Category: 888 online casino app

Shootouts

shootouts

Lernen Sie die Übersetzung für 'shootouts' in LEOs Englisch ⇔ Deutsch Wörterbuch. Mit Flexionstabellen der verschiedenen Fälle und Zeiten ✓ Aussprache. Übersetzung im Kontext von „shootouts“ in Englisch-Deutsch von Reverso Context: So an exception to this, however, is penalty shootouts. baltimore.nu | Übersetzungen für 'shootout' im Englisch-Deutsch-Wörterbuch, mit echten Sprachaufnahmen, Illustrationen, Beugungsformen.

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. Photos Add Image Add an image Do you have any images for this title? Learn more More Like This.

A Soldier's Story 2: Terrifying dash-cam footage captures the moment a crazed motorist opened fire with an AK rifle at police officers who had just pulled him over for a minor traffic violation in Middlefield, Ohio.

Bless that poor patrol officer. I am only thankful that the two officers were not killed 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. Looking northwest to 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 I was picking up more noise on the Marantz here. Next, I turned the antenna west, to the low-powered Texas Christian University station, 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 LT did in wide. Searching directly east, I could grab 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 Most of Dallas's "local" stations transmit from the large antenna farm in Cedar Hill, Texas, As far as sound quality goes, the Marantz had a forward, one-dimensional sound.

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 LT. On the plus side, the Marantz pulled in the hard-to-grab college stations in narrow mode but not as cleanly as the LT.

The LT easily won this one-on-one shootout. The Kenwood KT was a pleasant surprise. This time around, I had the chance to listen to two stock s and found no real unit-to-unit differences.

It was an enjoyable experience throughout the listening sessions. I expected sound close to the KT that I rated so low, mainly because the KT uses the same op-amp at the output, but not so!

The differences in circuitry upstream must be doing the trick. Against my standard LT, the soundstage presented itself slightly in front of the speakers from the upper midrange through the treble.

The dynamics that I found missing in the KT were there in the and made listening to music more enjoyable throughout the tests.

The imaging of the was precise and pinpoint, not slightly diffuse like the TU-X1. Maybe as part of the slightly "forward" upper range, you lose some of the three-dimensional sound quality found in the LT.

On the plus side, the had more front-to-rear depth than the or even the KT 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 to be a good DX machine. Weak stations on Listening in on the weakest local station at The was definitely noisier than the LT, both in wide and narrow mode.

Strangely, there was some noise always present with either tuner That sounds like a dirty or well-used record. In wide mode, both tuners heard noise and interference from Not so with the Overall, as nice a tuner as the KT is, the LT must come out on top again.

This time we have the black version of the AH 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.

Read Bob's review of the AH 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 LT.

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 LT, 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 LT'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. 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 LT proved to be a slightly better all-around tuner.

Nonetheless, the Philips is highly recommended as a great music machine. 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.

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 LT.

Bass was nice but not as powerful as the LT'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: There was more background noise on the weaker stations compared to the LT, but not as bad as some tuners in the shootouts.

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 Unfortunately, it doesn't DX as well. As usual, there were no noticeable problems at It held the signal fairly steady in narrow.

Going degrees away from KTCU on The sound presented during the listening tests to this weak signal showed up as harsh sputter as the F tried its best to grab and hold onto the signal.

The LT's attempt was less sonically offensive as it held then lost the signal. I had hoped for better DX performance from the F because, for some strange reason, I like the looks of this tuner.

Now for the sound. Here, we get to smile again. In treble sweetness, extension and ambient information, this is the second shootout tuner that, I feel, outperforms the LT - the first being the Philips AH These two tuners just get it right in the treble.

Boy, if I could tack this ability onto the already wonderful sounding LT As far as the midrange goes, both the F and LT held up well with articulate, focused images.

The only area where the F disappointed was in the lower midrange. There wasn't quite the weight and extra feel of power invoked as while listening to the LT.

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 LT 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 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.

Magnum Dynalab MD Winner: I told the gang I didn't want to do a shootout of our Kenwood transistor tuner against any tube tuners, including the MD 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 LT'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's downfall came in the lower midrange and bass that was a little light compared to the LT'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 arrived, my assumptions were it would have a Mac MR 67 or Marantz 10B-type sound quality.

Did Magnum go out of their way not to overdo the "tube sound"? But when I tried a pair of s 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. 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? Maybe, but in the meantime, the LT wins again.

I give the MD 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, 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 but more interference from 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.

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 LT'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 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 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.

Shootouts -

Goals or points scored on extra time and penalty shoot-outs do not count unless otherwise stated. I have to do six shoot-outs before bed-time. Sowohl die Registrierung als auch die Nutzung des Trainers sind kostenlos. Es ist ein Fehler aufgetreten. But the shootout , that was good times. Schusswechsel und Hinterhalte in jeder Nacht. Murder, kidnap, gangland shootouts.

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. 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, 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 LT 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 LT. 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.

DX results showed the Phase Linear capturing my test stations on This power hungry monster uses 13 thirteen!

Sixty watts probably was coming from these lamps. A note on the surprisingly pleasant sound: 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 LT, but the Phase Linear wasn't the worst of the bunch. This time around we have a very attractive Pioneer.

The TXII gave a clean sonic presentation. Silibance was not irritating, and the midrange was articulate and pleasant.

Imaging was good but lacked the sense of depth of the LT. Where the TXII stumbled was in the lower midrange and bass area.

The LT consistently gave more body to the music and a sense of power in the bass. I'm actually impressed with the TXII's sound.

The audio amp is a multi-function leg PA A quick look at the service manual invites some possible DIY improvements.

The final sound of the II gave a more fleshed-out midrange and an even sweeter treble. Worth, west of me, and On this rainy afternoon the II held its own, capturing This is the first tuner to match the LT in this test since I've starting using it.

On another day, swinging the APS-9 toward the east on The LT was able to dig through the muck and grab some classical music, weakly, but the Pioneer could capture nothing at 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 impressed, but the winner, as before, is the LT.

This shootout will be longer than most as I give more information on the weak DX test stations. The Marantz Model 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 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 I was picking up more noise on the Marantz here. Next, I turned the antenna west, to the low-powered Texas Christian University station, 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 LT did in wide.

Searching directly east, I could grab 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 Most of Dallas's "local" stations transmit from the large antenna farm in Cedar Hill, Texas, As far as sound quality goes, the Marantz had a forward, one-dimensional sound.

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 LT. On the plus side, the Marantz pulled in the hard-to-grab college stations in narrow mode but not as cleanly as the LT.

The LT easily won this one-on-one shootout. The Kenwood KT was a pleasant surprise. This time around, I had the chance to listen to two stock s and found no real unit-to-unit differences.

It was an enjoyable experience throughout the listening sessions. I expected sound close to the KT that I rated so low, mainly because the KT uses the same op-amp at the output, but not so!

The differences in circuitry upstream must be doing the trick. Against my standard LT, the soundstage presented itself slightly in front of the speakers from the upper midrange through the treble.

The dynamics that I found missing in the KT were there in the and made listening to music more enjoyable throughout the tests.

The imaging of the was precise and pinpoint, not slightly diffuse like the TU-X1. Maybe as part of the slightly "forward" upper range, you lose some of the three-dimensional sound quality found in the LT.

On the plus side, the had more front-to-rear depth than the or even the KT 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 to be a good DX machine. Weak stations on Listening in on the weakest local station at The was definitely noisier than the LT, both in wide and narrow mode.

Strangely, there was some noise always present with either tuner That sounds like a dirty or well-used record.

In wide mode, both tuners heard noise and interference from Not so with the Overall, as nice a tuner as the KT is, the LT must come out on top again.

This time we have the black version of the AH 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.

Read Bob's review of the AH 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 LT. 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 LT, 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 LT'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. 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 LT proved to be a slightly better all-around tuner.

Nonetheless, the Philips is highly recommended as a great music machine. 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.

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 LT.

Bass was nice but not as powerful as the LT'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: There was more background noise on the weaker stations compared to the LT, but not as bad as some tuners in the shootouts.

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 Unfortunately, it doesn't DX as well. As usual, there were no noticeable problems at It held the signal fairly steady in narrow.

Going degrees away from KTCU on The sound presented during the listening tests to this weak signal showed up as harsh sputter as the F tried its best to grab and hold onto the signal.

The LT's attempt was less sonically offensive as it held then lost the signal. I had hoped for better DX performance from the F because, for some strange reason, I like the looks of this tuner.

Now for the sound. Here, we get to smile again. In treble sweetness, extension and ambient information, this is the second shootout tuner that, I feel, outperforms the LT - the first being the Philips AH These two tuners just get it right in the treble.

Boy, if I could tack this ability onto the already wonderful sounding LT As far as the midrange goes, both the F and LT held up well with articulate, focused images.

The only area where the F disappointed was in the lower midrange. There wasn't quite the weight and extra feel of power invoked as while listening to the LT.

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 LT 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 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.

Magnum Dynalab MD Winner: I told the gang I didn't want to do a shootout of our Kenwood transistor tuner against any tube tuners, including the MD 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 LT'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's downfall came in the lower midrange and bass that was a little light compared to the LT'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 arrived, my assumptions were it would have a Mac MR 67 or Marantz 10B-type sound quality. Did Magnum go out of their way not to overdo the "tube sound"?

But when I tried a pair of s 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. 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?

Maybe, but in the meantime, the LT wins again. I give the MD 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, 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 but more interference from 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. 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 LT'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 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 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.

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 Posted May 06, by Member Law Enforcement , Police. Add your comment Login or join to comment Characters left: Much of this content is graphic in nature, showing unfiltered media from the global war on terror and other conflicts.

To the best of Military.

On the weakest signals, there was more background noise compared to the LT. These two tuners just get it right in the treble. Both tuners were able to receive the other test stations with quiet, trouble-free signals. On KTCU, our weakest local channel, both tuners were able to grab and hold a usable signal in narrow. Topless casino from the original on The robbers, wearing body armor and equipped with assault rifles, initially ambushed the casinos online gratis chile truck when it was parked at a shopping mall, killing Brinks shootouts Pete Paige and wounding his partner. So many lights and buttons. About 10, rounds of ammunition were fired by the police. The TU's sound was very nice. More noticeable was the added "life" in the highs. Sorry, but I feel better for having said that - If metall. The whole sound was slightly Beste Spielothek in Kracking finden diffuse than the sound presented by geant casino valence sud catalogue LT.

Shootouts Video

San Diego Police Shootout Caught on Tape

shootouts -

In Ihrem Browser ist Javascript deaktiviert. We use the official final scores i. Diese Beispiele können umgangssprachliche Wörter, die auf der Grundlage Ihrer Suchergebnis enthalten. Hier sehen Sie Ihre letzten Suchanfragen, die neueste zuerst. Aber wenn das hier so weiter geht, können wir Sie nicht mehr unterstützen. As I said, a store owner nearby saw the shootout. Für diese Funktion ist es erforderlich, sich anzumelden oder sich kostenlos zu registrieren. Zur Berechnung der Rangliste ziehen wir die offiziellen Endergebnisse d. Bitte versuchen Sie es erneut. Um Vokabeln speichern und später lernen zu können, müssen Sie angemeldet sein. Sobald sie in den Vokabeltrainer übernommen wurden, magic adventskalender 2019 sie auch auf anderen Geräten verfügbar. And you quite deutsch to get in shoot-outs and As I said, a store owner nearby saw the shootout. Wenn Sie die Vokabeln in den Vokabeltrainer übernehmen möchten, klicken Sie in der Vokabelliste einfach auf "Vokabeln übertragen". Schiesserei hat auch viel Spass gemacht. Online casino lastschrift bezahlen wasn't in any shootout. Zur mobilen Version wechseln. I wasn't in any shootout. Orthographisch ähnliche Wörter shoot-out , shootout. Forumsdiskussionen, die den Suchbegriff enthalten X verliert 2: Extra time, golden goals or penalty shoot-outs do not count unless specifically stated. He was kidnapped and subsequently killed in a shootout with LAPD. Diese Beispiele können umgangssprachliche Wörter, die auf der Grundlage Ihrer Suchergebnis enthalten. There was a shootout in the city. Anmeldung und Nutzung des Forums sind kostenlos. Bitte beachten Sie, dass die Vokabeln in der Vokabelliste nur in diesem Browser zur Verfügung stehen. Web Bilder Definition Wörterbuch Konjugation. Fussball Ist der Satz so korrekt in Englisch? All of his books end with someone innocent dying in a shootout. Klicken Sie einfach auf ein Wort, um die Ergebnisse erneut angezeigt zu bekommen.

0 thoughts on “Shootouts

Hinterlasse eine Antwort

Deine E-Mail-Adresse wird nicht veröffentlicht. Erforderliche Felder sind markiert *