Hi all,

I hope this isn't an issue that's been beaten to death. I'm about to purchase a 1050; however, the specs on the FM tuner section look at little lackluster. The only equipment that I've compared them to are dedicated tuner 'separates' that are really expensive. While I would like good reception, there's no need comparing specs with high-end tuners.

Could anyone offer advice as to how this tuner compares to the tuner in comparable receivers? As long as it holds its on with the fairly low-class equip. I'm used to - no problem. It would be a real bummer if I couldn't hear the Alabama football broadcast in the fall. (no flack on this one please )

Thankyou for any help and advise,

-David

Don't want to be negative about an otherwise great 5.1 that I own but ... the FM section is dismal and doesn't compare to "cheap" JVC or Sony receivers. I absolutely require good FM and have kept an old JVC around for that purpose. The 1050 is inadequate for all but giant commercial stations and even there it's a challenge to receive good stereo broadcasts. Hope this helps. -Rich

I have to agree. At first the FM tuner was a real dissapointment to me because I still listen to the radio. But.. I finally installed an outside antenna and things really took off then. The tuner sounds great and Im getting distant stations fairly well too.

Thanks to both of you for the reply. Yeah, I'm not quite sure what to do here. It seems like every time you come across a product that's a super value, does everything great, etc., there's always one small flaw. Maybe the next iteration of the 1050 will have a different tuner in it. It can't be that difficult/expensive to stick in a competent tuner whose performance falls in the ballpark of the mass-market crap that's being sold.

One option would be to keep the old el-crapo tuner around. I can already hear the comments from my buddies ("why didn't you just get a SonyYamahaTechnicsPioneer MXXX? I can pick up stations a jillion miles away!"). I live in an apt. so an outside ant. will not be possible, although I do live in the city. Perhaps being inside the city will get me by along with some sort of Terk amplified ant.

I guess that's what the 30 day policy is all about! If the FM performance is really that bad I'll send it back. If it's tolerable but not good I'll keep it. Thanks again for your help,

-David

Hello,
I live in a hilly area, and have terrible reception. I tried one of the passive Terk antennaes with poor results. I returned it and got a Terk with an amplifier with adjustable gain. It works very well. Good luck.
Mix

I may be one of the few, but FWIW I don't have any problem at all with FM reception on my 1050. Works just fine picking up the small locals as well as the major players here in Seattle.

Cool! Well at least one person can vouch that the 1050 can provide adaquate reception. I going to go ahead and order on the assumption that a $40 Terk ant. will pull me through.

Thanks all,

-David

I am not having any problems with reception here in Sacramento. I am only using the antenna wire that Outlaw sent with my 1050.
I do not listen to the radio very much though. So maybe it was just a good day for me.
Mike

Why is it so hard to put a good tuner in equipment today? My NAD 7175 has an outstanding tuner on its own, and with an attic mounted $15 radio shack directional high gain antenna I cleanly pull in stations 100 miles away. This receiver is 16 yrs old! If the heads of Outlaw were affiliated with the old NAD classics (and the old Proton line) with the Schotz tuners, why can't they create something at least as good, if not better, than those old pieces? It would be better if Outlaw offered an integrated amp instead of the 1050 or a pre/pro without the tuner. Then we could all go to ebay and pick up one of these great old NAD or Proton seperate tuners for about $50 and have a great FM system. Just my own thought, but look these lines up on ebay. The Schotz tuners were incredibly clean and sensitive.

From what I understand about the 1050's tuner is that it has excellent sound quality but requires a high signal to pull in. I think this is deliberate. Cheaper tuners will often pull in weaker signals (though not sound nearly as good) because they aren't as selective. I had the 1050 for a while and it sounded great on the stations it would receive. I'm only about 10 miles from Philadelphia, though, so I get a lot of good, strong stations.

The 950's tuner is kind of the same way. It really does sound CD quality.

------------------
Matthew J. Hill
matt@idsi.net

I like my 1050, but very disppointed at the FM/AM tuner because I can barely receive three or four stations with FM and AM comfined. While my oldy cheap Magnovox can receive almost all stations in my area, and very clear!

i listen to the radio just about everyday; two or three public broadcast stations (commercial radio sucks!) My 1050 does a great job pulling them in, i have no complaints. Its not quite as good as the tubed tuner on my fisher 500c tube receiver, but i am thoroughly satisfied with it. (the fisher is a great classic tube receiver, retailed in '62 for about what the 1050 does today) I am using a $20 powered indoor antenna from radio shack. sounds great to me.

I'm using a pair of Norh 6.9 speakers. lovely sound.

-eric

My 1050 tuner works very well with a rooftop antenna. It sounds better than the NAD seperate tuner I was using previously. It did not work acceptably with the dipole antenna. As Matthew has pointed out the mark of good tuner is not neccessarily sensitivity but other factors such as selectivity, multipath rejection and of course the sound. The 1050 tuner seems quite competant in those three areas.

I've always had good tuners before, including some classics such as a Dynaco FM3 tube with a very warm sound (died), an Onkyo T-9 which would lock into a station when you released the knob (stolen), and still have a NAD 4150 in regular use. My 1050 is not up to those standards, but has been perfectly capable of picking up all the stations I need. I have a roof antenna that is split about a gazillion times through the house. I think I tried the 1050 without the antenna when I first installed it, but hooked up the antenna the next day after buying yet another splitter so I don't know what it does without one.

We shall see next Tues. Despite the apparent lackluster tuner performance, I went ahead and ordered the 1050. It takes 7 days to get to Alabama! AHHHHH! (I should paid the extra $20)

I plan on doing a little test: My current receiver is a crappy JVC that I bought about 9 years ago when I was in high school. You know those electronic sales at the local convention halls? : "Sunday-Sunday-Sunday, get yer KenwoodJVCMagnovox right here, one day only" I paid about $70 for it. I compared the claimed specs on its tuner to the claimed specs on the 1050. I'm assuming that the JVC specs are wildly exagerated because they beat the crap out of the 1050's specs in every single dept. The real test will be hooking both of them up, same ant. and seeing what time it is.

I'll post back about next Wed, or so and let you know what I find. If a receiver of this low quality beats a otherwise high quality 1050, my opinion will be that Outlaw should really put the Tuner on the "things to change on the next 1050 iteration". But they probably already know that! I fully realize that this receiver is more aimed at the HT crowd and not geared toward radio listeners, and that's fine.

BTW: I hope Outlaw does not mind me posting subjects like this on their own web forum. If so, let me know.

-David

I see nothing wrong with this discussion. I wouldn't worry about that at all -- it's a very valid debate, and useful for people considering the 1050. Let us know how the comparison goes. Based on some of the posts here, the JVC may be able to pull in more stations (or it may not, depending at least in part on your location and antenna).

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

I wouldn't be surprised if your 1050 came sooner than 7 days. I ordered mine on a late Friday and it was at my house on Monday morning. Most of what I've read on this forum and elsewhere confirms this. Outlaw ships them same day you order it.

Hi,

The reason I think it's going to take 7 days is due to the fact that I was cheap and ordered it UPS ground instead of DHL next-day. The UPS tracking website says it will be here Tues. That's OK - I need to write term papers and study for 2 finals between now and Wed. If I got it in any earlier I wouldn't study or write!

I'll stop with details of my life; see y'all later,
-David

Got the Outlaw 1050. Cool!

As for the tuner comparison I promised, well it might have to wait a couple of days. I need to get a 75 to 300 ohm converter so I can use the same dipole ant. that I used on my other receiver. Otherwise the comparison would be unrealistic; right now with that little 2 ft. wire there's not much going on. I'll give the 1050 the benefit of the doubt until I do a formal comparison.

Otherwise the receiver is great! I could CLEARLY hear the difference in sound bewtween my old receiver and the 1050. I'm not quite sure to objectively describe the sound. If forced to comment I would say that the overall sound was "tighter" with more detail that before. The bass seems a little more controled (whatever that means). At first it struck me as being a touch bright but now I don't notice that. It could very well be due to my old JVC being "dark". Since I havn't listened to many high-end products it's really hard to say what differences I'm hearing are real and which ones are due to mind tricks. I'm very happy with the sound though.

Overall evaluation: well built, good sound, easy/intuitive to control and setup. I'll post back in couple of days with the FM deal.

-David