Thread: Does the FM antenna that came with your tuner amp/stereo receiver suck?

Both Sony and Marantz, even, supply a puny spaghetti wire as an "FM antenna" and the reception is not too good where I live, suffice it to say. Why can't they just put in a chrome telescoping antenna like most portable radios have? Inside my apartment, my Sony boombox picks up most any FM station locally great with its typical telescoping and swiveling antenna.


Thankfully, my new Marantz has a coaxial jack for FM antenna hookup. I can only get two AM stations with the included square loop antenna on a base that plugs in the back of the receiver using speaker-type clip terminals.

How about this USB-powered coaxial-hookup from amazon?

https://m.media-amazon.com/images/I/...AC_SL1500_.jpg

It has a USB-powered signal booster to boot. The trouble is, my $400 Marantz audio recievr does not even have one USB port on the back. I would have to buy one of those little phone wall plug-in chargers to boot. I have a flat HDTV boosted antenna on the wall for my local free television reception that works great except FOX a few other channels don't come in during snowy weather.

That doesn't answer my questions. I want to know how well YOUR stock home stereo antenna performs. I want to know if YOU have bought any aftermarket INDOOR antennas that YOU like. But I shall read that link anyway.

Does everybody have to be a snooty grumpy ogre here?

Does your Marantz have HD tuner? If so this is on the UHF band and you should look for a HD antenna. Stations in HD are very clear and it's either you receive it or not, no fuzzy in between. HD stations typically have extra stations as well. Usually no commercials.

Depending on how far your stations are you can do pretty well with a passive standing antenna.

The provided antennas are decent if you live in a urban area. If you are a ways from your towers something like rabbit ears for regular FM will improve things. You can try the amplified but sometimes it amplifies noise as well. This wouldn't be a problem if your tuner is HD.

I just checked that link out. It looks like a mess to try to read. I think my best bet is to try an antenna from amazon.

If it doesn't perform to my satisfaction, it is easily returnable.


I even had to try a few TV antennas to find one I liked and that worked for me.

Antennas are like the human body and mind. Many factors determine how well they behave. Like your own heart and brain, each antenna design is a physical law unto itself.

The antenna built into my cheap Sony boombox doesn't seem very fussy about location inside the home, however. Its angular position and the direction it's pointing may have to be tweaked a skoash to get the static out of a local FM station or two but that is it.

Sorry, Gruble. It just annoys me that any of my cheap portable AM/FM radios, older and newer, can receive local Des Moines, Iowa FM music stations so well while the long, thin, limp wire antenna that came with my $400 Marantz receiver might be useful to cut up and use as cable ties. I just love those chrome telescoping antennas that were so common on portable radios, boomboxes, pocket transistors and also portable tube television sets of old.

Originally Posted by Mr Peabody

Does your Marantz have HD tuner? If so this is on the UHF band and you should look for a HD antenna. Stations in HD are very clear and it's either you receive it or not, no fuzzy in between. HD stations typically have extra stations as well. Usually no commercials.

Depending on how far your stations are you can do pretty well with a passive standing antenna.

The provided antennas are decent if you live in a urban area. If you are a ways from your towers something like rabbit ears for regular FM will improve things. You can try the amplified but sometimes it amplifies noise as well. This wouldn't be a problem if your tuner is HD.

Mr. Peabody:

My new Marantz Model NR1200 Networking Audio Receiver handles both analog and digital radio reception. The front readout panel has both ANALOG and DIGITAL indicators as well as a TUNED STEREO indicator. As far as I know, the Des Moines Iowa metro area where I live only broadcasts AM and FM in analog. The stock radio in my 1995 Toyota Corolla can pick all these up with no trouble and my grandfather's 1964-vintage Japanese-made Candle 5-Band Solid State portable radio receiver with a built-in long, tall, vertical collapsible chrome whip antenna can pick these up as well, static-free for the most part where I live in Pleasant Hill.

The new Marantz can pick up some Des Moines FM stations with the supplied wire antenna static-free but not all of them. With its included loop AM antenna on a small base, it can only clearly pick up two AM stations. If I want to ever listen to AM broadcasts, I will most likely have my car radio or a portable radio on in that case.

If local AM and/or FM ever goes totally digital, many millions of portable and car radios as well as older tuner-amps will become obsolete.


I just ordered this non-amplified external chrome whip antenna from amazon.

Amazon.com

I will report back how this puppy goes when tried out. Rabbit ears look big and clunky. I want something slim and compact that mounts on the rear of my entertainment rack. This aftermarket antenna is supplied with a coaxial cable for hookup to my Marantz. If this style antenna works so well for my FM portables at home, it should work well for any tuner-amp as well.

Originally Posted by JDBarrow

Sorry, Gruble. It just annoys me that any of my cheap portable AM/FM radios, older and newer, can receive local Des Moines, Iowa FM music stations so well while the long, thin, limp wire antenna that came with my $400 Marantz receiver might be useful to cut up and use as cable ties. I just love those chrome telescoping antennas that were so common on portable radios, boomboxes, pocket transistors and also portable tube television sets of old.

A $400 Receiver has to compromise pretty much every area of the unit to cost only $400. Many times it has to do with the Tuner itself and not the Antenna. I use the tiny T antenna on my old Hafler 945 and that tuner is very strong. It picks up some stations without the antenna.

Originally Posted by JDBarrow

Does everybody have to be a snooty grumpy ogre here?

This is not the first time you have made comments like this when people are trying to help you. You might want to check your attitude at the door OR learn how to use Google. The more people you offend = the less people who will take the time to try and help you.

Seems I made a mistake on my prior post. I think I got HDR mixed up with the digital TV which is UHF but HDR still travels on the analog FM band. Here's a clip from Wiki

HD Radio (HDR)[1] is a trademark for an in-band on-channel (IBOC) digital radio broadcast technology. HD radio generally simulcasts an existing analog radio station in digital format with less noise and with additional text information. HD Radio is used primarily by AM and FM radio stations in the United States, U.S. Virgin Islands, Canada, Mexico and the Philippines, with a few implementations outside North America.

The term "on channel" is a misnomer because the system actually broadcasts on the ordinarily unused channels adjacent to an existing radio station's allocation. This leaves the original analog signal intact, allowing enabled receivers to switch between digital and analog as required. In most FM implementations, from 96 to 128 kbit/s of capacity is available. High-fidelity audio requires only 48 kbit/s so there is ample capacity for additional channels, which HD Radio refers to as "multicasting".

Originally Posted by grubble

I see the pot calling the kettle black.

Yup...experienced the exact same behavior.

BTW, I see this behavior exhibited by a lot of males in internet forums that are comprised 99.9% of men. Doesn't matter if it's high-end audio, sports cars, sport bikes or photography fourms; I see the same exact behavior.

I've dubbed it MFB: Male Fighting Behavior.

If you think the audio guys can get into it, they've got nothin' on the Canon guys fightin' the Nikon guys in the photography forums. DPReview is a really good example of this.

Intrestingly, you never see women behaving this way with each other.

Originally Posted by Shadowfax

This is not the first time you have made comments like this when people are trying to help you. You might want to check your attitude at the door OR learn how to use Google. The more people you offend = the less people who will take the time to try and help you.

👍 Well said.

Originally Posted by Puma Cat

Yup...experienced the exact same behavior.

BTW, I see this behavior exhibited by a lot of males in internet forums that are comprised 99.9% of men. Doesn't matter if it's high-end audio, sports cars, sport bikes or photography fourms; I see the same exact behavior.

I've dubbed it MFB: Male Fighting Behavior.

If you think the audio guys can get into it, they've got nothin' on the Canon guys fightin' the Nikon guys in the photography forums. DPReview is a really good example of this.

Intrestingly, you never see women behaving this way with each other.

That’s not what wife has encountered on some sites. But in general you are spot on.

Originally Posted by Puma Cat

👍 Well said.

Pardon me, my memory is short sometimes. I post stuff and forget about it soon. I already have about $1,000 invested into this new damned home stereo gear, including home-customized furniture that is still in the building right now, which I'm incorporating into my existing living room Samsung television and Panasonic Blu-Ray video sytem. I just hope I can get the whole damned thing eventually working to my satisfaction and looking good on the entertainment rack. That's all.

FM reception is of least importance to me. Playing music from my music collection and actually ENJOYING it is of the utmost importance. TV broadcast sound as in football games as well as DVD/Blu-Ray movie audio is of the next priority. Sound for computer gaming is the next highest priority. What I will eventually have is a 2.1 channel audio system for home entertainment. There will be two main floor speakers and a "big-gass" subwoofer.

The new $400 Marantz networking audio receiver of mine is not a full-on "home theater/surround sound/Dolby ProLogic" unit but it is not a bare-bones old-fashioned stereo tuner-amp by the same token. It's somewhere in the middle of the road. My new Marantz does not even have the DOLBY Double D trademark printed on it anywhere. There is nothing "DOLBY" sound-wise about it. My cheap Pansonic Blu-Ray player ($100 new in 2014) does in fact have the Dolby TrueHD and DTS-HD Master Audio logos on the back panel whatever the devil that means. I think it it is a surround-capable movie disc player. I suppose a 2.1 audio setup might be dubbed as "semi-surround" by some.

Audio and video tech of today has a bunch of techy-geeky terminology associated with it. The messy tech-speak language is about as bad as computers and smartphones.

I mean what in the world is "sample depth" and "sample frequency" when Wikipedia is talking about "DTS-HD".

Suffice it to say, I either like the way a home stereo sounds or a TV picture looks or I don't.

Originally Posted by JDBarrow

I mean what in the world is "sample depth" and "sample frequency" <snip>

Digital recordings have both a bit-depth (what you refer to as "sample depth") and a sampling frequency

For PCM (Pulse-code modulation) recordings, the sample-depth is the "bit-depth" of a recording, either 16-bit or 24-bit.

Sampling Frequency is just that: the frequency of how many times/second the actual, original (analog) performance was sampled during the recording process to turn it into a digital recording.

As stated by the Nyquist–Shannon sampling theorem, to prevent aliasing, the audio signal must be sampled at a rate at least twice that of the highest frequency component in the signal (i.e., 20KHz), So, based on the "Nyquist theorem" 44.1 and 48 kHz are the most commonly used sampling rates for PCM recordings. at a bit-depth of 16-bit are the most commonly used sampling rates for PCM recordings.

A regular CD, sometimes referred to as a "Redbook CD*" as originally defined by Sony and Philips (in a red book), is a PCM recoding with 16-bit bit depth at a sampling rate of 44.1Khz. This is why they are referred to colloquially as "16/44" recordings.

24-bit PCM recordings are usually at sampling rates of 96KHz or 192Khz (as well as other specifications which are less frequenlty used these days, e.g. 88.1 Khz & 24/172 Khz).

An analogous way to think of this is the exactly same as a digital photograph that is captured in a color "gamut" of 8-bit, 16-bit, or 24-bit colors, which translates to 256, 32,768, or 16,777,216 color "variations" respectively, that may be represented in a digital photograph.

So, in one case, a photograph of a scene is being "digitally sampled", in the other, a musical performance is being "digitally sampled". A digital photograph with a higher bit-depth can depict more colors than a color photograph at a lower bit-depth. The same concept applies with digital music recordings.

DSD recordings are a different type of 1-bit recording algorithm. You can read more about this digital recording specification here: What is DSD? | Cambridge Audio US.

Also, a simple seach for "digital recordings" on Wikipedia will provide you much more background information than presented here. A little research on the Net goes a long ways these days.

Cheers and have a nice day.

*–The term “Red Book” is named after one of the Rainbow Books, a series of books (bound in different colors) that contain the technical specifications for all CD and CD-ROM formats, such as the tracks, sectors, block layout, coding, and sampling.

Yes, Big Cat, I'm not really interested in all that. What it means in the context of a casual non-geek human ear's listening to Bach, Dave Brubeck Quartet or James Brown on the home stereo or car stereo or headset is all Greek to me.

I don't like a car salesman to talk tech talk to me also. I either like the way the automobile drives, looks, sounds, smells and feels or I don't.

Originally Posted by JDBarrow

Yes, Big Cat, I'm not really interested in all that.

You asked the question: "I mean what in the world is "sample depth" and "sample frequency?"

Well, now you have an answer.

Cheers.

Originally Posted by Puma Cat

You asked the question: "I mean what in the world is "sample depth" and "sample frequency?"

Well, now you have an answer.

Cheers.

It was just a facitous question with no serious answer expected, but thanks for the answer just the same. It was the helpful thought that counts. Some folks here might be interested in that sort of thing. Becoming an audio geek is just not something that floats my personal boat. The vast majority of Americans who own stereos, home theaters, Smart TV's and even computers, tablets and smartphones, are probably not geeks.

To make an analogy, most folks who drive automobiles probably don't know what a carburetor or a torque convertor is for. Most folks who use a PC couldn't give two hoots about Internet protocols, power-up self tests or master boot menus.

Dolby-Tru HD/DTS-MA is only found on Flu-ray disks. They provide an uncompressed audio sound of the soundtrack. Your player will do what is called the first unfold but your receiver would need to be compatible to do the final unfold. Even with the first unfold the sound is better than on a DVD.

Sounds like your receiver may not have some of the features I assumed it would. If you give me the model number again I will look it up.

If you have a way to make it look good consider a matching center channel speaker to your mains to make a 3.1 set up.

Originally Posted by JDBarrow

Pardon me, my memory is short sometimes. I post stuff and forget about it soon. I already have about $1,000 invested into this new damned home stereo gear, including home-customized furniture that is still in the building right now, which I'm incorporating into my existing living room Samsung television and Panasonic Blu-Ray video sytem. I just hope I can get the whole damned thing eventually working to my satisfaction and looking good on the entertainment rack. That's all.

FM reception is of least importance to me. Playing music from my music collection and actually ENJOYING it is of the utmost importance. TV broadcast sound as in football games as well as DVD/Blu-Ray movie audio is of the next priority. Sound for computer gaming is the next highest priority. What I will eventually have is a 2.1 channel audio system for home entertainment. There will be two main floor speakers and a "big-gass" subwoofer.

The new $400 Marantz networking audio receiver of mine is not a full-on "home theater/surround sound/Dolby ProLogic" unit but it is not a bare-bones old-fashioned stereo tuner-amp by the same token. It's somewhere in the middle of the road. My new Marantz does not even have the DOLBY Double D trademark printed on it anywhere. There is nothing "DOLBY" sound-wise about it. My cheap Pansonic Blu-Ray player ($100 new in 2014) does in fact have the Dolby TrueHD and DTS-HD Master Audio logos on the back panel whatever the devil that means. I think it it is a surround-capable movie disc player. I suppose a 2.1 audio setup might be dubbed as "semi-surround" by some.

Audio and video tech of today has a bunch of techy-geeky terminology associated with it. The messy tech-speak language is about as bad as computers and smartphones.

I mean what in the world is "sample depth" and "sample frequency" when Wikipedia is talking about "DTS-HD".

Suffice it to say, I either like the way a home stereo sounds or a TV picture looks or I don't.

Originally Posted by Mr Peabody

Dolby-Tru HD/DTS-MA is only found on Flu-ray disks. They provide an uncompressed audio sound of the soundtrack. Your player will do what is called the first unfold but your receiver would need to be compatible to do the final unfold. Even with the first unfold the sound is better than on a DVD.

Sounds like your receiver may not have some of the features I assumed it would. If you give me the model number again I will look it up.

If you have a way to make it look good consider a matching center channel speaker to your mains to make a 3.1 set up.

Here is a link to a video for my exact Marantz model. I don't think there is a feasible or elegant way to put in a center speaker the way my new rack is designed.

OK, your receiver is stereo and 2.1 will be the best you can do for movies/TV. No auto set up or some of the other stuff I talked about. Sorry about that I should have checked the receiver sooner.

You do have HDMI ARC. This would allow you to send TV sound to the receiver. It's like a 2-way transmission between the TV and receiver, information goes both ways. However, you already have, and are using the digital cable so this is just FYI.

You also have HEOS built-in streaming. You would need to download the app. This will allow you to stream music using your phone or tablet from the app. You can also add HEOS compatible speakers in other rooms or take them outside to hear. Most of the music services require a subscription, like Spotify, Tidal etc. This is a better method than Bluetooth in my opinion. Your receiver does have the Bluetooth or Airplay though. I should add streaming from HEOS the information comes in from the internet.

There is also an app that allows you to be able to control your receiver if you wish.

Your receiver has a decent built-in DAC so you can run a digital connection from your computer into the NR1200. There may be a way you can do that via Wyfi but that's not my area of expertise.

Originally Posted by JDBarrow

Here is a link to a video for my exact Marantz model. I don't think there is a feasible or elegant way to put in a center speaker the way my new rack is designed.

Mr. Peabody:


Here is how I connect all the components now:

TV to receiver via digital optical cable
Blu-ray player (also plays DVD and music CD) to TV via HDMI cable
PC to TV via HDMI cable
receiver to sub via RCA subwoofer cable
receiver to main speakers via 18 gauge copper speaker wire
Android Moto phone to receiver via Blutooth pairing

I could also play digital music from the PC to the receiver via the TV. I have to have the TV to use as a PC monitor anyway. Will digital music coming from the PC via HDMI to the TV and then to the receiver via digital optical sound better than digital music coming driectly from the phone to the receiver via Bluetooth? I will have to try this one day. I still need to load up my music collection onto the set-top TV PC.

My Marantz NR1200 receiver does have an extra sub pre out RCA jack for an optional second subwoofer. I guess one could call two mains and two subs a "2.2" sound sytem.

My Marantz in theory could support A+B speakers if the impedence was high enough on all the speakers. A+B is just two-channel stereo with four main speakers in the works.

Four main speakers over two channels plus two subs might be called "2+2.2".

I never thought of a stereo receiver as sounding BRIGHT or DARK. I think that is more in the equalizer, bass and/or treble settings. I think the Musicolet player equalizer ROCK setting on my phone sounds BRIGHT while "BASS and TREBLE" setting sounds darker and richer.

I like BASS and TREBLE for pipe organ, 1950's/1960's rock and roll and classical music while I like the ROCK setting for 1970's/1980's pop as well as for jazz.

BASS and TREBLE is reminiscent of the days when home stereos generally didn't have equalizers. Older stereo phonographs often had a LOUDNESS control instead of a VOLUME control.

Your connections are fine.

Do you use a streaming music service? If so and it's on your computer that's fine. You could also utilize the HEOS feature on your receiver.

Originally Posted by JDBarrow

Mr. Peabody:


Here is how I connect all the components now:

TV to receiver via digital optical cable
Blu-ray player (also plays DVD and music CD) to TV via HDMI cable
PC to TV via HDMI cable
receiver to sub via RCA subwoofer cable
receiver to main speakers via 18 gauge copper speaker wire
Android Moto phone to receiver via Blutooth pairing

I could also play digital music from the PC to the receiver via the TV. I have to have the TV to use as a PC monitor anyway. Will digital music coming from the PC via HDMI to the TV and then to the receiver via digital optical sound better than digital music coming driectly from the phone to the receiver via Bluetooth? I will have to try this one day. I still need to load up my music collection onto the set-top TV PC.

My Marantz NR1200 receiver does have an extra sub pre out RCA jack for an optional second subwoofer. I guess one could call two mains and two subs a "2.2" sound sytem.

My Marantz in theory could support A+B speakers if the impedence was high enough on all the speakers. A+B is just two-channel stereo with four main speakers in the works.

Four main speakers over two channels plus two subs might be called "2+2.2".

Originally Posted by JDBarrow

I never thought of a stereo receiver as sounding BRIGHT or DARK. I think that is more in the equalizer, bass and/or treble settings. I think the Musicolet player equalizer ROCK setting on my phone sounds BRIGHT while "BASS and TREBLE" setting sounds darker and richer.

I like BASS and TREBLE for pipe organ, 1950's/1960's rock and roll and classical music while I like the ROCK setting for 1970's/1980's pop as well as for jazz.

BASS and TREBLE is reminiscent of the days when home stereos generally didn't have equalizers. Older stereo phonographs often had a LOUDNESS control instead of a VOLUME control.

You will find that as you dive into the realm of better gear, they have no tone controls or equalizers. For the most part, we get what sounds good without adjustments. My Luxman has tone controls but they are never used. Line Straight bypasses the circuit and eliminates the tone controls which is preferred. Lesser units may them need to get what they lack to begin with. Some people fiddle with equalizers or TCs with every album or disk they play.