A reader of my site sent me interesting information. It looks like Accuphase came up with a new model: T1100.

http://www.accuphase.com/cat/t-1100_e.pdf

In this new model more functionality went to DSP, but the most important the output become not 16 bit as in T1000 but 24 bit. I guess the Accuphase people read my site and felt shamed for the fact that the previous T1000 output 16 bit.

http://www.romythecat.com/Forums/ShowPost.aspx?postID=9988#9988

Now, there are two questions about the new Accuphase tuner.

The first one: Why the former model with similar DSP multiplexer output 16 bit? The possessing is done at 192K and the ¼ of the output, the 48K, is perfectly understandable. With bit resolution it is more complicated. The initial depth is 24 bit and there is a LOT of DSP on board of T1100. The DSP eats bits depth, you want it or not but it is. This is a reasoned why some DSP gear run internal 32 bit. So, would it be possible that the former Accuphase T1000 run 24 bit and output the honest 16 bit left from DSP processing nut the new unit juts adds  extra 8 bogus bits over the 16 bit signs to keel the people like me, who want to see 24 bit,  to be “happy”? I do not think anybody will answer the question until a user with brain and true interest would test it.

The second question: how the hell the US person who has an interest in this tuner can approach it. I have contacted an Accuphase dealer that I know and he told me that it is not problem to get it. But the problem is not to get it but to be able to learn if it worth to get it. The definition of “worth” for me is to learn how the reception specifics and sonic character of this new tuner (on digital and analog outputs) relates to the identical performing aspects of the best analog tuners that I already have. No one would tell it besides me, so I need to hear the thing before I buy.

Some of the Accuphase T1100 functionally are impressive but absolutely irrelevant to my need. The 6 ranges of IF bandwidth is a joke, I am sure I would need just 500Hz and I would like it to have the best reception without narrowing the IF bandwidth. The tuner has 60dB of stereo separation. This is phenomenal number but it is done by stages crosstalk cancelation circuits, or by active back-phase insertion. BTW, Sansui has 55db of separation and Rohde & Schwarz I personally measured 65dB   (all on analog level!!!). Still the numbers have little relevance as they are crosstalk WAY higher than any FM station able to output. The relevance is HOW the sound was affected while those numbers were archived. I am not saying that Accuphase crosstalk cancelation is bad idea. It might be anything – from absolutely perfect performance to a complete distraction of Sound. Unfortunately no one will tell it.

The dealers obviously would not know how anything about new Accuphase sounds nether in relative terms to other tuners nor in absolute terms of own Sound.  The US Accuphase distributer with whom I spoke last time when I was interested in T1000 model is also very clueless and I do not think he ever used FM. So, what I would like to do is to announce my agreement to perform an act a human kindness toward to Accuphase, sort of commit my audio mitzvah, and agree to examine the T1100’s Sound. If somebody gets me T1100 tuner, along with $20.000K check from Accuphase, then I will return the tuner in approximately 3 months along with a well-written 3000 words of analyses about the Accuphase T1100 performance, accompanied with my permission to Accuphase to use my analyses in a whole, non-edited format, at their digression.

Dave_at_BW_Broadcast wrote:

The development team like to be a little secretive when it comes to the nitty gritty of the design of the tuner.  A lot of it is proprietary and follows from extensive R'nD time and cost. I think these best way to test it's performance is for you to try one in person against your other tuners.

The folks from BW Broadcast just sent me an email informing that the RBRX1 receivers are available in US via their distributer. 

SCMS Inc, Doug Tharp
Phone:    +1 (866) 673 9267
E-mail: dougt@scmsinc.com
Website: www.scmsinc.com

It looks like BW Broadcast does fine, they shoe up at a few shows, pick up some sales reps. They send me in a past a feedback from some rebroadcasting station that used RBRX1 and liked it. Good for them….

 They threaten me to send me a test unit to assess sonic and reception qualities of the RBRX1. It never materialized. Apparently they gained sales momentum faster then they lost interests about the Sound of this tuner. Well, it is what it is.

Whatever it worse, if somebody are interested then the RBRX1 tuner is available in US at the link above.

A site reader sent me last nigh a link to a Yahoo newsgroup where a guy posted at feedback about Accuphase T-1100

http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/FMtuners/message/66682

Here is the  content of the newsgroup post:

David "Anonymous" responds

Paul - It worked! David "A"'s reply is below. -Eric

"Hi Eric,

It was nice to hear that people still enjoy/value some of my thoughts about
tuners. It was an interesting voyage from 2 tuners to 67 and back down to a
more manageable 5 that I plan to die with ;-)

I did crawl out from under my "tuner retirement" rock to look at,
listen to and enjoy what I believe is the new king of tuners. Here are my
thoughts...

I am just back from 2011 CES in Las Vegas. Some great new
components have been unveiled or further improved. It is possible to build a
system that was unimaginable just a few years ago. From speakers like the
breathtaking MBL101Xtreme and 101E/2, to more conventional speakers like the
Magico V3 and V2, there are speakers breaking new ground on the sonic excellence
front independent of your listening preferences. In the area of preamps and
amps, things are perhaps even better with units like the unbelievably complex
Soulution 700/710/720 to the simpler, but no less spectacular, Spectral
DMC-15SS, Spectral DMC30SS, DMA360S2, and DMA260. Exceptional CD players, DACs
and/or music servers from Boulder (1021) MSB (CD IV and DACs), Resolution
(Cantata) and others keep the digital arena very interesting. Turntables,
Cartridges and other components have been joined by truly superb new components.
So as I asked during my last voyage out of "the tuner retirement village", where
does that leave the FM Stereo enthusiast? As I said before, HDFM, Internet/4G
radio, Sirius and XM are all still challenges to traditional FM Stereo.
Personally, I hope that FM Stereo fights a long fight and eventually finds a
resurgence much akin to what happened with vinyl as many rediscovered what a
great record could sound like on a top drawer turntable and tonearm with a MC
cartridge.

I have helped to build systems for myself, and others, that resolve
differences that I could not appreciate a couple of years ago. While components
like those listed above are impressive, so too are advancements in affordable
headphone-based audio for those with more modest budgets. Plug your favorite
tuner (or CD player) into a Schiit Asgard headphone amp (yes that really is
their name, they are really nice people who design great gear, but have a sense
of humor that is refreshing in the audio business) and select the 250 ohm Beyer
DT-880 Pro version headphone or the AKG K701 (if you are more of a midrange
junky) and be prepared to hear things that you didn't used to be able to hear at
any sane price. If you use the web to buy the phones and the amp, they will set
you back about $500 plus shipping, and I defy someone to find better sound for
the money. I did the only rational thing, I bought several of each!

So while prowling the Las Vegas Convention Center (The Zoo for show
veterans), the Venetian, and assorted other venues, what news for the dedicated
FM Stereo fan? Well, thankfully in spite of Pioneer, Kenwood, and many other
once great brands nearly or completely disappearing from the audio scene,
Accuphase is back with a new super tuner (the T-1100) for the bleeding edge of
FM Stereo. Accuphase may have read my review of the T-1000 because a
significant part of the improvement comes in the IF department. However, the
already amazing performance of the stereo decoder was also improved and not just
by a little. Try 60+ dB separation from 20 Hz to 15 kHz and nearly 80 dB at its
maximum. I am quite certain that this is substantially better than most
stations and better than any tuner that I have ever seen or measured! In fact,
it is nearly a 20 dB improvement at the top end and sounds that way on great
stations.

I find that the new T-1100 tuner is more attractive (at least to my
sensibilities) by placing the display on top and controls underneath making it
appear more balanced. It still has the massive champagne-gold colored, aluminum
faceplate and spectacular Accuphase build quality. Is it worth the substantial
increase in price? Well it depends on you, the stations that you have access
to, and the depth of your wallet for audio toys. Given the shift in the value
of the dollar to the yen, the performance, and the quality of construction, the
$6,500 price that I was told about at CES does not seem totally out of line.
However, one must realize that we are way, and I mean WAY, up the diminishing
returns curve here! We are talking about an assault by some excellent engineers
at the limits of what is possible in an FM Stereo tuner. A quick look at the
guts shows more than a few design, parts and layout changes. Power supplies
have been improved, more DSP wizardry is obvious, and every technical
specification of the prior T-1000 was maintained and some improved dramatically.
I did not have time to analyze the circuit in detail. Such an effort may have
been frustrating if I tried because of the amount of processing going on inside
the TI and AD DSPs and other VLSI devices.

So for you hard core RF guys, is this the "end all" tuner for
downtown multipath or extreme fringe areas? Well I am not sure is the honest
answer. Since I only had the tuner in two locations with two antennas, all I
can say that selectivity is definitely improved with six Finite Impulse
Response, DSP implemented, Digital IF Filter, bandwidths of 50 kHz, 75, 100,
150, 250 and 500 kHz. It performed flawlessly in both locations and with both
antennas that I was able to use it with. So unlike the T-1000 where even in my
location I could see that the old RF greats still had an edge for tough
reception problems, they didn't have the same edge against the T-1100. Will
this hold true for downtown NYC, or 200 miles from a station with a huge array
antenna on a rotor? Well one answer is I hope so, but perhaps someone in one
or both of those types of locations can report in and let us know.

For the sound quality junkies, this tuner further adds to
Accuphase's considerable reputation by once again pushing back the limits of
what I thought was possible. They maintained both single-ended and balanced
analog outputs, added a nice polarity switch capability for the balanced
outputs, and thankfully maintained the ability to output the digital stream into
a reference-grade external DAC. I continue to believe that reference-grade
outboard DACs are still the way to go rather than using the internal DACs. The
sound, which was spooky clear before in the T-1000, had even more authority on
the bottom and in terms of dynamics, while maintaining the delicacy and imaging
that so astounded me in the T-1000. The separation appeared to me to further
improve sound staging compared with the T-1000. Meanwhile, the noise floor
appears to be even quieter. I would guess that this is likely as a result of
being able to balance audio and RF performance in the IF and further abating
stereo decoder artifacts. The T-1100 is simply in every audio parameter the
best sounding tuner that I have heard by a large margin. Listening to a great
station, on headphones, at significant volume, the quieting of this tuner when
there is no content is really pretty amazing. Using a good headphone set-up
also reveals important sonic cues that are not always apparent in speaker/room
based systems even if the system is really exceptional. This tuner also has
better attack and decay of notes and proper harmonic structure than any other
than I have heard. You think a Kenwood or a Sansui can do violins? Then you
better listen to this tuner! If the violins don't sound spooky real, then it is
probably a bad recording and/or playback system at the station. If you have a
really great classical station, then you are in for a treat. The sound quality
is what one friend described as "otherworldly". What's more, given the parts
and the amount of work being done with Digital Signal Processing, I imagine that
this tuner will hold its performance longer than many, if not all, of the old
greats.

So for those who already own the T-1000, should they sell their
tuner and trade up or just outright buy a T-1100? Well again that depends on
you, your wallet, and the stations/reception situation that you are in. If you
have the money, love FM Stereo, and have enough great stations within reception
range to make the investment worthwhile, my answer would be an overwhelming
ABSOLUTELY! However, at this price range, while not unreasonable given currency
fluctuations as I said above, the user is within reason to expect the best tuner
ever made for their situation. If you live in an extreme fringe or deep urban
area, I would recommend borrowing one from a dealer, to determine whether it is
state of the art in your location. I strongly encourage you to do so if you are
REALLY serious about FM. I have already told several friends with deep pockets
and/or large tuner collections that they should tee up, or at least sell part of
their aging collection to get a T-1100. Should people with a stack of L-02T,
TU-X1, CT-7000, et al tuners get one? They must if they want to say that they
have all of the greatest tuners of all time. Going back to the T-109 and the
T-109V, is illustrative of the level of improvement for these last two great
Accuphase tuners. While the T-109 and the T-109V are both excellent tuners,
they pale in comparison to the sound of the T-1100 when listened to into a great
DAC. I know some enthusiasts who have bought a LOT of tuners, Really Large
Collections, and now have an Accuphase T-1100 or T-1000 paired with a Kenwood
L-02T or a TU-X1 and NO other tuners. They are also very happy with what they
hear.

As another listener so poignantly stated, "Imagine if we had this
tuner back in the 1970s when there were so many great stations!"...

Whether you are personally an Accuphase fan or not, tuner
enthusiasts owe this firm a debt of gratitude because they are nearly the only
company left who has displayed any interest in furthering the format. Most of
the so called separate tuners are the same cheap junk put into most current
surround receivers with a separate box and supply. Accuphase has invested some
real time and money here and I wish them success with this tuner.

That's it folks, the old King is dead, long live the new King!

Best regards,
David"

I give to this post a publicity of my site as there is not a lot of told about Accuphase T-1100, in fact with current state of economy and FM generally they would sell one unit per hear in US. At least when I contacted US rep year back and inquired about new at that time Accuphase T-1000 he gave me that volume.

So, the guy looks like got T-1100 and it looks like he likes it. That is a good sign but it is hardly a motivation or reference of any kind for me. The fact the a person elegantly express his opinion about tuner and use right keyword in right places is not necessary that he use right reference points in his judgments. In fact some of his comments made me feel that his reference points are not where I would like them to be. His admiration of Magico loudspeakers and Spectral electronics is kind of conspicuous. His comment that a headphone reveals more important sonic cues then speaker is in indication that he is not familiar with serious loudspeakers. He treats Kenwood L-02T and Sansui TU-X1 as they are tuners of the same sonic caliber. There are a few more things that make me not comfortable. The most important is he is trying “strongly encourage” somebody in something. It turns me off instantaneously as I do not like anything expressed in audio for “sake of others”. Talk about yourself, no one need your recommendation; Morons need it and if you are target Morons then you are target Morons.

Unquestionably the new T-1100 is an interesting tuner. I like the Dave comments about noise but he failed to mention with witch IF. The IF bandwidths in  T-1100  is 50k, 75k, 100k, 150k, 250k and 500k. The noise floor of tuners has to be compared with identical IF bandwidths, if 150k on T-1100 sounds less noisy then 550K on Rohde & Schwarz then it is the way how it shall be. The sonic quality degradation with IF bandwidths narrowing looks like left behind the picture in all those comments.  The presence of digital out is a great feature but do they output a full 24 bit 48K signal? This is not clear and usually companies would not do it. Also, if the internal Accuphase DAC is compromised as Dave implies then what does it say about the rest Accuphase DSP? Something is fishy… The internal DAC is hard-wired to Accuphase, ruining from the same clock, why would it be bad? Anyhow, sure the new T-1100 needs to be heart and I am sure pretty much sure no one will have a chance.

I do not mind to come up with 6K for a tuner that that deliver better results then what I have but I did not see Dave appoint specific sonic problems with the tuners I know and present a description how a new T-1100 address those problems. That would be something that attracts my attention, other it is just internet chatter. If one goes to Macintosh or Day-Sequerra, or Marantz forum then you will see a lot of people who claim that something is best, the actual Sound that they have in this listening room is an indication that they operate light miles away from “the best” that even this tuner can do. I have made a mistake and bought in my past the “best ever” Kenwood L-02T that turner out to be very mediocre sounding and the “best ever” REL President that time out to be hardly usable in comparing. I do not use the FM wisdom of others as my orienteer. I do appreciate David for expressing his views but I did not get any motivation from it.

mats wrote:

Inspired in part by Romy's  results and excitement with FM, I wanted to try. Restricted by apartment living, I had difficulties achieving a quiet stereo signal. I was also concerned about the a/d conversion for digital recording. Having used the BW Broadcasting RBRX1 tuner for about 6 weeks now , I would like to share a few thoughts.  It is a complex device with many settings: "Adjustments are provided for over 50 parameters, including audio and IF bandwidths, de-emphasis, and  blending for stereo,HF and ultrasonic noise." http://www.fm-receiver.com/rbrx1.php?productarea=Manual I have been able to use it pretty much wide open, with minimal blend, and it is seemingly immune to the noise from various digital equipment that surrounds it. Right away this is a huge victory, since I had yet to achieve a quality low noise signal before. (Revox, Yamaha and Micro CPU.)  As I write this, WFMT is playing The Planets,  Sir Andrew Davis conducting the BBC Phil, and it is rather amazing. Complex passages resolved as I would expect were I using my Goldmund transport. I prefer the digital out, 24/48 is the maximum currently, and I believe that my Lavry DA-11 dac is the factor of sonic character.  It appears that the tuner responds to whatever it is being fed.  I can find no limitation from the RBRX1. The ULF  right now is just phenomenal thru my tapped horn. It is very exciting to listen to.  I can't describe any sound, except it does have some of that "FM-magic".  Of course it must be noted that I have not compared the RBRX1 to Super-Sansui's  or alike.  I will also admit that Romy's best shared samples are better than what I listened to today.  Perhaps not by that much though. Hopefully someone will be able to do a direct comparison. Meanwhile I am delighted, and have a new favorite source.

Regarding the tuner. I never had it and I do not know what to expect. David was threading me that I will get one to test but it never materialized. Perhaps you mats will be traveling to Boston and you would bring your RBRX1 in? Then we will be able to see how RBRX1 stands.

There are a few things that I am very interested. They keep talking about the adjustable bandwidth but they never published the bandwidth of the window. I have plenty of good tuners that can do from 100KHz to 650kHz. What I would be interested is to see how RBRX1 will perform again other tuner with good selectivity at the SAME IF bandwidth. It is not difficult to get a good reception by narrowing the IF window. The problem is that with narrowing intermediate frequency we truncate the side band and losing a lot of audio quality, not to saying the stereo quality. With the way how the stations are seeded in US FM dial I think the 500kH is more or less optimal IM bandwidth, at least in Boston where we have each 0.2-04Meg a deferent station.

Another thing is the quality of that digital multiplex decoder. There are no modulations in decoder any more but pure sound. How all of it DSP processing affect sound no one know. At this matter we do not even know how many bits that 48K out has. I hope it has 24 but they do not say…. I would rather to have them to run A/D not 24/192 but 32/352. They then would be able to output 88K and have highest bits that can be eaten by DSP.

Of cause it is all literature and the quality of sound altogether is something that interests me. All those “over 50 parameters” (or better to say some of them) are relevant to set the tuner in optimism receiving condition for a given signal. Then there is the actual quality of sound that tuner is potent to show.  This variable is not known to me so far. I have seen online audiophiles were trying to compare RBRX1 to different tuners and found that MR-78 was more preferable.  That is funny as I do not consider the MR-78 worth any attrition, it is not to mention that audiophiles are generally understand Sound as much as Sarah Palin understand multiplication table….

It would be also interesting to run RBRX1 into external DAC and to see if you will be able to get better result. I do not know what kind digital signal they output. Most like it is Mono right after decoder with 19kH defeated. Anyhow, you can compare it with your Lavvy and get some idea about the quality of RBRX1’s output stage.

scooter wrote:

Why the RBRx1 vs Rx1 for home use? What are your complaints about the RBRx1 (e.g. what would you change)?

Romy the Cat wrote:

Interesting, mats. The unit is not “complex device with many settings”. All those settings have own meaning and if you know how a tuner works then there is absolutely nothing menacing in those adjustments. You went for RBRX1? I wonder why? I think RX1 has all set of futures that necessary for people like you and RBRX1 is more for relaying applications. Were you attracted by RBRX1’s ability to be used as a standalone DAC? BTW, how good that DAC when is used from external digital source, your Goldmund transport for instance? Regarding the tuner. I never had it and I do not know what to expect. David was threading me that I will get one to test but it never materialized. Perhaps you mats will be traveling to Boston and you would bring your RBRX1 in? Then we will be able to see how RBRX1 stands. There are a few things that I am very interested. They keep talking about the adjustable bandwidth but they never published the bandwidth of the window. I have plenty of good tuners that can do from 100KHz to 650kHz. What I would be interested is to see how RBRX1 will perform again other tuner with good selectivity at the SAME IF bandwidth. It is not difficult to get a good reception by narrowing the IF window. The problem is that with narrowing intermediate frequency we truncate the side band and losing a lot of audio quality, not to saying the stereo quality. With the way how the stations are seeded in US FM dial I think the 500kH is more or less optimal IM bandwidth, at least in Boston where we have each 0.2-04Meg a deferent station. Another thing is the quality of that digital multiplex decoder. There are no modulations in decoder any more but pure sound. How all of it DSP processing affect sound no one know. At this matter we do not even know how many bits that 48K out has. I hope it has 24 but they do not say…. I would rather to have them to run A/D not 24/192 but 32/352. They then would be able to output 88K and have highest bits that can be eaten by DSP. Of cause it is all literature and the quality of sound altogether is something that interests me. All those “over 50 parameters” (or better to say some of them) are relevant to set the tuner in optimism receiving condition for a given signal. Then there is the actual quality of sound that tuner is potent to show.  This variable is not known to me so far. I have seen online audiophiles were trying to compare RBRX1 to different tuners and found that MR-78 was more preferable.  That is funny as I do not consider the MR-78 worth any attrition, it is not to mention that audiophiles are generally understand Sound as much as Sarah Palin understand multiplication table…. It would be also interesting to run RBRX1 into external DAC and to see if you will be able to get better result. I do not know what kind digital signal they output. Most like it is Mono right after decoder with 19kH defeated. Anyhow, you can compare it with your Lavvy and get some idea about the quality of RBRX1’s output stage. Rgs, Romy the Cat

mats wrote:

I have used the RBRX1 at its currently widest IF setting, which is 157kHz.

David, I guess I misread your comment. As I saw your following line:

“27kHz, 36kHz, 45kHz, 53kHz, 62kHz, 71kHz, 79kHz, 88kHz, 97kHz, 105kHz, 114kHz, 123kHz, 131kHz, 140kHz 149kHz, 157kHz.”

I was puzzled what the hell you guys are doing as 157kHz is too narrow bandwidth for a tuner to sound good. The narrowest window that includes ALL stereo information would be double maximum caring frequency plus double of deviation.  In FM stereo have 53K of maximum caring frequency that makes 106Kz and we have 75K is deviation, dibble of it 150K. So, 150K +106K will be 256K of absolute minimum IF bandwidth. Typically the best tuner have wider IF…  So I was wondering what you are doing with 157kHz…

Then I realized that I missed from your post the following:

“Please note that these bandwidths are for one side, so the full maximum bandwidth is actually 314kHz.”

If it is true then max 314kHz is fine maximum bandwidth. However, I never heard that anyone ever publish number just for ONE SIDE. So, sine no where the bandwidth of your IF is published and you pasted your IF number from somewhere then would it be possible that you mentioned the “note that these bandwidths are for one side” only in order to make me to shut up? I mean: what is the point for you have those numbers somewhere for one side only? Can you point out for me a public official location where the total IF bandwidth of 314kHz is mentioned?