I just wanted to update my review. I'd like to underscore the importance of doing your own homework with regard to this tuner. It's sound isn't in any way "AVERAGE" or "WEAK". The problem with the Stereophile review is (and this was after its masthead was overtaken by a Brit) it was written in conjunction with some very UN-rf ambitious Brit tuners. The F-93's sound was never described as anything less than "VERY GOOD" but (in order to kow-tow to the "put your speaker wires on little teeny tiny telephone pole" thingamabobs) but less good than any of the other tuners that I wouldn't own if they were given to me. Seek out the reviews yourself and decide for yourself. I have a system that is RUTHLESSLY revealing (especially at the frequency spectrum extremes-most of all in the Bass the -3 dB for my four custom subwoofers home built and designed with aftermarket woofers is in the neighborhood of 14Hz) and this (like the FM tuner group guys like to say about the F-91 older, less capable brother) tuner is VERY dynamic. It's not a tuner for people who like 3W triodes. It's "forward" (and so is large scale music, so that's a plus for me-I spent my life being a professional Brass player) and the REAL fly in the Stereophile ointment is that they compared the output of the F-93 to a CD players output. It sounds more like a (good-mine's the Denon DCD-A100-another severely underappreciated new classic) good CD player than any tuner has a right to, but it is NOT (in point of fact) an actual CD player. It outperformed the Day-Sequerra FM Reference and it is not surprising that one of the people behind that product shunned it when one was handed to him with the purpose of getting him to try his home brew modifactions on it. It is NOT a "mod" friendly tuner. Since I wrote this review, I picked up a very nice Series 20 F-28 (woooooo....it's RARE and therefore expensive and therefore AWESOME by default) and it sounds ALMOST as good (in the same system) as the F-93 does. There is a Pioneer house sound and if you don't like it, you won't like either of those tuners. But I don't hear ANYTHING to complain about. If I did, I'd have no compunction about saying so. Since the original review I have acquired/restored a workshop full of "classic" tuners (the F-91 Elite, The F-90, the aforementioned 9500 II and 9800 and 449 all of which were fawned over by TAS and Stereophile, but not until after they were no longer "fresh" in the marketplace) a very nice Yammie T-2 (not a bad tuner, but no DX monster either-the sound is better than the RF performance) and the others mentioned earlier. Of my tuners the one that sounds MOST like the 93 is the F-28. Individual taste doesn't guarantee that we'll agree, but if somebody claims that there is a "sticky-outty" type of non-specific something or another, I'd suspect a flaw with that one sample and not the broad product run itself. Pioneer (at that time and during its late '70's glory days) built stuff to take "no prisoners" and this tuner was short sold by people who didn't even really try to hide their "Geographic locality" specific bias in their interviews. It was a bargain at $900.00. The reviewer here who said "great sound" doesn't mean anything if you can't get the broadcast in the first place was quite correct. But you're not getting inferior sound so the "Faustian" assertion is a false one. Find one and listen for yourself......

Reference Standard RF performance. This tuner's sins seem to be (gleaning from Stereophile/Audio Critic, etc.) that it's not easy to figure out so therefore it must be bad. I've owned a number of very good tuners (MD FT-101, Pioneer TX-9500 II, 9800, F-91, F-449, Carver TX-11a and various SX's) and I'd rank this unit at or near at the top. The only drawback I see is that it doesn't have multipath outputs to feed to an o-scope for highly critical tuning. (The better TX's from the '70's do....) It does allow for 10khz tuning and measures signal in DBf.

I find its "sound" to also be of reference quality. The frequency extension at both extremes makes it sound very "untuner" like to me. I don't hear the colorations that have been alluded to by others. (In fact I think it's less colored than its older, meeker F-91 sibling.)

They're rare for a reason. The people who have them (having heard them) hang on to them and let everybody else wonder what the fuss is about.

Sensitivity and Selectivity

Sound is not as good as tube tuners

Well after 20 years of using over 70 top tuners I declare this as the top tuner at getting the weak stations, king of DXing. There are some others that are super, like the under rated and under priced Yamaha T-85, Yamaha 1000U, must be the U,9090 I and II Onkyos. However if I had to pick the top one, this is it. Real quality of construction, MANY nice and usable features, no real quirks that I do not like.
Sound is average, nothing great but if you have a tuner that sound really good and gets the station a bit weak the sound does not overcome the noise.
Anyway, I am not much of a writier, but this is a cool tuner, $375 to $500, VERY hard to find one.
Kirby
I am giving this a 5 for performance, sound is a 3.

Similar Products Used:

over 70 top tuners

Unrivaled reception; Crystaline sound, no grain, edge. Awsome bass

Bright sounding no matter the interconnect. No remote (requires other "S" compatible Pioneer unit).

Everything said in previous review about reception is true. Incredible!. But the unit has a marked sound characteristic. The best analogy I can give are the NHT 2.9/3.3 speakers. If you like them, you'll love the F-93.
In summary this is a preferred tuner if you primarily listen to rock/pop or even jazz; I would not recommend it for classical unless NHT's are to you're liking. Of course, if reception is your primary concern, this is really
your only choice within 2-3 times the price. And the build quality is superb.

The only real drawback is the lack of a remote; you must have another Pioneer unit with "S" control output.

Similar Products Used:

Sony STR-SA5es