does anyone else have bad fm reception? i only live 10 miles from the city. no outside antenna is possible.

I never had good reception at my current house (in the middle of town) until I got my 950 and its nicer antenna. The 1050 always struggled some, probably as much or a little more so than the Yamaha that I had before. I'd try a better inside antenna.

Anybody else have any better ideas?

------------------
gonk -- Saloon Links | Pre/Pro Comparison Chart | 950 Review

I use an outdoor antenna with my 1050 and it works really well. I have been too lazy to run extra coaxial cable into the den so I am currently using a Godar Antenna which you can also buy from audio advisor on my Teac tuner in there.

[This message has been edited by morphsci (edited April 26, 2002).]

My new 1050 has *terrible* FM reception. This was not a surprise to me since it was mentioned in several reviews I read, but honestly my $10 clock radio can pick up more stations! I will say though that on the stations the 1050 can receive, the sound quality is excellant. I think it's the best sounding FM tuner I have ever heard in a receiver.

I've had no problems with FM reception on mine. I have an outdoor antenna that is split at least 4 times to feed various rooms. Every station I listen to is back on the air with full power since 9/11 and I get them all without problem. I do find that I still don't listen to FM much, too many commercials, and NPR has been getting tedious.

I'm a new 1050 owner and I thought I had poor FM reception, too, even using an outdoor ariel. It turned out, though, that I was being fooled by using the scan button to seed the presets. The 1050's scanning is apparently confused by the preponderance of stations and their high strengths in my area. If I manually tune stations (storing them in preset with the remote), stations sound fine (I guess... doesn't FM fidelity at its best pale to digital media?).

One odd thing I noticed about the 1050's FM tuning is that it allows the tuning of even numbered tenths (93.0, 93.1, 93.2, ..., instead of just 93.1). I thought that digital tuners don't bother since stations are always at odd tenths.


-sfw

David,

Based on what I've read and been told, this is because the 1050 has a much more selective tuner than that in your clock radio. Better tuners are selective in that they only pass through those stations that meet a minimum fidelity or quality. Your clock radio will offer you any station out there, regardless of how low it's fidelity and how full of interference and static it might be.



Which is exactly what you want from a high quality tuner. It sounds good because it only offers you the stations that are recievable in good condition at your location.


------------------
pat----

email: pat@sklenar.info ---===--- home page: Grumpy's Lair

I've only had my 1050 for a little over a week now and I just got around to programming some FM stations this past weekend. I have to say, I was very pleasantly surprised with how good my reception was. The only exception being the one station I listen to most I don't really listen to the radio much any more though. Too many CD's and music channels off the dish.

Lardoggy

Pat - You probably have a point about the the 1050's FM reception. However, my previous Philips receiver could pull in stations that were listenable (as long as I switched to Mono) that the 1050 can barely receive at all. Even when I tune manually.

But I seldom listen to FM here at home (like Lardoggy said, the dish audio channels are more enjoyable for background music). And happily, the couple FM stations I do listen to come in fine on the 1050. The sound quality really is top-flight... I was amazed the first time I used the 1050's tuner.

Just an update. I ended up with a outside antenna after all and the inprovement is fantastic! I went from 3 stations to over twenty! The 1050 tuner really shines hooked up correctly. All the stations are crisp, clear and dynamic. And on a clear day... I can hear forever.