How is it ? that a tuner smokes the table ???

>>02-02-11: Spatialking
Don't forget that radio stations play only the very best sources, too.<<

That is plain and simple BS.

I just saw this thread, and I can relate to it on several levels.

First, back in the 1970s, I used to think my modified Dyna FM-3 (regulated power supply and upgraded caps and resistors) sounded better than my LPs and I had the same puzzled reaction that the OP had. Then one day I put on the same LP that was playing on the FM station, and I was able to switch back and forth. The vinyl was cleaner and more detailed; the FM-3 however was rich, warm and dynamic which made it very involving and a lot of fun to listen to. After the A/B comparison, I had a better understanding of what the Dyna tuner was adding to the sound. It was euphonic and enjoyable but in some respects not as accurate.

Second, while it is true that many FM stations compress the signal terribly and use sub-par source equipment, not all stations are guilty of this. In fact, some of the very best sounding FM comes from low-budget, low-power radio stations often affilitated with a college. Perhaps they don't have the expensive equipment needed to mess up the sound quality. Those same stations often have a jazz format which makes them even more attractive for me.

Third, back in my earliest days, I was listening to rock on a new Washington DC station, and the music sounded so fantastic I even called up the station to ask what kind of cartridge they were using. I was expecting them to say it was a Shure V-15 (one of the top-line carts back then). Instead, they were using a lowly Shure M3D tracking at some ungodly VTF. in any event, it sounded great. Maybe it was just that all the equipment was brand new, and perhaps the records were as well.

Fourth, in the early 1990's, after many years without FM, I decided to try the darling tuner that all the mags were raving about, the Magnum Dynalab FT 101A. What a joke! The sound of that tuner was edgy and grainy. It only confirmed my suspicions that reviewers are extremely poor judges of sound quality. I have no doubt that more recent Dynalabs sound better but that experience was so disappointing that I wouldn't even consider another product from them.

Fifth and last, I bought a Fisher FM-100B a few years ago which had been restored by the Fisher Doctor, and I have to admit it does sound very nice. It doesn't rival my vinyl setup and it doesn't have the best low-noise performance in stereo, but the warmth, dynamics and overall fun factor remind me of the old Dyna FM-3 days. As far as I am concerned, vintage tube FM is where it's at for anyone interested in FM these days.

Dave

>>02-02-11: Spatialking
Don't forget that radio stations play only the very best sources, too.<<

That is plain and simple BS.

A longer version of this unbeatable short answer :-)
The Radio Stations play from Harddisc, with limiters and compressors to bend the signal, that even in lowest quality area the song is acceptable. Has absolutely nothing to do with high End. More low end, or lowest end.
Same is the thinking about Turntables used in the Stations, they must be superior....never, horrible, their ONLY goal was to accelerate fast from zero to 33,3, that was all. No one asked for sound "quality". Never.
The ONLY area where really top equipment was (or is) used, are the transmitters which send the signal from one antenna to the next.

Why do we like the sound sometimes when we listen?
Well, there are some exceptions from the Radio Stations, the poor ones don't have that expensive technical equipment and they are the ones to go for.
Next, most tuners, specially those "Reference" Tuners are good in getting a Signal, but they sound horrible. Really, really awful. Even with the best signal.
Not much work was done for the output section (until today). Tuners which get lots of signals AND do sound good, are ultra rare.
Is it worth it?
Who knows, Radio is free music, you can get a lot of different impressions...