Whither the Tuner?
With all of the new program sources available
these days -- Internet and satellite radio, MP3s (ugh!), SACD, DVD-Audio, downloads,
uploads, yadda yadda yadda -- is a tuner really needed in a high-quality music system
anymore? I’d say, unequivocally, no -- and yes.
It all depends on the stations in your area. If you live in
the US and most of your listening is to FM stations "above 92" (92.1-107.9MHz; i.e.,
commercial stations), it’s a bit harder to say "yes," for many reasons.
First is what people in radio call "the
playlist." What songs do your local stations play? The same 300 tunes, over and over?
Have you ever had the feeling that if you turned on your local rock station at a
particular time each day, you’d always hear AC/DC or .38 Special? (Or, for that
matter, Linkin Park or the Smashing Pumpkins?) Do you prefer to listen to music on your
iPod? If so, the answer is clear: You don’t need a tuner. (In Canada, the playlist
situation is different. Because a certain percentage of all music broadcast must fit the
Canadian Radio-Television Commission’s definition of "Canadian Content," a
more diverse playlist is guaranteed.)
Second, how do your local commercial stations sound?
Most US commercial stations, especially rockers, use what’s known in the industry as
"chainsaw processing." Because every station wants to be the loudest on the
dial, they lop off all the deep bass and high treble, bump up the signal at 125Hz (to give
an impression of bass), and again at about 3-4kHz (for some sizzle), and then
compress the music signal until its dynamic range is only 1-2dB.
Then there’s the other content. Apart from the hits,
do these stations play anything that’s even vaguely interesting to you? Do they have
interesting morning shows? In-studio "concerts"? If not, again -- you probably
won’t benefit from having a tuner.
However, if you live in a US market with good public radio
stations, the answer probably is "Yes -- you need a tuner." Here’s why.
First, while noncommercial stations may have consistent
formats (classical, jazz, alternative, etc.), they tend to play broader ranges of music,
even within their chosen genre(s). That makes a big difference.
Second, many public stations hire engineers and programmers
who actually appreciate the music their stations broadcast. So the stations sound
better.
Third, now there’s HD radio.
I live in Cincinnati, the poster-child city for this grand
experiment. Nearly every FM station in town broadcasts in HD (hybrid digital) not
only the same programming as its regular analog channel, but also at least one additional
program stream.
For instance, if you saw Rain Man, you may remember
Raymond (Dustin Hoffman) repeating "97-X BAM, The Future of
Rock’n’Roll" over and over. That was the slogan of WOXY, a small local
station that played a very diverse selection of music. Its owners finally took an offer
they couldn’t refuse and sold out, continuing it as an Internet radio service. Now,
97-X is coming back as an HD-2 stream on a local public station.
We have a terrific public classical station that, much to
its credit, added a jazz service on their HD-2 channel. It’s what I listen to much of
the time.
We also have deep-cut classic rock, very deep-cut
alternative, classic/traditional country, and a lot more -- all thanks to HD-2 channels.
Industry giant Clear Channel Radio offers its stations 75 different alternate formats for
their HD-2 streams, ranging from "Americana" (bluegrass, acoustic folk, etc.) to
Christian metal. And because the Clear Channel programmers were able to develop their own
formulas (without the music being researched to sterility), some of these are quite good.
However, I hear you asking, "What about XM or
Sirius?" If you read my recent musings on satellite radio at AudioVideoTrends.com,
you’ll know why I choose HD over satellite: sound quality.
Most of the HD channels here operate at a rate of 48,000
bits per second (48kbps). That allows two digital streams -- a digital version of their
analog signal and one HD-only signal -- which neatly divides in two the total HD bandwidth
of 96kbps, and gives their audio virtual CD-quality sound.
On the other hand, XM and Sirius use different bandwidths
for their different channels, and not all of them are "hi-fi." Engineer friends
have told me some of Sirius’s channels are good up to only 6kHz, and XM’s up to
7.5kHz. The best cut off at about 15kHz -- the same top limit as analog FM. Very few are
what one might consider "hi-fi."
And, important to a cheapskate such as I: once you’ve
bought the receiver, HD channels are free. No monthly subscription. And, for the time
being (just as on some XM and Sirius channels), no ads.
Drawbacks of HD? One, primarily: it goes only so far -- not
as far as an analog signal. There’s no fading, as there is on analog: the HD channel
is either there or it isn’t.
Canadian readers may be familiar with the DAB system
present in most major Canadian markets. It’s based on the European DAB standard -- a
pure digital system that operates on a completely different part of the spectrum (the
US’s HD radio, in effect, piggybacks a digital system atop the analog). It’s
much purer and capable of much better sound. But DAB has not caught on, due largely to a
lack of receivers. So Canada is gearing up to try the US’s HD radio as well.
Do you need a tuner for your home music system? Ultimately,
it’s up to you. For a good look at the current technology, see GoodSound! on
September 15 for a review of NAD’s new C425 tuner.
As for me, I have four tuners: one for my main system; the
HD in my office system (the one I listen to most); one in my "classic" (original
Dynaco) system; and one in the "background" system in the living room.
Radio -- can’t live without it!
…Thom Moon
E-mail comments to the editor@goodsound.com.
|
