Lernen Sie die Übersetzung für 'shootouts' in LEOs Englisch ⇔ Deutsch Wörterbuch. Mit Flexionstabellen der verschiedenen Fälle und Zeiten ✓ Aussprache. Übersetzungen für shootouts im Englisch» Deutsch-Wörterbuch von PONS Online:penalty shootout. Übersetzung für shootouts im Englisch-Deutsch-Wörterbuch frankston.nu Please do leave them untouched. So an exception to this, however, is penalty shootouts. Vermissen Sie ein Stichwort, eine Wendung oder eine Übersetzung? Diese Beispiele können umgangssprachliche Wörter, die auf der Grundlage Ihrer Suchergebnis enthalten. Schusswechsel und Hinterhalte in jeder Nacht. Transliteration aktiv Tastaturlayout Phonetisch. Das sorgt für authentischen Sprachgebrauch und gibt Sicherheit bei der Übersetzung! We use the official final scores i. Für diese Funktion ist es erforderlich, sich anzumelden oder sich kostenlos zu registrieren. Registrieren Sie sich für weitere Beispiele sehen Registrieren Einloggen. But they can't support you with all these shootouts. Lieutenant, multiple rounds were fired at the recent Club Mayan shootout. There was a shootout in the Langa Township. Mein Suchverlauf Meine Favoriten. Goals or points scored on extra time and penalty shoot-outs do not count unless otherwise stated.
Economic collapse causes widespread rioting and social unrest, leaving a lovesick year-old girl struggling to care for her siblings in a stretch of woods bordered by lawless anarchy, A destitute Sinatra pursues a hapless romance with the sultry starlet; marked by passion, bourbon and infidelities; while campaigning for the role of Angelo Maggio in From Here to Eternity; the sole ray of hope in salvaging his career.
A journey into the mind of an Afghanistan War vet as he struggles with P. After two marines make it home following an ISIS interrogation, one struggles to survive while the other fights his way back into the mixed martial arts world that he left behind years ago Start your free trial.
Find showtimes, watch trailers, browse photos, track your Watchlist and rate your favorite movies and TV shows on your phone or tablet! Keep track of everything you watch; tell your friends.
Full Cast and Crew. Our Favorite Trailers of the Week. See more production information about this title on IMDbPro. This looked like a suicide by cop to me.
But I could be wrong. In any case the officers remained fairly calm as they could be while being shot at with a very powerful rifle. Yes, it was a "suicide by police" event - after the initial volley of fire, you can hear the pinhead yell for police to "kill me!
That last police volley was 17 shots - several of them after the guy had fallen over. Can you say, adrenalin? I'm sorry for the young man!!!
If somebody asked that cop why did you shoot him 17 times, the classic answer would be because I ran out of ammunition.
Ohio Police Attacked with AK 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.
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 Jim's findings.
Let the games begin! 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.
This type of line stage has been in my system for many years and has never failed me sonically or in reliability.
The speakers are JMlab model Daline 3. I am very familiar with the "sound" of this system and feel I can hear the "sound" of any new component installed.
The Creek sees the line stage's K ohm input. Some tuners with very high output impedance may have some bass rolloff.
Audioquest cable will be used on both tuners. The room is a converted bedroom, 10 x 12 x 8 feet, and the speakers are backed by a solid, windowless wall.
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 on the show's "Stupid Pet Tricks" episodes, "This is not a competition - this is only an exhibition - so please, no wagering.
For another viewpoint on many of the shootouts, read what our panelist David "Anonymous" has to say on the Ricochets page. McIntosh MR 78 Winner: The MR 78 was factory serviced by McIntosh in 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 LT 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.
I installed the LT versus the LT. The most noticable difference so far was with my antenna pointed toward The LT pulled it in fairly strong but the LT has noticably more noise and fade.
The LT 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 Again the LT showed its stuff and stayed almost dead quiet, while the LT had noticable background noise.
The LT is still at the top of the pack in sound quality. Both have better than average bass. The LT has a slightly forward midrange and treble.
It was a pleasant sound listened to alone, but when held up next to the LT, the LT's sonic faults became more noticable. The LT 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: Next the Sequerra Model 1 goes up against the champ. It wouldn't be fair to put my modified Kenwood KT in the ring.
He is on steroids. Sequerra Model 1 Winner: 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.
The bass is there but more accurate, the midrange is there but more precise. Again, from top to bottom, the LT sounds the most natural - again the winner in my system.
The TU 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 LT and LT, all three of which have better than average bass with a feeling of reserve power behind them.
The Yamaha CT stayed in the system longer than the other recent challengers. It was a tough call between the CT and the LT.
The Yamaha is a very pleasant sounding tuner, top to bottom. The bass is not as tight as the LT but very pleasant.
The Yamaha's whole soundstage sounds a touch more diffused than the precise imaging presented by the LT. The CT's treble is good, with no unpleasant sibilance.
I have to say it is my second choice at this point. The shootout has become even more fun this week. The Kenwood KT is big and beautiful, with as much class as any analog tuner ever possessed.
The 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.
With the , I was able to squeeze out a couple of stations at the lower end of the band that the LT couldn't even catch.
One station was there in the 's Normal IF band while the LT couldn't even pull it in its Narrow setting - go figure.
This may just be an exceptional Now the results for my listener's choice: The LT wins again! While the sound of the KT is great, it still falls short of the LT's high standards.
The bass was a fairly even match but the 's midrange and treble have a slightly flat, one-dimensional effect compared to the LT's.
The LT gives a more three-dimensional effect with voice and instruments having a real "in the room" feel. Again, the sounded great, just not quite up to the level of the LT.
I also started wondering about the Yamaha CT while listening to the two Kenwoods. In my review of the CT, I said, "No unpleasant sibilance.
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 LT, "midrange slightly forward.
Again, all I can come up with, in summary, is the LT just sounds more natural. 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 LT had more precise imaging. Each voice, musical instrument, etc. The apparent front-to-rear imaging - sense of real music being played - was good on both tuners.
The LT 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: 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.
The Revox B, 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 LT's, but not unpleasant. The B has slightly more background hiss than either the LT 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 LT. It's been a long time since I've sat down and seriously listened to a stock KT 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 did have much more noise and problems from strong nearby stations, though.
Both tuners were able to pick up Winner and still audio champ? 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'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 LT. 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.
When pointed East to The LT was able to get through to Next up, the Kenwood KT The 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 LT 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 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 All the way from Norway, the Tandberg A 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 A 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 LT.
The A 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 LT.
Listened to alone, it was very nice. Listened to against the LT, you're left wanting a little more. Still, I give the A high marks for its pleasant musicality.
Magnum Dynalab FT Winner: The LT was tag-teamed this week by two brothers. The revisions are in the audio circuit, as well as slight cosmetic changes.
It consists of a dual op-amp buffer that sees the audio signal from an LM From the , the signal goes to two smallish 4.
It had good bass punch, the treble wasn't forward or bright, and imaging was also good. Another way to try to explain is that the LT is more natural-sounding.
Against the LT 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.
Winner and still champion: Next up, the Luxman T 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. I hooked up the Luxman, sat down to listen and got back up thinking I was listening to the LT.
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 gave up a little richness in tone quality to the LT in bass. Its midrange was very nice but the images didn't "float" in space as realistically as the LT's.
The treble was slightly, just slightly, more forward of the LT's treble, and that treble difference wasn't noticable on every song. If these sound like negatives, they're really not.
It sounds better than a Magnum Dynalab FT or any other stock Magnum I've owned or heard, and it costs less, but it's not as attractive as a FT in an analog sort of way.
The T also has the potential to be a good tuner for DXing. Using narrow band and switching from kHz tuning steps to 25 kHz steps on the rear of the tuner, I was able to pull in On other stations, too, the two tuners seemed to be neck-and-neck in pulling power.
Overall, though, the LT still wears the crown. 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 LT was a no-go, too. For example, pointing west toward It was so directional grabbing the signal in narrow that I used it to mark my rotor for an exact alignment toward Pointing toward the east at The Fanfare was swamped by nearby Again the winner of the shootout is the LT.
Normally, the Shootouts are for stock tuners only. Although Fanfare obviously thinks that the silver wiring improves the sound or else why would they offer it?
I've had 5 or 6 TUs 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 LT 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 LT.
This isn't a bad thing, just a different presentation from the LT's. There is some spit in the 's treble, but the treble band isn't overly noticeable like the ReVox B's.
Still, it's a good reason to put better caps in the audio section path. All in all, the 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. 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 Because the Luxman T and Sansui TU 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 LT 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.
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. For classical, jazz, etc. If you could take the best qualities of both and put them together, you would be very close to the LT, I think.
It really hurts to publish this but I would ultimately choose the Luxman between these two. Time for some upgrades!
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.
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.
The bass of both was very close, very close. The treble was smooth and controlled, again close to the sweetness of the LT. The midrange was even nice, but not the rich, involving sound I've grown so fond of from the LT.
The ST's sound was less three-dimensional than the LT'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.
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 LT.
Well, I had to know. Was there something special inside the ST? 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.
These were not directly in the signal path. The not-so-special was the 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 op-amp caused the not-so-wonderful midrange when the ST was thrown up against the LT or the Luxman T Naim NAT 01 Winner: This is an older, two-piece tuner.
The tuner is the Naim NAT 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 LT's. The midrange was more one-dimensional and had a diffuse sound to it.
The soundstage was taller than the LT 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: And it drifts off channel from time to time.
It tries so hard not to offend and for that reason it did. This is a very attractive tuner, for a digital. A inch rack mount, gold tone, black handles and pushbuttons, colorful display, serial no.
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.
Next to the LT'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 LT 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.
This has become a good test to pit the sensitivity of other tuners against the LT. The F is a very upscale-looking tuner - gold accents, orange display, and polished-looking wood side panels.
Well, this was a tough one. And that is still my impression. The F has an articulate midrange, and the treble is more forward but not irritating.
Actually, the whole sonic presentation was forward of the LT's. It doesn't have the LT's sense of front-to-rear depth. In my small listening room, I preferred the LT.
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 LT'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 was never irritating, I still preferred the LT's musical presentation as the more balanced one.
In a large room, in a big sound system, I might choose this Pioneer over the LT. I put it below the KT on the overall list for my small listening room choices.
For DXing, the F doesn't look too great. I was so impressed by the sound of the Technics ST that I bought an ST on eBay to see if I could get away with, hopefully, a cheaper version.
Well, they aren't really the same but are about the same size and share the same op-amp the and close proximity to the output jacks.
The 's bass was very good but not quite as full as the LT's. The 's treble was pleasant and lacked any unpleasant sibilance or forwardness.
The midrange wasn't as lifelike compared to the LT's, and was also bested by its digital display brother, the ST 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, which uses the same audio op-amp.
Also, the has no mechanical switching along that path. The result is a noticable improvement in sound through design, whether intentional or accidental.
Maybe that causes the 's slightly lesser sound quality. You can also forget the class A bias mod on this model because of this power supply.
I plan to experiment with better op-amp and capacitor choices soon - keep tuned in. Winner of this shootout: 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 LT. The TU's sound was very nice. The bass had a rounder, looser punch to it, while the LT's bass gave a feeling of more control and extension.
The 's midrange was very pleasant with good imaging throughout. The treble was slightly more forward than the LT's, but not irritating in the least.
On spoken voices DJs and commercials , you can hear extra sibilance compared to the LT. 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 and TU same tuner, more lights to sound good, untouched. Also the TU, 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 low only because it does need a good signal for a quieter background.
Winner of the shootout: Nikko Gamma V Winner: 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 LT's, there may be many out there who would think what I like is too laidback.
Just a little note as this review begins and the first thing you hear is The LT'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 LT'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 LT's standard.
Winner of the shootout, the LT. The circuit board is accessible from the top and bottom. There is a relay after the the op-amp. I have no schematic to confirm these observations.
Some DX observations across the dial: Worth, lots of noise in stereo on the Nikko, while the LT was fine, with both tuners in narrow mode.
A big name for a big tuner. Not much inside, though - it looks like a kit that a pre-teen could build.
Photos Add Image Add an image Do you have any images for this title? Learn more More Like This. A Soldier's Story 2: Return from the Dead Eric Roberts, John J.
I Got the Hook Up 2 Frank and Ava A house with a dark history. The Debt I Officer Charlie Kj Smith Love how the media and liberals fault police whenever they shoot someone who is threatening them, saying they use "too much force".
Have the morons look at this video and then see what they say. It can happen anytime anywhere. As a firearm enthusiast and a pro gun lobbyist I hate to see this kind of crap.
Where do these freaks come from? I fell that police cruisers should have a full auto tactical rifle where the shotgun is. Sometimes a service pistol is not enough, Luckily this time it was.
This looked like a suicide by cop to me. But I could be wrong. This is a nice tuner for those who just want to play and forget about "fixing it up," although not in the LT's class.
The DXing was as follows. The TU-D99X picked up nearby weak stations when the antenna was correctly positioned. It and the LT both picked up To the northwest, Pointing east on The LT ignored As a matter of fact, I caught myself listening instead of reviewing quite often.
The faults I found were faults of omission rather than any glaring problems. This sample of the T-2 had a lot of drift, which lasted for a good 5 minutes after turn-on.
I wonder if this is a common problem with this model? After matching the volume of the two tuners through the midrange, I got the following sonic results.
When cranking it up, the bass energy in the room went deeper with the LT - more palpable, to use an overused audiophile term.
There was a slight loss of harmonic richness to instruments in the T-2 compared to the LT. I first noticed this with the strum of an acoustic guitar.
The highs, although never unpleasant, were a little more pronounced. This was most noticeable on an announcer's voice and during commercials, with the sibilance being sharper.
Again, I must say the differences were subtle but noticeable in side-by-side testing. Spinning the FM antenna around the area gave these results.
Our true test at The T-2 grabbed and held a good signal in either of the Yamaha's switchable RF modes, which are labeled Selectivity and Sensitivity.
Now here was a shock: On this day, the LT was intermittently swamped by Going to narrow mode on the LT reversed the results and the Kenwood gave a better signal than the Yamaha.
Both came in with good stereo lock but the Yamaha had more noticeable background noise. Later, I realized that Yamaha's circuitry had automatically switched to a more narrow filter configuration than Kenwood's wide.
Going degrees out from The Yamaha had trouble in any configuration, being swamped by To sum up, the T-2 is another nice tuner I could easily live with, if I weren't spoiled rotten with all these nicer tuner toys around me.
There have been quite a few more desirable tuners reviewed in these shootouts, but this Yamaha may very well be THE cutoff tuner between the keepers and the also-rans.
I have an interesting history with the FT series of MD tuners. I absolutely love the look and really should keep one in my collection, but they just cost too much and I'm just too cheap.
I have owned four or five of these tuners, dating back 12 or so years. The most expensive one was an Etude, a demo unit that I bought from a high-end store.
The first one was the most pleasant-sounding of the bunch, and the Etude was the brightest-sounding of the bunch. I've noticed a lot of variability in sound, at least to my ears, from this series.
What could cause this variability is anyone's guess. Now on to the Etude under test. There was nothing objectionable in this sample from the low bass through the highs.
It was a pleasant enough sound throughout. Pitting the Etude against the LT gave the following results. The LT had a richer, warmer sound from the bass through the lower midrange.
The LT's treble was a little more laidback but the Etude was never bright or unpleasant to listen to. This Etude sample should satisfy most listeners.
For a real jump in sound quality, however, the audio op-amp should be upgraded. I've replaced the stock op-amp with Burr-Brown's OPA in a couple of these and in two older style FT's in the past year, and highly recommend this mod along with replacing the output caps with Black Gates or polypropylenes.
There is room inside. The owner of this Etude says, "This is the best tuner I've found out of many many many for a dreadful multipath interference condition.
Even in narrow mode the Etude had the cleaner signal. Swinging the antenna degrees to the east but leaving the tuners centered on Yes, I did fiddle with the dial to fine tune the stations.
The Etude seems to be more sensitive but not as selective as the LT. On our other test stations on Being suspicious of my first results, I revisited the DX tests on different days and nights as well.
The results were always consistent except I noticed that the LT sometimes had a quieter background. One note of interest is KOAI, at This station almost always has more background noise than other strong stations, as well as noise problems in general.
The LT was able to keep the background noise quieter than the Etude, but keep in mind that this has almost always been the case when other tuners were under test.
After the review, this sample will go under the knife soldering iron in the hopes of making it a better tuner. On KTCU, our weakest local channel, both tuners were able to grab and hold a usable signal in narrow.
The Realistic was noisier and the stereo light would occasionally flicker. On the other weak stations used as tests, there were no real problems.
On the always problematic As a DX machine, the TM is not up there with the big dogs, but it's better than many we've seen. This little guy was also a pleasant surprise in the sound department, at least when a strong signal was present.
It didn't have the same sense of depth as the LT, but was musically involving. You don't quite get the same rich bass and dynamics as delivered on the LT and some others, but you do get a musically satisfying tuner.
The highs were sweet and never irritated. One thing I didn't like was the short travel of the tuning dial between stations.
You had to dial very slowly and gingerly to stop on a station. The TM definitely doesn't have the feel of the better Kenwoods and Sansuis from the "good ol' days.
I accentuate this review with the fact that every one I've tried had very poor reception. Although it is a good-sounding tuner, it is not sensitive at all and won't pick up anything but the strongest of stations.
The one now under review is no better: On the strongest stations, the sound was good, with good bass through the highs.
The sound was more diffuse than the LT, which has great imaging. I've bought a TU service manual so if I get it serviced and things improve, I'll post the results.
I'm hoping this MAY be an assembly line problem and not a design problem. Not recommended - lowest overall rating so far.
I knew I was in trouble early into this review, not only because this Revox sounds great, but because there have been several great-sounding tuners on my shelf recently that you've not read about yet.
I've tried to keep a few reviews ahead of the schedule we've set and suddenly, we have several that all deserve to be at the very top.
This Revox is one of this growing cluster of excellent tuners - tuners so good, so excellent-sounding, it isn't fair or logical to place one above the other.
I'm not going to deviate from our established numerical list but I have to say that this cluster all belong bunched at the top. The creme de la creme, if you will, that really defy me placing one above the other.
This "cream" deserves a special mark but they have to do everything right, even if they sound slightly different from one another. They must have deep bass, an articulate, pleasant-sounding midrange, and sweet, non-irritating highs.
For lack of a better mark, I'll mark these as -C- besides placing them in numerical order. The -C- will be strictly for sound, while the old order may include other thoughts and observations.
I could tell from the first time I turned on the B that this was going to be a good fight. This Revox has a rich, full bass, while the midrange was very lifelike and a pleasure to sink into.
The midrange was slightly more forward than the LT's but never in a way that distracted from the whole presentation, and the highs were smooth and extended but never bright.
A definite improvement over the highs of the Revox B reviewed above. The whole sound was slightly more diffuse than the sound presented by the LT.
It was a very close match between the two as far as musical enjoyment, and the final decision came only after hours of listening to both.
Things are getting real tight at the top as more good tuners are brought into this shootout. The Revox's controls had a more "clunky" feel compared to some analog Sansui and Kenwood models that many of us love, but the sound is where it shines.
Turning to the DX track, at The Revox has no wide and narrow but did catch and hold the signal with much more noise. Switching to mono helped very little.
There was no jazz to be heard on The ReVox was able to control the background noise as well as the LT on Other tuners have been so nice-sounding, in their own way, they've made me look at the LT's sound in a new light.
Could there be more than one path to audio bliss from these tuners? Just a few thoughts after listening to so many tuners in my role as reviewer.
They had the same low, lush, powerful bass. The imaging was excellent on both, they were both very three-dimensional in their presentations, the highs were sweet and never fatiguing, and I could listen to either of them for hours.
It took me a very long time to come up with any sonic differences. Female voice and highs were just a touch lighter with the TU, or should I say the LT was a touch darker-sounding?
The differences were very, very slight. At times, while listening to female vocals, I imagined she stepped off the stage and sang to just me through the Kenwood but stepped back on the stage and sang to everyone at my "table" through the Sansui.
Just an image of the slight differences. The technical side of me was disturbed that it was so hard to tell them apart. One tuner's audio stage uses discrete transistors and the other tuner uses op-amps in the audio section, but in a unique way.
Why do they sound so similar? The planets were aligned just right? Whatever, the LT may have met its match. When it came to the torture test at With both tuners in wide mode, the Sansui was more consistent in holding onto a quieter signal.
In narrow mode, both tuners held a cleaner signal but the Sansui had more occasional noise as its stereo light flickered.
The Kenwood's stereo light held steady but it was obvious that the signal wasn't much more than mono. Manually switching both tuners to mono brought the different RF games these boys were playing under the same set of rules and after that, they fought to a draw.
Thanks to good tropospheric conditions, both tuners could pick up The Kenwood held a better signal, while the Sansui wasn't as selective and occasionally let To sum up, the TU is highly recommended.
The LT by a song and a prayer. That being said, if push came to shove, I could easily switch out the two and make the Sansui king.
The ST-J88B is one of those tuners I would love to see hear aligned right with new filters selected the way we've learned they should be.
I like the sound and wonder just how far it could be pushed. The outside is very attractive, which is something I find hard to get right on a digital tuner.
It is wide, low and has an pleasant, understated display. I guess when you've had hundreds of different tuners sitting on the shelf, the sameness in colors can get tiresome.
When I saw it at my friend's office, I couldn't wait to snatch it up and take it home for a test drive. I usually don't do this but had to take a look under the hood.
It appears to have a user-friendly DIY-type layout that's fairly easy to understand, even without a service manual.
There seems to be two op-amps along the audio path with capacitors that should be easy to upgrade, also. Time to order some parts. Some DX thoughts first.
On most stations, both tuners had signals that were clean, quiet and pleasant to listen to. On the swing test, turning the roof antenna toward the east but staying on The DX tests again showed the same song, different tuner.
These tuners have a somewhat similar sonic signature. The differences were subtle but there. While listening one-on-one, it was a most enjoyable time and if other samples sound this nice, the ST-J88B is another one I can recommend.
The bass didn't have quite the power and punch as the Kenwood but had nothing to be ashamed of. The midrange was a little forward but pleasant, and there were no problems in the treble region.
Recommended, but the winner is still the LT. There isn't much to say. When trying to capture KTCU The Nak did handle the birdie problems on Both tuners were able to receive the other test stations with quiet, trouble-free signals.
Speaking of quiet, this Nak has the Schotz noise-reduction circuit. Well, it works, I guess. I had to WORK to hear it work, though. With the APS-9 hooked up, I had a very hard time finding a station that was noisy.
I unhooked my main antenna and stuck in an 8-inch piece of wire. The Nak was able to pick up most every station I normally hear but they automatically switched to mono and stayed very quiet.
Pretty impressive, in a way, but I still had no noise for the Schotz to kill. I then hooked up a Godar indoor antenna.
Now we were getting stereo signals on SOME stations. I was able to find only two stereo signals with enough noise to use the Schotz circuit, and it did diminish that background noise.
IMO, not much of a gimmick to spend your money on. Buy yourself a good FM antenna for the roof or attic instead. The Nak's sound was a little strange.
While the bass went deep, it had a sort of muffled sound to it. It didn't have the extra punch of the LT's bass but didn't sound rounded like on some tube tuners either.
At times, I noticed the extreme highs to be somewhat rolled off in comparison to the LT. To top all this off, the midrange was more forward than the LT's.
Listened to on its own, I didn't find the Nak offensive, sonically, but definitely not neutral and not for the bass lovers among us.
Such a pretty face, such a beautiful chassis, but does she have inner beauty? Is her beauty only skin deep?
It is my habit of late, when testing new tuners, to plug them in and let them "cook" for a couple of days. The LT sees almost daily usage and some of these tuners may have sat for months.
I also go in and clean the variable caps and switches in analog tuners. Kind of a tune r up before the big race. The names of these two Kenwoods are close and confusing so I will call them king and maiden for this Shootout.
I trust you know which one the present king is. During listening tests, it was apparent that the king still squeezed out the last measure of bass over the maiden.
The soundstage of our maiden was more forward but was never unpleasant sounding. The maiden's bass was very good but there were clues that the king still ruled here.
The maiden's midrange, while always pleasant, seemed to be missing the inner detail of the king's.
It was somewhat like I heard, or didn't hear, through the earlier reviewed Yamaha T The maiden's highs were also slightly more forward, but controlled and not bright.
While her voice was different from the king's, it was always a pleasure to listen. When listening to her sing all alone while the king slept, I forgot about his virtues and enjoyed the experience.
And so, the maiden did turn out to be more than just another pretty face and she does have a beautiful voice to go along with her good looks.
Putting our maiden to work in the kingdom's DX fields proved to be a long day of labor. The lamp flickers but this almost disappears when fine-tuning the antenna.
Our maiden held a steady stereo signal but at the cost of slightly more background hiss. This was only noticed during quiet passages and brief periods of dead air.
The maiden, however had trouble holding off the advances of the Off-tuning the maiden's dial helped some. I think she may be due a fresh alignment.
The medium to high-signal stations were well received by both king and maiden alike. The once and future king, the LT. So many lights and buttons.
At least I can tell how it sounds. I believe Stereophile's review, long ago, had a couple of unkind words about the sound and that stuck in my head, so the sound was a pleasant surprise.
The Onkyo's bass goes deep, and the midrange is clear and articulate with matching highs. The bass, though deep, did not have that extra slam of the top tuners.
In the final analysis, I would sum up the sound as pleasant, articulate, but lacking the dynamics of some of the boys at the top.
Most of my serious listening judgments are formed while tuned into local stations with strong signals. It was interesting to see how aggressive the TII was in deciding when to activate the narrow modes, hi-blend, etc.
Along with this automatic protection, the soundstage, imaging and "life" to the music were dulled, if not lost. When manually switching to wide mode and turning off the blend circuit on stations with fair signal strength, I was able to recapture the music with little or no noise.
The auto controls were first noticed when tuning to I sat down and was surprised how dull the sound had become compared to the LT. Manual switching brought it back to life and with a clean background.
For the rest of the DX report, I decided to trust the Onkyo's judgment while looking at weak signals. To handicap the tuners and be fair, I switched the LT to auto and left it in narrow mode.
I noticed something interesting about the II's A and B antenna inputs. On antenna input A, I had been listening to There is probably degrees difference.
With the tuner still at A very sensitive tuner indeed. Pointing the antenna more accurately, the LT was able to capture this signal but with more noise.
The II was also able to capture and hold this weak signal through a wider degree of antenna travel than the LT. I should stop here and give some information on station distances from my house.
There are about 70 stations within 70 miles, about 30 within 40 miles and 21 stations planted at the antenna farm, I think Cedar Hill is the highest point around Dallas so it's the perfect place for most transmitters.
Both tuners liked the signal on this day but only in narrow. The Kenwood shut to mono while the Onkyo held onto stereo but with more noise.
When manually switched to mono, both tuners shared the same good signal characteristics. I turned the antenna to the east in hopes of capturing What I did notice was the TII's ability to track In the past, the LT usually ruled here and it was able to pick up the signal, but never as clean or over as much antenna rotation as the II.
Turning to our other problem test signal, This station was most enjoyable when switched to mono in either tuner. I'll shorten this review and finish with some observations at the other end of the dial.
Again I found the auto circuits in the II to be overactive at When I manually switched to wide mode, both these stations came in loud and clear.
I did notice, I was able to pick up a weak Spanish language station, It must be all those trees my antenna looks into, toward the east.
The TII proved to be as sensitive as a year-old jumping into puberty and, as such, needs a little direction and control for me to live with.
And just like any teenager, be careful which buttons you push! Well, that tears it - I need to get this Kenwood aligned!
The TU-X is an attractive tuner having good clean lines and a digital display with a muted orange numbering system. The orange display is a nice change from the "me too" pale blue so often seen.
This tuner has two antenna inputs, switchable from the front panel. Is this necessary for those with a good outdoor antenna and rotor?
Station selection is a two-step process. You touch a number, the selected station frequency appears, flashing, and you must then push ENTER to listen to that station.
At first, I thought "gimmick," then realized it helps the listener find the station sought without having to memorize the whole number pad.
For a while, things didn't look too bad for the Sansui in the DXing department as it easily pulled in the "local" weak stations. The Sansui was pulling nothing but noise.
I was consistently able to grab more weak signals through the LT. With the antenna pointed toward a local station's transmitter, both tuners appeared equally quiet with little background noise.
When I did catch the Sansui giving more noise, it was usually because I hadn't directed the antenna with good precision. The Kenwood kept things quiet over a wider antenna swing.
I grabbed this Sansui off eBay a while back following the recommendation of a friend whose ears I trust, and he was right!
Before you read the comments below, hear this. This Sansui has one of the sweetest, cleanest midranges of the tuners so far in the Shootouts.
I had to listen very carefully to hear subtle differences against the LT. The Sansui held its own but gave up a little to the Kenwood from the deep bass through the lower midrange.
The midrange was clean, precise and sweet - more exact and even sweeter-sounding than the LT's, but seemed to give up a touch of ambiance retrieval.
The highs were soft and laidback except for a narrow band of sibilance noticed during speech - softer than the LT's highs, with slightly less energy, and the soundstage was slightly smaller.
This may go hand-in-hand with the feeling of slightly less ambiance information. After all is said and tested, the TU-X ranks up there with the other tuners for best sound quality in an inexpensive stock tuner, and it invites long listening sessions.
Like the Luxman T, it just missed the Class -C- rating because of the slight lightness in the bass and lower midrange. Many of us believe "the music is in the midrange," but for a tuner to make Class -C-, it must have more of that bass magic originally in the music.
In the end, I say, highly recommended. I was almost afraid to "fix" things inside the TU-X BUT pulled six old caps before and after the LA, then installed four Black Gates and two pieces of wire and this gave the tuner even better sound quality.
Now, who among us is up to the challenge of building a "to die for" audio stage to follow that LA chip in this Sansui or the Luxman right below it?
Winner for best all-around tuner? Great sound, good DXer. But our shootout king was wounded in the midrange. Is there a tuner doctor in the house?!
Meridian Model Winner: I was quite excited when Jesse added this little jewel to his collection. And I do mean little as it is the smallest FM tuner on our Shootout list.
Positions 1 through 6 have corresponding tuning slugs that have to be adjusted with a very small jeweler's screwdriver. See, I told you it was a jewel.
After adjusting a slug to the station of your choice, you flip the TUNE switch down to fine-tune that station.
These adjustments are similar to those on the Magnum Dynalab FT The Meridian is an "always-on" tuner. Opening up this jewelry box shows a tight, no-nonsense space crowded with a toroidal transformer, an HA that plugs in LPF filter, a bi-FET LF buffer amp with four 10uf volt caps around it, and one large supply cap an inch away.
Unfortunately, it only has a positive supply for the audio stage, so we have to keep all the caps.
They were among the first, if not the first, to try to fix the sonic problems of the compact disc in its infancy. DX play was all but forgotten on this little guy and I just sat and listened.
What I first noticed was it killed the LT! It was open, airy and lifelike while the LT was dark, closed-in and lifeless.
Wait, this can't be right! I checked both tuners. All switches on the LT were set correctly, auto, wide, etc.
I'm trying to listen to The LT had shut down to near mono while the gimmick-free Meridian was playing happily along.
After adjusting the antenna correctly, I started listening again. Well, the Jewel of the Meridian turned out to be the high point of my day.
While the bass was rich, warm and wonderful, it still couldn't quite match the LT for depth and dynamics. Here we have a real treat. From the lower midrange all the way to the top, these two tuners were very close sonic twins.
The Meridian sounds much more like the LT than other tuners we've pitted against it. There is a hint more midrange openness to the Meridian and a little loss of perceived front-to-rear depth.
This may come from the slight loss of bass and dynamics compared to the LT. When I get a tuner that sounds this nice, I usually turn the LT off and enjoy it.
That is the plan for this jewel all weekend. It may be small but it sure does shine. OK gang, hang on to the antenna as we spin around the airwaves The LT sounds more focused on solo voice.
On the T, vocals stepped back in the soundstage and center images were more diffuse. High School station, '70s rock.
They didn't have classes like this when I was in high school. Hey, it's '70s rock. At times you could hear a touch extra weight of the LT's bass.
College station, rock, classical, more. Weakest local area station we can see up here. The LT came through, in narrow, as usual. The T's signal was not acceptable, with more noise than signal.
This was surprising and disappointing because the T tunes in 2. The T gave a clean crisp stereo signal with some background noise. The LT didn't like the signal and when letting it choose the stereo separation, it shut to mono while claiming stereo.
Listener-supported, volunteer DJs and non-profit. They play a crazy variety of everything but "normal" music if I have the right to decide what is normal.
A pattern is developing with the two tuners. The LT has more weight to its bass, while the T seems to go as deep but sounds lighter. The T's mids are more laidback and less focused.
The highs of the T are more extended while staying delicate and never harsh. I've heard these songs for over 30 years. They are all memorized and some still are favorites.
It was hard to hear any small differences here. A rock station is a rock station. I believe it's the second-oldest FM station in the U.
Owned by the city of Dallas, which is sucking the money and life out of it. Piano solos showed a noticeable difference in the two tuners.
The T was lighter but more realistic-sounding of the two. Was unable to hear a big difference in the two tuners here. An interesting study of what recording engineers can do with sound.
There are constant, but varying background noise problems. They also add copious amounts of bass to the music to make it more inviting, no matter what you listen through.
A great test for a tuner's ability to reproduce that last degree of bass energy. The differences between the tuners under test were less noticeable in the afternoon than when I first started testing in the morning.
I left the Audiolab on all night and the warmed-up signal was definitely closer to the LT. OK gang, you can step off the spinning antenna, our flight is over.
Hope you enjoyed the ride.