#2556 - 07/30/02 01:36 PM
Re: FM Tuner on 1050: Performance relative to other receivers in class
|
Deputy Gunslinger
Registered: 07/29/02
Posts: 7
|
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!
_________________________
Phil
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#2557 - 07/31/02 03:42 AM
Re: FM Tuner on 1050: Performance relative to other receivers in class
|
Deputy Gunslinger
Registered: 04/18/02
Posts: 8
Loc: ca
|
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
_________________________
eric
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#2558 - 07/31/02 09:56 AM
Re: FM Tuner on 1050: Performance relative to other receivers in class
|
Gunslinger
Registered: 02/15/02
Posts: 243
Loc: Charleston, IL, USA
|
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.
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#2559 - 07/31/02 02:20 PM
Re: FM Tuner on 1050: Performance relative to other receivers in class
|
Gunslinger
Registered: 11/15/01
Posts: 131
Loc: Brooklyn, NY
|
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.
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#2560 - 07/31/02 04:01 PM
Re: FM Tuner on 1050: Performance relative to other receivers in class
|
Deputy Gunslinger
Registered: 07/27/02
Posts: 6
Loc: B'ham, AL
|
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
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#2561 - 07/31/02 06:02 PM
Re: FM Tuner on 1050: Performance relative to other receivers in class
|
Desperado
Registered: 03/21/01
Posts: 14054
Loc: Memphis, TN USA
|
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
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#2562 - 08/01/02 03:04 PM
Re: FM Tuner on 1050: Performance relative to other receivers in class
|
Gunslinger
Registered: 11/15/01
Posts: 131
Loc: Brooklyn, NY
|
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.
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#2563 - 08/01/02 04:45 PM
Re: FM Tuner on 1050: Performance relative to other receivers in class
|
Deputy Gunslinger
Registered: 07/27/02
Posts: 6
Loc: B'ham, AL
|
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
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#2564 - 08/08/02 11:31 AM
Re: FM Tuner on 1050: Performance relative to other receivers in class
|
Deputy Gunslinger
Registered: 07/27/02
Posts: 6
Loc: B'ham, AL
|
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
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
|
0 registered (),
1100
Guests and
1
Spider online. |
Key:
Admin,
Global Mod,
Mod
|
|
|
8,717 Registered Members
88 Forums
11,331 Topics
98,708 Posts
Most users ever online: 1,034 @ 41 minutes 50 seconds ago
|
|
|
|