Shootouts
Our audiophile panelist Jim is systematically evaluating the sound of many top tuners (most provided by our benefactor Jesse) in side-by-side shootouts. Shootouts now compete for Jim's attention with many other audio projects, so new installments of his adventures will appear on this page on an irregular basis. Due to an ever-increasing number of excellent-sounding tuners, a -C- is now placed next to those few tuners that seem to get everything right as far as sound quality is concerned. The familiar numerical listing need not always apply within this elite group. The -M- class has also been added for excellent tuners that may not have every minute characteristic that satisfies Jim's tastes. Jim's rules for the better tuners are (1) a focused, articulate and musically involving midrange, (2) sweet, natural-sounding highs (any hash, sibilance or non-musical detail added by the tuner itself will take points away), and (3) last, but not always least, is good, deep bass and a sense of dynamics. These are Jim's rules for measuring the results, and all the other audiophile buzzwords usually fall into place if these three criteria are met. Remember them as you read the shootouts and agree or disagree with his findings. Let the games begin!
Jim's introduction [revised 1/22/04]: All tuners in the shootouts will be listened to through my new handmade push-pull, 6L6 type tube amps. Each amp has a choke input power supply, a long tailed pair front end and a 5V4 tube rectifier. Various 6L6 type output tubes can be used, and the front end uses two 6SN7's. All tubes will be old stock. All parts besides the transformers are new. A Kimmel style HEXFET/6CG7 line stage will be in place. This type of line stage has been in my system for many years and has never failed me sonically or in reliability. The line stage has a polypropylene B+ power supply and is also choke input. The speakers are JMlab model Daline 3.1. I am very familiar with the "sound" of this system and feel I can hear the "sound" of any new component installed. The tuners under test see a Creek A/B switcher's 18 K ohm input. The Creek sees the line stage's 250 K ohm input. Some tuners with very high output impedance may have some bass rolloff. Cable lengths total two meters between tuner, A/B switcher and line stage. All tuners in forthcoming shootouts will be tested through this system and A/B switched ahead of the line stage. Audioquest cable will be used on both tuners. There are plans in the works to shorten the IC's as much as possible.
The room is a converted bedroom, 10 x 12 x 8 feet, and the speakers are backed by a solid, windowless wall. The antenna is an Antenna Performance Specialties APS-9 FM antenna, mounted on a Radio Shack rotator to catch the best signal. If choosing a tuner based on the shootout results, your mileage could definitely vary if you decide to use a dipole or whip antenna. All shootout tuners are in good operating condition but are not measured and may not be in perfect alignment. Remember, the shootouts are for fun and involve only one "as found" sample of each tuner. In order to semi-conclusively rank one tuner above another, you'd need to test at least three fully aligned and measured samples of every tuner.
All of us at TIC understand the limitations of the Shootouts format, but it seems as though people don't always read or understand the above disclaimer. As David Letterman used to say (or maybe still does say?) about Stupid Pet Tricks, "This is not a competition - this is only an exhibition - so please, no wagering." We might add, "And please, no paying a ridiculous amount of money for a tuner on eBay based on one guy's opinion of one sample"!
For another viewpoint on many of the shootouts, read what our panelist David "Anonymous" has to say on the Ricochets page.
Shootout #1 (posted 9/13/02): Kenwood L-02T vs. McIntosh MR 78
Winner: L-02T
I listened for several hours to the rare and little-known Kenwood L-02T against the old classic Mac MR 78. The MR 78 was factory serviced by McIntosh in 2001. They were running neck and neck in pulling in stations near and far. Rotating the APS-9 about 45 degrees off best signal brought the same noise from both tuners. The L-02T has a more natural sound than the MR 78, which has a slight mechanical sound. Both have better than normal bass compared to most stock Kenwoods and Pioneers, maybe even besting Sansuis when they have a good alignment. jim......... [MR 78 Ricochets][L-02T Ricochets] search eBay for MR 78
Shootout #2 (posted 9/16/02): Kenwood L-02T vs. Kenwood L-01T
Winner: L-02T
I installed the L-01T versus the L-02T. The most noticable difference so far was with my antenna pointed toward 88.7 East to Kilgore, TX. The L-02T pulled it in fairly strong but the L-01T has noticably more noise and fade. The L-02T looks to be the clear winner of the three stock tuners so far (when you consider both sonics and DXing). I dialed in a strong local station on 107.5 and turned the antenna 45 degrees off direct line of sight. Again the L-02T showed its stuff and stayed almost dead quiet, while the L-01T had noticable background noise.
The L-02T is still at the top of the pack in sound quality. I did A/B testing using many songs last night and this morning, trying to cut each song in half between the two tuners. Both have better than average bass. The L-01T has a slightly forward midrange and treble. It was a pleasant sound listened to alone, but when held up next to the L-02T, the L-01T's sonic faults became more noticable. The L-02T has a very neutral sound from top to bottom. The midrange is much more natural sounding and the highs are more laidback, and there even seemed to be more ambiance retrieval.
To be thrown in the ring soon against the champ: Sequerra Model 1, Yamaha CT-7000, Sansui TU-717, Luxman 5T50, Tandberg, Revox... and more as time permits. Next the Sequerra Model 1 goes up against the champ. P.S. It wouldn't be fair to put my modified Kenwood KT-7500 in the ring. He is on steroids. [L-01T Ricochets]
Rankings after Shootout #2
Shootout #3 (posted 9/19/02): Kenwood L-02T vs. Sequerra Model 1
Winner: L-02T
For the last couple of days the Kenwood L-02T and Sequerra Model 1 have been in the system. These are the two most seductive tuners yet in the shootout. The Sequerra has a large, rich-sounding bass - to a fault even, if you want accuracy. The harmonics keep on going. This richness of tone goes on into the lower midrange, very seductive for a transistor tuner. BUT when I switch to the L-02T, I get a feeling of accuracy not in the Sequerra. The bass is there but more accurate, the midrange is there but more precise. Again, from top to bottom, the L-02T sounds the most natural - again the winner in my system. search eBay for Sequerra
Rankings after Shootout #3
Shootout #4 (posted 9/22/02): Kenwood L-02T vs. Denon TU-850
Winner: L-02T
The TU-850 is a very nice sounding tuner with a very pleasant midrange and highs with well-controlled sibilance. The only drawback is the bass, which is a touch light or rolled off. This may even be unfair, as I am listening to it and comparing it to a Sequerra Model 1 and Kenwood L-01T and L-02T, all three of which have better than average bass with a feeling of reserve power behind them. The TU-850 more than holds its own but cannot match the L-02T or the Sequerra. [TU-850 Ricochets] search eBay for TU-850
Rankings after Shootout #4
Shootout #5 (posted 9/25/02): Kenwood L-02T vs. Yamaha CT-7000
Winner: L-02T
The Yamaha CT-7000 stayed in the system longer than the other recent challengers. It was a tough call between the CT-7000 and the L-02T. The Yamaha is a very pleasant sounding tuner, top to bottom. The bass is not as tight as the L-01T but very pleasant. The Yamaha's whole soundstage sounds a touch more diffused than the precise imaging presented by the L-02T. The CT-7000's treble is good, with no unpleasant sibilance. I have to say it is my second choice at this point. [CT-7000 Ricochets] search eBay for CT-7000
Rankings after Shootout #5
Shootout #6 (posted 10/06/02): Kenwood L-02T vs. Kenwood KT-917
Winner: L-02T
The shootout has become even more fun this week. The Kenwood KT-917 is big and beautiful, with as much class as any analog tuner ever possessed. The 917 has a very good sound, top to bottom, and the bass is very good. Its midrange and highs are smooth and detailed with no real sibilance problems, and I had several long listening sessions without any so-called listener's fatigue. The KT-917 even slightly outclassed the L-02T in the DX department, and not only because of its third IF band. With the 917, I was able to squeeze out a couple of stations at the lower end of the band that the L-02T couldn't even catch. One station was there in the 917's Normal IF band while the L-02T couldn't even pull it in its Narrow setting - go figure. This may just be an exceptional 917.
Now the results for my listener's choice: The L-02T wins again! While the sound of the KT-917 is great, it still falls short of the L-02T's high standards. The bass was a fairly even match but the 917's midrange and treble have a slightly flat, one-dimensional effect compared to the L-02T's. The L-02T gives a more three-dimensional effect with voice and instruments having a real "in the room" feel. Again, the 917 sounded great, just not quite up to the level of the L-02T.
I also started wondering about the Yamaha CT-7000 while listening to the two Kenwoods. In my review of the CT-7000, I said, "No unpleasant sibilance." Well, compared to these two Kenwoods, the Yamaha is more rolled-off in the highs. These two Kenwoods also display "no unpleasant sibilance" but have much more life in the treble region. I'll have to be more conscious of my aversion for spit, splash and sibilance when judging these tuners. I may have let the Yamaha seduce me into a sound that will have one day become boring to me. Anyone paying attention will notice I said of the L-01T, "midrange slightly forward." The L-01T's sound was different from the "in the room" statement for the L-02T. Again, all I can come up with, in summary, is the L-02T just sounds more natural. [KT-917 Ricochets] search eBay for KT-917
Rankings after Shootout #6
Shootout #7 (posted 10/14/02): Kenwood L-02T vs. Sansui TU-X1
Winner: L-02T
Next up: The big... heavy... Sansui TU-X1. This one was a real surprise. It gave up nothing from bass to treble to the Kenwood. I could live happily with either of these supertuners. It was very hard to pull out any negative or positive differences between the two. Any difference heard would have to be a matter of personal taste in picking one over the other. The pinpoint imaging of good monitor speakers never ceases to amaze me. With these two tuners on the shelf giving such good and equal sound quality, I really needed the extra imaging properties of my small speakers to pull out the differences. The TU-X1 presented a slightly larger soundstage. Within that larger stage, there was a slightly more diffuse sound. The L-02T had more precise imaging. Each voice, musical instrument, etc. presented itself more precisely within the soundstage using the L-02T. The apparent front-to-rear imaging - sense of real music being played - was good on both tuners. The L-02T still has the more natural sound, as it has in every shootout so far. And I love to be surprised and fooled by a tuner that can trick my ears into believing it's the real thing.
A follow-up note about my equipment: The Yamaha CT-7000 and the Sansui TU-X1 both had a more diffuse sound compared to the precise imaging presented by the L-02T. Maybe with a transistor system, it would come off as having a thinner sound, when comparing. Remember that I'm listening through all triode preamp, amps, plus monitors that image like crazy and precise imaging is one of my criteria. [TU-X1 Ricochets] search eBay for TU-X1
Rankings after Shootout #7
Shootout #8 (posted 10/18/02): Kenwood L-02T vs. Revox B260
Winner: L-02T
The Revox B260, to me, is ugly, modern and industrial-looking, all the things an old, analog guy like me doesn't want on his audio shelf - but the sound is pretty darn nice. This one has deep, rich bass. The lower midrange and bass are warm and seem to invite long listening sessions. There is better than average front-to-back depth. The highs are more extended than the L-02T's, but not unpleasant. The B260 has slightly more background hiss than either the L-02T or the TU-X1, but all in all, it was an enjoyable listening experience. After long listening sessions, I thought the highs were a little too much of a good thing, but I can understand someone liking this total sound package. DXing weak and distant stations showed the Revox to be no match for the L-02T. search eBay for B260
Rankings after Shootout #8
Shootout #9 (posted 10/25/02): Kenwood L-02T vs. Kenwood KT-7500
Winner: L-02T
It's been a long time since I've sat down and seriously listened to a stock KT-7500 before ripping the guts out of it, but the sound I remember hasn't changed in all these months. The soundstage has a flat, one-dimensional presentation. Instruments and voices appear to be lined up in a single row, left to right, forward of the speakers. The bass has a flat, one-note quality to it and the treble, while not harsh, is more pronounced than it should be (yes, the exaggerated sibilance is there). With all that said, I didn't find the sound irritating after a long listening session. It was more bland than irritating. DXing was a pleasant surprise in the fact that weak stations were captured by both tuners. The 7500 did have much more noise and problems from strong nearby stations, though. Both tuners were able to pick up 88.7 which is 140 miles east of my house, but the 7500 faded in and out much more often. Winner and still audio champ? The L-02T. search eBay for KT-7500
Rankings after Shootout #9
Shootout #10 (posted 11/01/02): Kenwood L-02T vs. Pioneer TX-9800
Winner: L-02T
This is one of the few attractive tuners built during the transition from the beauty of analog to the black box sameness that haunts us to this day. Sorry, but I feel better for having said that - JMO. The TX-9800's sound was a pleasant surprise. The bass was full and rich, and I enjoyed the difference compared to most other tuners in the survey. The bass had a full, slower but extended sound compared to the tight punch but deep sound of the L-02T. The imaging was somewhere between the L-02T and the TU-X1. The highs had a slightly forward sound that somewhat took away from the total package. The overall soundstage was forward of the speakers with good front-to-rear apparent depth. I was more impressed than I expected to be and give it a high rating. It doesn't compare with the more natural-sounding L-02T or the TU-X1, but I would definitely prefer the TX-9800 to the Revox B260 if those were my two choices. DXing was OK and on occasion, I noticed a quieter signal than on the L-02T. When pointed East to 88.7, 130 miles away, it was swamped by 88.5 South and 88.9 Northeast. The L-02T was able to get through to 88.7 but with constant fading on this day. [TX-9800 Ricochets] search eBay for TX-9800
Rankings after Shootout #10
Shootout #11 (posted 11/08/02): Kenwood L-02T vs. Kenwood KT-815
Winner: L-02T
Next up, the Kenwood KT-815. The 815 has a sonic signature that focuses on the midrange. Maybe a good thing for talk radio programs, but not for music. The bass has a shy, one-note quality, a fairly focused midrange and fairly bright, forward highs. If any nice old tuner ever begged for a makeover in the audio stage, this is the one. The difference between it and the L-02T made me want to hurry this shootout to a finish. Even to ring the bell early and declare the champ, still the champ. If any nice old tuner ever begged for a makeover in the audio stage, the KT-815 is the one. DXing, it pulled in weak stations within 50 miles with the APS-9 pointed toward those stations' transmitters, but couldn't push through the crowded band from 88.1 to 90.1 to grab distant stations - something the L-02T does very well. [KT-815 Ricochets] search eBay for KT-815
Rankings after Shootout #11
Shootout #12 (posted 11/13/02): Kenwood L-02T vs. Tandberg 3011A
Winner: L-02T
All the way from Norway, the Tandberg 3011A is an attractive tuner. Its black face and silver knobs blend well with its red and cream lighting. I found the short dial very distracting after using wall-to-wall tuning indicators on Sansuis and Kenwoods for so long. I never had the feeling that I was tuning a station precisely using this truncated system. The 3011A is a nice-sounding tuner with some interesting tonal characteristics. The treble was sweet and never irritated. The lower midrange through the treble had a lighter presentation to the sound compared to the L-02T. The 3011A had very good imaging and the ability to help me imagine that I was in the audience. The bass was good but gave just a hint of running out of gas compared to the L-02T. Listened to alone, it was very nice. Listened to against the L-02T, you're left wanting a little more. Still, I give the 3011A high marks for its pleasant musicality. search eBay for 3011A
Rankings after Shootout #12
Shootout #13 (posted 11/20/02): Kenwood L-02T vs. Magnum Dynalab FT-11
Winner: L-02T
The L-02T was tag-teamed this week by two brothers. The Magnum Dynalab FT-11 has had two different versions that I am aware of. The revisions are in the audio circuit, as well as slight cosmetic changes. The original FT-11 uses the same basic audio circuit as the FT-101A's high-output circuit. It consists of a 5532 dual op-amp buffer that sees the audio signal from an LM4500. From the 5532, the signal goes to two smallish 4.7 uf electrolytic coupling caps, then out. Hereafter this tuner will be called "FT-11OLD." The newer FT-11 uses a Philips chip marked TDA1578A and no buffer with 22 uf output caps. This tuner will be called "FT-11NEW." Both share one chip upstream, an LM1965N.
Since I've owned several FT-101As, the FT-11OLD's sound was no surprise. It had good bass punch, the treble wasn't forward or bright, and imaging was also good. Listening to it against the L-02T showed that the FT-11OLD had less life to the midrange. Another way to try to explain is that the L-02T is more natural-sounding. Possibly the reason for my love/hate relationship with the 101A all these years is that I find it beautiful, but there is no real life to the musical presentation. Winner: the L-02T.
Enter the younger brother, the "FT-11NEW." I A/B'd the FT-11NEW and the L-02T, then the FT-11OLD against the FT-11NEW. The FT-11NEW had a more realistic midrange than his older brother but a lighter, looser bass. Against the L-02T the whole presentation from top to bottom had a lighter sound. The bass had less punch. Listening to it by itself, it was a very pleasant sound. If I could have one of the FT-11's given to me as a gift, I would choose the NEW over the OLD for sound quality... unless I was allowed to modify the OLD with better, modern parts. Winner and still champion: the L-02T. [FT-11 Ricochets] search eBay for FT-11
Rankings after Shootout #13
Shootout #14 (posted 11/26/02): Kenwood L-02T vs. Luxman T-117
Winner: L-02T
Next up, the Luxman T-117. This little tuner left me in shock. I'm not a big fan of digital tuners, probably because of my age (56), tastes and history. I grew up around my grandfather's farm and my dad worked with radio for 20 years in the Air Force and was a ham. My younger days saw all kinds of meters bouncing and flashing at home, in the movies, etc. That style left a lasting impression, and that may be one of the reasons I've avoided digital tuners in the shootouts so far. But not anymore! I hooked up the Luxman, sat down to listen and got back up thinking I was listening to the L-02T. No, it was the Luxman! This is a very good-sounding tuner. After listening for a couple of days, here are my findings. A very pleasant sound, top to bottom. The T-117 gave up a little richness in tone quality to the L-02T in bass. Its midrange was very nice but the images didn't "float" in space as realistically as the L-02T's. The treble was slightly, just slightly, more forward of the L-02T's treble, and that treble difference wasn't noticable on every song. If these sound like negatives, they're really not. If I hadn't heard and A/B'd the T-117 against the L-02T, I could be very happy with it as a keeper AND it's much more affordable. I went to TIC and re-read the writeup on the T-117, and I agree, without reservation. It sounds better than a Magnum Dynalab FT-101 or any other stock Magnum I've owned or heard, and it costs less, but it's not as attractive as a FT-101 in an analog sort of way.
The T-117 also has the potential to be a good tuner for DXing. Using narrow band and switching from 200 kHz tuning steps to 25 kHz steps on the rear of the tuner, I was able to pull in 88.7 Tyler like I could on the L-02T. On other stations, too, the two tuners seemed to be neck-and-neck in pulling power. Overall, though, the L-02T still wears the crown. [T-117 Ricochets] search eBay for T-117
Rankings after Shootout #14
Shootout #15 (posted 12/05/02): Kenwood L-02T vs. Fanfare FT-1A
Winner: L-02T
The Fanfare FT-1A is an attractive tuner that has that high-end audio look. The inside is surface mount technology so DIY'ers beware. With the tuner's high-gain output, the sound was clean but bright and forward in the midrange. The highs were not irritating and the bass lacked punch. Considering this tuner is so much newer than the others, I left it on for a few days to warm up. It didn't help as I still couldn't warm up to the sound. I tried the low-gain output and that tamed the midrange somewhat, but the bass was still not impressive. DXing against the L-02T was a no-go, too. For example, pointing west toward 88.7 about 40 miles away, the Fanfare picked up the station OK but was swamped in wide mode. It was so directional grabbing the signal in narrow that I used it to mark my rotor for an exact alignment toward 88.7's tower. Pointing toward the east at 88.7 in Kilgore, Texas at 130 miles the L-02T was able to catch it with constant drift on this day. The Fanfare was swamped by nearby 88.5 to the south in wide or narrow mode. Again the winner of the shootout is the L-02T.
05/03/03 note: Normally, the Shootouts are for stock tuners only. I recently learned that this FT-1A had been upgraded internally at the factory with silver Kimber Kable wiring, which I believe cost $150. Although Fanfare obviously thinks that the silver wiring improves the sound (or else why would they offer it?), it may have contributed to the forward midrange I noticed. [FT-1A Ricochets] search eBay for Fanfare
Rankings after Shootout #15
Shootout #16 (posted 12/20/02): Kenwood L-02T vs. Sansui TU-717
Winner: L-02T
I've had 5 or 6 TU-717s in the past 15 years. A couple sounded thin and bright, but most sounded pretty good. This one sounds pretty darn good! The bass is slightly tubby-sounding compared to the L-02T but still a pleasant, rich sound. The midrange is realistic and the front-to-rear imaging is very good. The soundstage is slightly forward of the speakers compared to the L-02T. This isn't a bad thing, just a different presentation from the L-02T's. There is some spit in the 717's treble, but the treble band isn't overly noticeable like the ReVox B260's. Still, it's a good reason to put better caps in the audio section path. All in all, the 717 was a most enjoyable listen. I give it a high rating and now want to modify one. I am very impressed with its sound compared to the more expensive toys. In the DXing test, the TU-717 fell flat compared to the L-02T. Please remember that none of these shootout tuners have seen an alignment in years, as far as I know, with the possible exception being the Mac MR 78.
Backroom brawl! Because the Luxman T-117 and Sansui TU-717 so impressed me, I wasn't real sure which one was the better tuner in the shootout. I veered from the shootout format to see which one really had the better sound in a one-on-one while the L-02T slept. To have a little fun, I had my wife plug in the RCAs and set the volume of the variable output of the Sansui to match the fixed output of the Luxman. Without knowing which was which, I listened and made notes of Tuner A and Tuner B. Tuner A had a slightly richer bass and the imaging was excellent. Tuner B gave a sweeter presentation to the music and the imaging was very good. Tuner A had a treble that was slightly forward of Tuner B's treble. It could come down to the music being played. For rock 'n roll, dance, etc., I would choose Tuner A. For classical, jazz, etc., I think I would choose Tuner B. Tuner A turned out to be the Sansui, and Tuner B was the Luxman. If you could take the best qualities of both and put them together, you would be very close to the L-02T, I think. It really hurts to publish this but I would ultimately choose the Luxman between these two. Unless... where are my parts box and soldering iron??!!! Time for some upgrades! search eBay for TU-717
Rankings after Shootout #16
Shootout #17 (posted 12/23/02): Kenwood L-02T vs. Technics ST-9038
Winner: L-02T
We have this time around a thin, HEAVY Technics digital tuner. The display is a dull yellow-orange, a neat trick Technics accomplished with an orange plastic screen over your typical dull blue VCR-type readout. The face is a no-frills, clean, dark military greenish-brown. Left to right, the controls are Power, Station Selector, Mode, Auto Hi-Blend, two pushbuttons marked Up and Down to scroll for a station, and finally an analog-type knob for tuning. There is no signal-strength meter and the display shows only the station selected and stereo, when it's in stereo. I listened to the ST-9038 and A/B'ed it against the Luxman T-117 at Jesse's office. His system there consists of large Jeff Rowland Design Group Model 7 amps and Coherence 1 preamp with Hales speakers - very different from my homemade 7-watt triodes and small JMlab speakers. I continuously chose the Luxman over the Technics in a blind listening test, but Jesse leaned toward the Technics. Very interesting. When I brought the Technics home, doing my A/B listening test with the Technics against the L-02T, I was amazed by the similarities. The bass of both was very close, very close. The treble was smooth and controlled, again close to the sweetness of the L-02T. The midrange was even nice, but not the rich, involving sound I've grown so fond of from the L-02T. The ST-9038's sound was less three-dimensional than the L-02T's. The height and depth of the soundstage was smaller. If any of you haven't heard or believe there is such a thing as differences in height, depth, imaging, etc., please go listen to a really good pair of mini-monitors, Magnapans or electrostatics. They will deliver whatever good ancillary hi-fi equipment can dish out. I give this little tuner a high ranking, but the winner is still the L-02T.
Well, I had to know. Was there something special inside the ST-9038? First, it was a pain to get into - pretty tricky, and the ribbon cable is soldered in so you have to be very careful in there. The something special I found was a very short signal path from the audio op-amp to the output jacks, followed by bipolar 3.3 uf caps, followed by muting transistors. These were not directly in the signal path. The not-so-special was the 4558 op-amp and steel leads in the coupling caps. I think the short and sweet signal path was part of the magic at the lows and highs, but the 4558 op-amp caused the not-so-wonderful midrange when the ST-9038 was thrown up against the L-02T or the Luxman T-117. [ST-9038 Ricochets] search eBay for ST-9038
Rankings after Shootout #17
Shootout #18 (posted 12/27/02): Kenwood L-02T vs. Naim NAT 01
Winner: L-02T
This is an older, two-piece tuner. The tuner is the Naim NAT 01. The power supply/controller, called the Naim NA PST, supplies power to a separate AM tuner and Aux something? It also takes the signals from these same three and sends one to a proper preamp via switching controls on the front. The tuner can also bypass this switching and go direct to your preamp, which is how I listened. It's a pleasant-sounding tuner with no real sonic irritations. The bass wasn't as deep or full as the L-02T's. The midrange was more one-dimensional and had a diffuse sound to it. The soundstage was taller than the L-02T and more laidback (meaning more to the rear of the speakers). The highs, as said, were non-fatiguing. There are NO controls on this model: no wide/narrow, no mute defeat, no manual blend, no mono, nothing! And it drifts off channel from time to time. It tries so hard not to offend and for that reason it did. Sonically? Livable. Ergonomics? I'll pass. Winner, the L-02T. search eBay for Naim
Rankings after Shootout #18
Shootout #19 (posted 12/31/02): Kenwood L-02T vs. Sumo Charlie
Winner: L-02T
This is a very attractive tuner, for a digital. A 19-inch rack mount, gold tone, black handles and pushbuttons, colorful display, serial no. 700057. I was a little worried when this one was presented to me for review. Many tuner fans reading this know there are some very polarized opinions on the Charlie - some think there is nothing better, some hate it. Well, this sample didn't sound too bad at all. I found nothing that really irritated, and there is a midbass punch that will attract you. At A/B shootout time with the L-02T, I realized that the Charlie ran out of gas below that punch while the L-02T finished the job with a full, deeper bass presentation. Next to the L-02T's excellent imaging and lifelike musical presentation in the midrange, the Charlie sounded flat but not quite one-dimensional, as some tuners reviewed before it had sounded. Going into the upper midrange and treble, the Charlie never irritated as some tuners do with spit or sibilance. Maybe to a fault. This may be one area where the L-02T gets some of its lifelike excitement. The Charlie's treble isn't as rolled off as the previous Yamaha that I reviewed and it gave me more musical pleasure than the Yamaha. During the DX games, the Charlie pulled in all the weaker stations within the area, but pointing the antenna 180 degrees west toward KTCU, 130 miles away, gave only noise on the Charlie, while the L-02T grabbed KTCU. This has become a good test to pit the sensitivity of other tuners against the L-02T. Winner: the L-02T. search eBay for Charlie
Rankings after Shootout #19
Shootout #20 (posted 01/09/03): Kenwood L-02T vs. Pioneer F-91
Winner: L-02T
The F-91 is a very upscale-looking tuner - gold accents, orange display, and polished-looking wood side panels. Well, this was a tough one. First impression: best bass yet! And that is still my impression. The F-91 has an articulate midrange, and the treble is more forward but not irritating. Actually, the whole sonic presentation was forward of the L-02T's. It doesn't have the L-02T's sense of front-to-rear depth. In my small listening room, I preferred the L-02T. Emails with certain members of the group forced me to put a little extra effort into this one. The gain of the Pioneer was higher than the L-02T's, so I added a stereo pot to balance the sound levels. Balancing proved harder than you would think because the tuners' sonic signatures are so different. The best compromise was to balance the sound level of a female DJ's voice. On music, this presented deeper bass and a more extended, forward treble. While the F-91 was never irritating, I still preferred the L-02T's musical presentation as the more balanced one. In a large room, in a big sound system, I might choose this Pioneer over the L-02T. I put it below the KT-917 on the overall list for my small listening room choices. For DXing, the F-91 doesn't look too great. There is no wide/narrow circuitry, and hard-to-grab stations captured by the L-02T in narrow mode were invisible to the F-91, but its specs show an impressive 0.8 capture ratio. [F-91 Ricochets] search eBay for F-91
Rankings after Shootout #20
Shootout #21 (posted 01/13/03): Kenwood L-02T vs. Technics ST-8077
Winner: L-02T
I was so impressed by the sound of the Technics ST-9038 that I bought an ST-8077 on eBay to see if I could get away with, hopefully, a cheaper version. The ST-8077 usually runs $20 to $60 on eBay. Well, they aren't really the same but are about the same size and share the same op-amp (the 4558) and close proximity to the output jacks. The 8077's bass was very good but not quite as full as the L-02T's. The 8077's treble was pleasant and lacked any unpleasant sibilance or forwardness. The midrange wasn't as lifelike compared to the L-02T's, and was also bested by its digital display brother, the ST-9038. When it comes to sound, you could do much worse. The eagle-eyed among you might catch that these two Technics outgunned the Kenwood KT-7500, which uses the same 4558 audio op-amp. True. But these two Technics brothers share a VERY short signal path between the op-amp and the RCA output jacks. Also, the 8077 has no mechanical switching along that path. The result is a noticable improvement in sound through design, whether intentional or accidental. The 9038 has a + and - supply, thus very little DC offset when modifying with an OPA 2134, 2604, etc. But the 8077 only supplies the op-amp with V+ and ground. Maybe that causes the 8077's slightly lesser sound quality. Still, not a bad-sounding tuner for around $50. On the 8077, DIY'ers can't remove the output coupling caps because of the large DC offset. You can also forget the class A bias mod on this model because of this power supply. Both of these suggested mods, as described for the Kenwood KT-7500 on our DIY page, CAN be tried on the 9038. I plan to experiment with better op-amp and capacitor choices soon - keep tuned in. Winner of this shootout: the L-02T. search eBay for ST-8077
Rankings after Shootout #21
Shootout #22 (posted 01/23/03): Kenwood L-02T vs. Sansui TU-217
Winner: L-02T
Good looks and cheap. This straightforward little guy has only 3 gangs and 2 filters, no bells and no whistles. DXing of weak stations was good when the APS-9 was pointed directly at the station. On the weakest signals, there was more background noise compared to the L-02T. The TU-217's sound was very nice. The bass had a rounder, looser punch to it, while the L-02T's bass gave a feeling of more control and extension. The 217's midrange was very pleasant with good imaging throughout. The treble was slightly more forward than the L-02T's, but not irritating in the least. On spoken voices (DJs and commercials), you can hear extra sibilance compared to the L-02T. All things taken into account, I was very impressed - a very enjoyable sound in an inexpensive tuner for those with a good antenna, or at least close, strong, good FM stations. I've always found the inexpensive Sansui TU-217 and TU-317 (same tuner, more lights) to sound good, untouched. Also the TU-717, with the exception of one I once had that sounded thin (may have been out of alignment). Anyone who likes this look and likes good sound, but is budget-minded, should shop here. I rated the 217 low only because it does need a good signal for a quieter background. Winner of the shootout: the L-02T. search eBay for TU-217
Rankings after Shootout #22
Shootout #23 (posted 01/28/03): Kenwood L-02T vs. Nikko Gamma V
Winner: L-02T
Oh yum! Another nice digital tuner. My old girlfriend, Anna Log, is very jealous. I'd better tell a little story here. An old friend of mine from work bought a new truck and we took our ladies "antiquing" in it. In his new truck is a real nice stereo. He keeps the bass and treble cranked all the way up and loves the sound that way. At the end of the day, I had a real headache. This is an extreme example but I'm trying to show my preferences as far as sound. When I say in a review that the treble is forward compared to the L-02T's, there may be many out there who would think what I like is too laidback. So be it. Just a little note as this review begins and the first thing you hear is........ The Nikko Gamma V has great bass but the treble is more forward than the L-02T's! The L-02T's treble has a sweeter, more delicate presentation. Comparing the two reminded me of the difference between the first generation Infinity EMIT ribbon tweeters and the last ones made. Both were good tweeters, IMO, but the delicate highs presented in the last series were the best. The bass of the Nikko was up there with the L-02T's and imaging was great, too. The slightly forward upper midrange and highs were easy on the ears and always acceptable, but not to the L-02T's standard. Winner of the shootout, the L-02T.
Looking inside the Gamma V suggests that DIY'ers could have some fun. The circuit board is accessible from the top and bottom. The Nikko has the respected HA11223 MPX chip and it looks to have an easily upgradable 4558 audio op-amp, the same as the Kenwood KT-7500. There is a relay after the the op-amp. I have no schematic to confirm these observations. Some DX observations across the dial: Starting with 88.1 Denton, TX, both tuners were able to hold a good, clean, stereo image of this college station. On 88.7 aiming west toward KTCU, 3,000 watts from Ft. Worth, lots of noise in stereo on the Nikko, while the L-02T was fine, with both tuners in narrow mode. Pointing east, the L-02T picks up KTCU off the back of the antenna, while the Nikko is swamped by 88.5 to the southeast. At 104.9, a Spanish station, both tuners had it acceptable. [Gamma V Ricochets] search eBay for Gamma V
Rankings after Shootout #23
Shootout #24 (posted 02/06/03): Kenwood L-02T vs. Phase Linear Model 5000 Series Two
Winner: L-02T
A big name for a big tuner. Not much inside, though - it looks like a kit that a pre-teen could build. Bob Carver's idea seemed to be to copy the Marantz 10B and it almost comes off as attractive. If only he hadn't scrimped on those two microscopic meters in the upper left-hand corner.... The overall sound reminded me of the Kenwood KT-815, but thank goodness the Phase Linear did sound better. I never felt the need to turn it down. The soundstage favored the midrange but was pleasant enough. The highs did have more sibilance than the L-02T but didn't appear too forward, at least not any more than the midrange. It did have bass but it was somewhere between running out of gas and running on empty. You get a thump instead of feeling the bass as in the L-02T. Still, the Phase Linear had better bass than the Denon TU-850 reviewed earlier. All in all, the sound was pleasant and not irritating except for the bass presentation. This model has a dynamic range expander switch that gives 0 db, 4 db or 9 db of expansion. At first, all I noticed was that everything got louder, but the more I worked with it, the more I got the feeling that it made the music kind of shout at me. But guess what: the already anemic bass had even more trouble keeping up with the overall musical presentation.
DX results showed the Phase Linear capturing my test stations on 88.1 and 104.9 OK. The 88.7 came in with a lot of background noise, but the L-02T had problems of its own until I switched to narrow mode. Normal mode vs. normal, I would choose the Phase Linear when listening to this 3,000 watt station. This power hungry monster uses 13 (thirteen!) lamps for a total consumption of 75 watts, as listed on the back. Sixty watts probably was coming from these lamps. A note on the surprisingly pleasant sound: frankly, I expected worse than I heard. Inside, I see only film caps along the audio path, with no electrolytics between the MPX chip, audio stage and output. Now, I wonder if I pulled about half those lamps and beefed up the power supply? Would the bass come into its own? Stay tuned, I'll let you know. Of course the winner again is the L-02T, but the Phase Linear wasn't the worst of the bunch. search eBay for Phase Linear
Rankings after Shootout #24
Shootout #25 (posted 02/14/03): Kenwood L-02T vs. Pioneer TX-9500II
Winner: L-02T
This time around we have a very attractive Pioneer. The TX-9500II gave a clean sonic presentation. A/B testing against the L-02T, the soundstage is taller but narrower. Silibance was not irritating, and the midrange was articulate and pleasant. Imaging was good but lacked the sense of depth of the L-02T. Where the TX-9500II stumbled was in the lower midrange and bass area. The L-02T consistently gave more body to the music and a sense of power in the bass. I'm actually impressed with the TX-9500II's sound. The audio amp is a multi-function 16-leg PA1002. Pioneer says, "This AF amplifier is a direct coupled amplifier used as a differential NFB amplifier providing outstanding dynamic range, S/N ratio, and distortion factor." This chip also holds de-emphasis and muting functions. A quick look at the service manual invites some possible DIY improvements. The audio path is the same as a TX-8500II, which I've rebuilt with Black Gates and Nichicons, replacing the old electrolytics and tantalums. The final sound of the 8500II gave a more fleshed-out midrange and an even sweeter treble.
DXing with the TX-9500II looked good against the L-02T on weak "local" stations 88.7 KTCU in Ft. Worth, west of me, and 104.9, a Spanish music station to the north. On this rainy afternoon the 9500II held its own, capturing 88.7 off the back of the APS-9 while pointing east. This is the first tuner to match the L-02T in this test since I've starting using it. On another day, swinging the APS-9 toward the east on 88.7, I was searching for KTPB in Kilgore. The L-02T was able to dig through the muck and grab some classical music, weakly, but the Pioneer could capture nothing at 88.7 - a quick turn of the rotor to the left grabbed 88.9 or to the right 88.5, both of which are more powerful stations. (As a side note, I'll never give up my roof-mounted FM antenna. It has really brought in more stations with less noise for me.) To summarize, the TX-9500 impressed, but the winner, as before, is the L-02T. [TX-9500II Ricochets] search eBay for TX-9500II
Rankings after Shootout #25
Shootout #26 (posted 02/20/03): Kenwood L-02T vs. Marantz 2130
Winner: L-02T
This shootout will be longer than most as I give more information on the weak DX test stations. The Marantz Model 2130 is an attractive tuner that's fun to watch, with its scope dancing along with the music. The scope can also be used for fine tuning. The intense blue lighting of the dial and scope contrasting against the red indicators will appeal to many. Rotating my APS-9 antenna around the area gave these results. Looking northwest to 88.1, the University of North Texas station KNTU, 34.4 miles away, gave good results with both tuners. And on one particular night, I had to stop testing and listen to some really good jazz for an hour. Sometimes, you just get lucky. In the same direction is another weak station at 104.9 KTCY, 44.9 miles away. I was picking up more noise on the Marantz here. Next, I turned the antenna west, to the low-powered Texas Christian University station, 88.7 KTCU, 41.7 miles away. Capturing an acceptable signal here has been a good test for the shootout tuners. Surprisingly, both tuners did well on this night of DX tests. There was a cloud cover which may have helped. The Marantz had much more noise in wide mode that the L-02T did in wide. Searching directly east, I could grab 88.7 KTCU off the rear of the antenna in narrow, and also in wide for the L-02T. Maybe this summer I can relocate my antenna system to avoid facing into the giant tree in our yard. I really want to open up the signal path toward east Texas. It was jazz week while testing these two and I tripped over another college station at 88.9 KETR, 49.6 miles away, Texas A&M University-Commerce. On 88.9 the L-02T did fine in wide and narrow, while the Marantz would always switch to mono in wide but try to hold a stereo signal in narrow mode. Most of Dallas's "local" stations transmit from the large antenna farm in Cedar Hill, Texas, 22.5 miles from my house.
As far as sound quality goes, the Marantz had a forward, one-dimensional sound. The bass is OK, beating the Denon TU-850's. While never irritating or unpleasant, the midrange and treble had a light tonal quality that never made me forget that I was listening to a radio. There was also more hiss in the background with weak or problem signals compared to the L-02T. On the plus side, the Marantz pulled in the hard-to-grab college stations in narrow mode but not as cleanly as the L-02T. The L-02T easily won this one-on-one shootout. search eBay for 2130
Rankings after Shootout #26
Shootout #27 (posted 03/07/03): Kenwood L-02T vs. Kenwood KT-8300
Winner: L-02T
The Kenwood KT-8300 was a pleasant surprise. This time around, I had the chance to listen to two stock 8300s and found no real unit-to-unit differences. Love those meters. Analog rules! Oh, sorry... back to the review. It was an enjoyable experience throughout the listening sessions. I expected sound close to the KT-7500 that I rated so low, mainly because the KT-8300 uses the same op-amp at the output, but not so! The differences in circuitry upstream must be doing the trick. Against my standard L-02T, the soundstage presented itself slightly in front of the speakers from the upper midrange through the treble. These differences were very subtle but noticeable when the tuners were A/B tested. The dynamics that I found missing in the KT-7500 were there in the 8300 and made listening to music more enjoyable throughout the tests. The imaging of the 8300 was precise and pinpoint, not slightly diffuse like the TU-X1. As a personal preference, I enjoy the precise imaging of tuners like the L-02T and KT-8300. Maybe as part of the slightly "forward" upper range, you lose some of the three-dimensional sound quality found in the L-02T. On the plus side, the 8300 had more front-to-rear depth than the 7500 or even the KT-917. Bass was good and dynamics were surprisingly good. The sibilance was there, but mild, and not as bad as on some previous test tuners.
Tests on weak stations around the dial showed the KT-8300 to be a good DX machine. Weak stations on 88.1 and 104.9 and stronger signal stations gave no indication of a clear winner. Listening in on the weakest local station at 88.7, KTCU, proved interesting. The 8300 was definitely noisier than the L-02T, both in wide and narrow mode. Strangely, there was some noise always present with either tuner... but wait! That sounds like a dirty or well-used record. I called KTCU and sure enough, the DJ said it was a record album being played. Turning 180 degrees away from KTCU proved again the merits of the L-02T. In wide mode, both tuners heard noise and interference from 88.9 and 88.5, but the L-02T was able to grab KTCU in narrow mode with a listenable signal. Not so with the 8300. Overall, as nice a tuner as the KT-8300 is, the L-02T must come out on top again. search eBay for KT-8300
Rankings after Shootout #27
Shootout #28 (posted 03/11/03): Kenwood L-02T vs. Philips AH6731
Winner: L-02T
This time we have the black version of the AH673. This is a beautiful tuner and I'm sure the silver version is, too. The tuner's display has a muted, off-white illumination that I find most attractive, particularly in a dimly lit room. I was apprehensive about the touch controls, which seemed like a gimmick waiting to go wrong, but they worked flawlessly throughout the time the tuner was in my system. This is an "always on" feature, similar to most modern audio/video products with remote controls. The true on/off switch is located in the rear. Read Bob's review of the AH673 for more insight.
Time to cut to the chase. This is a wonderful-sounding tuner. I listened for hours without any thought of sonic faults. On casual listening, the Philips was very close in its sonic signature to the L-02T. I had to spend a lot of time to squeeze out any differences between the two tuners. There was just a hint of more bass extension from the L-02T, impossible to notice without long listening sessions and an aural magnifying glass. More noticeable was the added "life" in the highs. In the shootout wars, this was the first tuner to have more treble energy than the L-02T's that I still found just as enjoyable, if not more so. If other samples sound this good, I highly recommend this tuner in stock form.
THE CATCH: The Philips held its own against the L-02T in listenability on weaker stations in DX-type listening. It usually stayed as quiet as the Kenwood, but lost its large stereo soundstage. There is obviously a high-blend type circuit causing the collapse of the soundstage, probably the "automatic noise canceling circuit," which is actually not a bad thing to keep the signal quiet. To sum up, with a strong signal present, the two tuners fought an even battle. On weaker stations, the L-02T proved to be a slightly better all-around tuner. Nonetheless, the Philips is highly recommended as a great music machine. [AH6731 Ricochets] search eBay for Philips
Rankings after Shootout #28
Shootout #29 (posted 03/26/03): Kenwood L-02T vs. SAE Mark VI
Winner: L-02T
The SAE Mark VI is an interesting-looking tuner with its Nixie tubes and scope. It looks pretty neat. In fact, it dazzles. I can't help wondering how good it could have been, sonically, if all that transformer power and technology had been used to develop a good tube audio stage instead of these gadgets. Oh, well... truth be told, it doesn't sound bad at all. There are no glaring, unpleasant sonic problems. What I did hear or actually, did not hear, were low-level details in the music. Ambiance and low-level detail were diminished compared to the L-02T. The SAE's sound was lush and listenable, but missing the extra life I heard in the music when listening to the L-02T. Bass was nice but not as powerful as the L-02T's. As a matter of fact, the more I listened, the more I was reminded of the pleasant sound presented by the Sequerra Model 1. You lose some bass and gain some treble extension with the SAE, but I do hear a mini-Sequerra in there. Turn it on late at night, choose a nice wine and enjoy the tunes. And here is a nice benefit of owning one: if you want a hint of what a Sequerra Model 1 sounds like but for thousands of dollars less, grab one of these. There was more background noise on the weaker stations compared to the L-02T, but not as bad as some tuners in the shootouts. [Mark VI Ricochets] search eBay for Mark VI
Rankings after Shootout #29
Shootout #30 (posted 04/08/03): Kenwood L-02T vs. Pioneer F-90
Winner: L-02T
This tuner is the second of the the shootout contestants to have a known, good alignment, thanks to Bob. Nothing has been modified and no parts have been changed. Fortunately, it sounds better than the first aligned tuner, the Mac MR 78. Unfortunately, it doesn't DX as well. As usual, there were no noticeable problems at 88.1 and 104.9 but things fell apart for the F-90 at 88.7, at least when trying to keep up with the L-02T. The L-02T performed quite well in wide and narrow during KTCU's listening sessions but the F-90 would fade in and out in normal mode. It held the signal fairly steady in narrow. Going 180 degrees away from KTCU on 88.7, the F-90 was swamped with noise in normal and narrow. The L-02T was able to hold KTCU's signal in narrow but with significant fading on this day. Turning to 88.9, both tuners indicated poor reception with the F-90 having a flickering "TUNED" LED. The sound presented during the listening tests to this weak signal showed up as harsh sputter as the F-90 tried its best to grab and hold onto the signal. The L-02T's attempt was less sonically offensive as it held then lost the signal. I had hoped for better DX performance from the F-90 because, for some strange reason, I like the looks of this tuner. It is a universal tuner in that it has easily switchable voltages on the rear, 110/120/220/240. Also, there is a 50/75 microsecond deemphasis switch and choices for stepped tuning increments of 9 or 10 kHz for AM and 50 or 100 kHz for FM.
Now for the sound. AH! Here, we get to smile again. In treble sweetness, extension and ambient information, this is the second shootout tuner that, I feel, outperforms the L-02T - the first being the Philips AH6731. These two tuners just get it right in the treble. Boy, if I could tack this ability onto the already wonderful sounding L-02T... but that is where the mods, tweaks and after-market DIY come in, I guess. As far as the midrange goes, both the F-90 and L-02T held up well with articulate, focused images. The only area where the F-90 disappointed was in the lower midrange. There wasn't quite the weight and extra feel of power invoked as while listening to the L-02T. This gave the F-90's overall sound a lighter sonic presentation when A/B tested against the L-02T. That being said, the bass itself was nice and punchy on my system. I need to stop here to express how impossible this job would be without the L-02T being used as our standard, my benchmark for sonic neutrality and musicality. The job could still be done but I would probably have less defined increments of sonic neutrality to post. Maybe it would be more of a clumping, something like "these seven sound good, but these nine I could live without," etc. In any event, I have to say that the F-90 is a great-sounding tuner and a heck of a value at the price they're being sold for on eBay - a dream tuner for someone on a budget. Winner, the L-02T. search eBay for F-90
Rankings after Shootout #30
Shootout #31 (posted 04/12/03): Kenwood L-02T vs. Magnum Dynalab MD-108
Winner: L-02T
I told the gang I didn't want to do a shootout of our Kenwood transistor tuner against any tube tuners, including the MD-108 hybrid, but they forced me. They forced me to put this drop-dead gorgeous Magnum Dynalab tuner in my system and demanded that I listen to it. What's a dedicated tuner guy to do? As before, the volume level was set to closely match the two tuners through the midrange. Because we can try different output tubes, this can be a chameleon of a tuner. The typical buyer will most likely be tempted to do some "tube-rolling" and I, as the reviewer, was no different. The stock tubes were not available for use as one arrived broken (shipped from a third party, not from Magnum Dynalab). The first tubes tried were two smooth plate Telefunkens. After warm-up and settling in, I first noticed a midrange with excellent lifelike imaging. The treble was more forward than the L-02T's, but not irritating. The lifelike quality of voice and instruments made me sit up and listen. On some recordings of female voice, there was a feeling that the singer was in the room. The MD-108's downfall came in the lower midrange and bass that was a little light compared to the L-02T's richer, fuller sound. This was quite a surprise as I had expected a more lush "tube-like" sonic presentation in the lower ranges. Before the 108 arrived, my assumptions were it would have a Mac MR 67 or Marantz 10B-type sound quality. I was wrong. Did Magnum go out of their way not to overdo the "tube sound"?
Continuing to roll tubes, I tried a couple of 12AX7s marked GE and RCA which brought no new surprises, good or bad. But when I tried a pair of 7025s marked Sylvania, I heard a change for the better. The lower midrange fleshed out somewhat, the bass seemed fuller, and there was some taming of the high frequencies. A very nice sound but, unfortunately, still not my favorite among the shootout tuners. I wish I had a pair of RCA black plates available for more tube-rolling. I'll post a follow-up report if any better-sounding tubes are found. When I looked inside I noticed two .33 uf MIT brand capacitors on the audio board. I must stop and tell everyone right now, sonically, this is my least favorite cap of all the so-called high-end audio caps I've heard or tried in my own DIY projects. Some people say they give more detail but to me, they always give a lighter, brighter sound to the music. I believe these caps create "detail" not originally in the music. If they're in the direct audio path, I wonder what would happen if they were replaced with Infinicaps or.....? Would I finally fall in love? Would everything fall into place and make the MD-108 THE top tuner? Maybe, but in the meantime, the L-02T wins again. I give the MD-108 a high rating, mostly because of the excellent midrange presentation.
Turning to DX qualities.... The Magnum Dynalab has three IF bandwidths. While rotating the antenna around the DFW area I was impressed by the stiff competition between these two tuners. On our weak station, 88.7, looking west toward Ft. Worth, both held on pretty well in wide mode and both were listenable and enjoyable in narrow. There was more background hiss in the MD-108 but more interference from 88.5 on the L-02T. Still on 88.7 and turning the antenna to the east, I was surprised that both tuners were receiving and holding the East Texas public radio station 130 miles away in narrow mode. One reason may have been that hailstorms tore half the leaves off the giant magnolia tree in our backyard and the APS-9 had a much cleaner line of sight. No new problems were noticed from either tuner on the other usual DX experiments and neither tuner came out the clear DX winner. [MD-108 Ricochets] search eBay for MD-108
Rankings after Shootout #31
Shootout #32 (posted 04/25/03): Kenwood L-02T vs. Sansui TU-D99X
Winner: L-02T
Another dream tuner for the budget-conscious. Another tuner that sounds great stock. That makes my job of reviewing just that much harder. The cream at the top is getting so thick it's overflowing. I want to listen to some bad-sounding tuners soon - well, maybe just one. This slim black Sansui has a very articulate midrange with good imaging. The midrange and treble are slightly forward of the L-02T's presentation. The bass doesn't go as deep in punch power (not many do). The Sansui's highs are sweet and non-irritating and blend well with the midrange. There have been somewhere between 50 and 100 nice-sounding tuners that have found a temporary home in my audio system since the formation of TIC. Many of these tuners have been digital. There really haven't been that many bad-sounding tuners, and there have been some great ones - keepers you can just set and forget. Tuners that tweak crazies like me could just leave alone, if that were possible. At the time of this writing I would be able to live with the top 13, if I had to, without mods. This is a nice tuner for those who just want to play and forget about "fixing it up," although not in the L-02T's class.
The DXing was as follows. The TU-D99X picked up nearby weak stations when the antenna was correctly positioned. It and the L-02T both picked up 104.9 OK. To the northwest, 88.1 showed more background noise on the Sansui. On 88.7, KTCU, 3,000 watts to the west, the Sansui caught it in narrow mode but was swamped by 88.5 from the southeast in wide. The Sansui had more background noise in narrow than the L-02T had in wide when tuned to KTCU. Pointing east on 88.7, the Sansui was swamped by 88.5 to the southeast in wide and na
