVER!..  Norway to close FM by 2017...  Off Air Audio Forum     34  188384  08-20-2005
  »  New  Where the FM quality comes from?..  Freaking ridicules…...  Off Air Audio Forum     22  125283  11-02-2005
  »  New  Sansui TU-X1 Broadcast monitor...  Replace all audio coupling......  Off Air Audio Forum     46  319695  06-20-2007
  »  New  The high-end audio, as it should be...  My prediction about it in 2020....  Off Air Audio Forum     3  32183  03-15-2008
  »  New  Kenwood L-02T and the hype of FM tuners..  Good reception...inferior Sound...  Off Air Audio Forum     2  47844  04-25-2008
  »  New  Rohde & Schwarz EU-6201 Tuner..  The Schwarz runs from crystal oscillator!...  Off Air Audio Forum     34  243948  05-07-2008
  »  New  How many Bits needed for FM, the Accuphase T1000 dilemm..  The Spider in the Bromeliad...  Off Air Audio Forum     6  46921  03-11-2009
06-06-2011 Post does not mapped to Knowledge Tree
Romy the Cat


Boston, MA
Posts 9,534
Joined on 05-28-2004

Post #: 41
Post ID: 16409
Reply to: 16407
Why do not have one wider setting?
fiogf49gjkf0d
David, I might be missing something. In US we have 200 kHz transmitter channel spacing and I think Europeans have 100 kHz. I was under impression that better tuner do 400-500kHz IF bandwidth but how would they operate in 200 kHz channel spacing?  I need to refresh my mind about it but still I think 157kHz would be too narrow for widest bandwidth. I know that it is fishable nowadays to make the IF bandwidth ultra narrow, and with digit you can make it very precise and very stable but we pay loosing subcarrier and ultimately sound quality.


"I wish I could score everything for horns." - Richard Wagner. "Our writing equipment takes part in the forming of our thoughts." - Friedrich Nietzsche
06-06-2011 Post does not mapped to Knowledge Tree
Romy the Cat


Boston, MA
Posts 9,534
Joined on 05-28-2004

Post #: 42
Post ID: 16410
Reply to: 16409
Is it the 157kHz or 314kHz?
fiogf49gjkf0d

David, I guess I misread your comment. As I saw your following line:

“27kHz, 36kHz, 45kHz, 53kHz, 62kHz, 71kHz, 79kHz, 88kHz, 97kHz, 105kHz, 114kHz, 123kHz, 131kHz, 140kHz 149kHz, 157kHz.”

I was puzzled what the hell you guys are doing as 157kHz is too narrow bandwidth for a tuner to sound good. The narrowest window that includes ALL stereo information would be double maximum caring frequency plus double of deviation.  In FM stereo have 53K of maximum caring frequency that makes 106Kz and we have 75K is deviation, dibble of it 150K. So, 150K +106K will be 256K of absolute minimum IF bandwidth. Typically the best tuner have wider IF…  So I was wondering what you are doing with 157kHz…

Then I realized that I missed from your post the following:

“Please note that these bandwidths are for one side, so the full maximum bandwidth is actually 314kHz.”

If it is true then max 314kHz is fine maximum bandwidth. However, I never heard that anyone ever publish number just for ONE SIDE. So, sine no where the bandwidth of your IF is published and you pasted your IF number from somewhere then would it be possible that you mentioned the “note that these bandwidths are for one side” only in order to make me to shut up? I mean: what is the point for you have those numbers somewhere for one side only? Can you point out for me a public official location where the total IF bandwidth of 314kHz is mentioned?

Rgs, Romy the Cat


"I wish I could score everything for horns." - Richard Wagner. "Our writing equipment takes part in the forming of our thoughts." - Friedrich Nietzsche
06-07-2011 Post does not mapped to Knowledge Tree
Dave_at_BW_Broadcast
Posts 7
Joined on 07-12-2010

Post #: 43
Post ID: 16415
Reply to: 16410
Further Clartification
fiogf49gjkf0d
Romy,
Thanks for your comments but don't worry, I wouldn't lie to "shut you up". I just want to provide helpful answers to this communities’ questions and also get useful feedback Smile

Please see the image below for details of this:

It is usual when designing DSP filters to design low-pass filters, which are then transformed to turn them into band-pass. The quoted IF bandwidths are for the low pass filters, which when shifted to transform into a band-pass have a bandwidth of double this.

I know some other competing receievers use this way of measuring IF bandwidth too. A competitors receiever with 2 IF bandwidth options for example quotes them as:

WIDE IF: -6dB at +-150kHz
NARROW IF: -6dB at +-75kH

I hope that answers your questions.
Dave
06-07-2011 Post does not mapped to Knowledge Tree
Romy the Cat


Boston, MA
Posts 9,534
Joined on 05-28-2004

Post #: 44
Post ID: 16416
Reply to: 16415
Ok, it did clear the things up.
fiogf49gjkf0d
David, thanks for clearing the things up. The 150kHz as a wide mode only in poor tuners. In US the 150kHz would not cover even the deviation range. This is one of many reasons why many tuner sounds like crap. The conventional standard, if quality of sound maters, is a 3dB bandwidth of 280 kHz. It is for tuners that run 10.7 MHz of IF.  The 280kHz usually understood as Wide and 150kHz as narrow bandwidth.  For instance Yamaha T-85 has widest 280kHz and then 5 more narrow modes by addition ~230K filter in each mode. I think the last one makes is around 50K bandwidth… BTW, to listen the Yamaha T-85 in any other mode then in widest practically impossible.   I have a tuner with great stereo selectivity that runs 400kHz IF bandwidth but it runs 21.4 MHz of IF.  For sure many propose to shrink the IF bandwidth that in environment of 200kHz spacing does appear like a bad idea. For sure the quality of sound is a toll for it, the stereo separation and the quality of complex imaging is dying first….

Thanks for posting the image from your manual, or whatever it is. It does clear the things up and the 314Khz that you reportedly have is absolutely fine bandwidth. I admit that mentioning just one side is a bit odd. But if providing data for one side was what you chose to do then it is what it is.

Rgs, Romy the Cat


"I wish I could score everything for horns." - Richard Wagner. "Our writing equipment takes part in the forming of our thoughts." - Friedrich Nietzsche
Page 3 of 3 (44 items) Select Pages:  « 1 2 3
   Target    Threads for related reading   Most recent post in related threads   Forum  Replies   Views   Started 
  »  New  The best audio source EVER!..  Norway to close FM by 2017...  Off Air Audio Forum     34  188384  08-20-2005
  »  New  Where the FM quality comes from?..  Freaking ridicules…...  Off Air Audio Forum     22  125283  11-02-2005
  »  New  Sansui TU-X1 Broadcast monitor...  Replace all audio coupling......  Off Air Audio Forum     46  319695  06-20-2007
  »  New  The high-end audio, as it should be...  My prediction about it in 2020....  Off Air Audio Forum     3  32183  03-15-2008
  »  New  Kenwood L-02T and the hype of FM tuners..  Good reception...inferior Sound...  Off Air Audio Forum     2  47844  04-25-2008
  »  New  Rohde & Schwarz EU-6201 Tuner..  The Schwarz runs from crystal oscillator!...  Off Air Audio Forum     34  243948  05-07-2008
  »  New  How many Bits needed for FM, the Accuphase T1000 dilemm..  The Spider in the Bromeliad...  Off Air Audio Forum     6  46921  03-11-2009
Home Page  |  Last 24Hours  | Search  |  SiteMap  | Questions or Problems | Copyright Note
The content of all messages within the Forums Copyright © by authors of the posts