Bernard and Eddie write:

>>Radio has generally declined in audio quality.  I noticed last year
>>that Connecticut Public Radio had started to sound really nasty; I even
>>contacted them and talked to one of the engineers, who told me that they
>>weren't doing anything different and the transmitter most local to me
>>seemed in fine order...  In my case, moving the receiver across the
>>room and getting a new FM antenna helped, but even before I consciously
>>noticed how bad the audio fidelity was, I'd pretty much dealt radio out
>>of my routine.  It's been a long time since I tuned into any of the live
>>concerts I used to enjoy.
>
>The technical quality of FM broadcasting seems to have been in decline
>since the advent of stereo broadcasting in the mid sixties.

I don't believe this list is an appropriate place to discuss these points,
nevertheless the manufacture and purchase of FM tuners such as those
by Marantz (the 10B), Sequerra, and Magnum Dynalab costing many thousands
of dollars argues against some of these points.  Reasons for wanting and
needing classical FM need not include having the ultimate "audiophile"
experience, even if should you desire to record certain broadcasts.
For example just the other week while traveling in my car, listening to
CONNECTICUT PUBLIC RADIO, *no less* (WEDW, 88.5 FM), I heard Witt's Quintet
for Piano and winds, Op.5, a piece I never heard before and most probably
never would.  I enjoyed the music even on my lousy automobile factory
installed FM.  I since bought the CD, and only then found it to have been
recorded in the Glenn Gould Studio in Toronto, featuring the pianist Anton
Kuerti, (the announcer didn't get to mention the recording artist after I
had tuned in).  Nice performance, nice sound, nice music!  What else could
I ask or require from classical FM?

Norman Schwartz
[log in to unmask]