Nat01 vs Nat05XS

Forget the 01 if you don't have a proper antenna

Spares are scarse, but it will sound much better than any 05 or most other tuners for that matter.

I believe only few CB 01 were made before new look in 1989/90

Its cool but the 101 were even more imo

Decent 3 pole Antiference antenna is going in on Wednesday. Clear run of cable, no breaks, double shielded. I get good reception from a high power transmitter.

The 01 will be from a dealer and if it's not in full working order then it'll go back to Naim for full service before I part with any cash.

I'd take the 01. It's a classic. Just make sure it has the later LED display rather than the older vacuum fluorescent version.

The 101 mentioned above is rather lovely especially the analogue tuning dial display 

Don't think CB 01's had LED readout.

The 01 is something special.Never heard a NAT 05 XS but If I was in your shoes I would go for the O1.Its such a shame it's days are limited with the FM switch off in the future.

Your in for a treat.Lifes to short,so go for it.

Had a nat05 for months and it sounded fantastic on a 5 element antiference aerial. I initially had it on a 3 element one but the 5 element gave a very noticable lift in sound quality.

I borrowed a friends olive nat01 for a couple of weeks and this was a head and shoulders above the nat05. It sounded so right, so natural.

Marksnaim posted:

I Was going to get a NAT05XS but I've always hankered after an 01. An 01 chrome bumper is now an option and although it won't be a cosmetic match I do love the look. Does anyone have any experience of the difference between the two from a sound quality perspective?

No but if I had an offer for a Nat01 without being silly money I would think seriously. I use the earlier NAT05 (as opposed to NAT05XS).. it is ok to good, I think I probably prefer my NAT03 but like the 01 is totally manual. I genuinely expect the NAT01 to be very much improved over the NAT05 SQ wise, even if it isn't on the convienience front.

With all good low noise stereo FM you will need a suitable well positioned aerial, it's not specific to the NAT01 at all. Get a good aerial with a good signal with low reflection noise, with preferably an aerial balun to reject noise from the downlink coax shield and you should be well away. With stereo FM it's much about relatively reducing noise level in the raw modulated signal before it hits the discriminator. ( or ADC with SDR) 

Sound quality = 01

When we had an 01 we had a Ron Smith Galaxie 14 aerial on the roof, and the sound was exceptional. I wouldn't get one unless I had a similar aerial, and certainly wouldn't get one and use it on the end of the three element. 

HH, of course it depends where you live with respect to the transmitter. A high gain antenna closish to a transmitter could overload the tuner front end causing distortion affecting stereo decoding accuracy, and because it's FM it might sound good in all other respects.

A three element at any distance over 15 miles could start to become marginal obviously depending on transmitter power and of course attenuation in the coax becomes critical here too. A three element is also more prone to reflections and has less front to back gain difference so if you have interfering stations or tall buildings/structures  nearby a 5 element or higher might be preferable. So as a,ways best use an aerial installer who knows their stuff and has the right test equipment.. they do exist, and you don't need exotic metal work in the sky.

the one aerial I would avoid like the plague is the circular omnidirectional type, it has less gain than a dipole and basically sucks...

A three elements can of course be fine...  I have transmitted and received mono FM to Australia on a three element - when the sun spot conditions permit 

Good point Nigel with the aerial. I'd still be tempted to get the 01 and then if i wanted more, upgrade the aerial if needed (The OP seems to be in good signal area but there may be other RF environmental considerations around his location that need to be considered). The Ron Smith aerials are superb but need a bit more care in installation and to be honest (and i'm saying this as someone who appreciates a large antenna) they look a bit out of place on most houses... If you want the best though 

Just looked up Ron Smith aerials - looks like serious kit, but how many people would want their house being mistaken for a GCHQ outpost?!

Hmm your typical GCHQ listening post looks innocuous enough  to me ..

Simon-in-Suffolk posted:

Hmm your typical GCHQ listening post looks innocuous enough  to me ..

They're even more discrete these days 

I've recently exchanged a post with Marksnaim on another thread about FM antenna's ...........   He's located aprx 21 miles & with practically line of sight over the Thames estuary to the big transmitter at Wrotham. It's pushing out 125kW - some say its 250kW - whatever its a big bugger & it covers all the southeast, London & out to the B,B&H home counties.    With a NAT-05 I advised a 3 element & 5 element for NAT-01.   Yes a big Ron Smith would be great,  but thinking neighbours, ease of mounting & even considering the eventual FM switch off  .....  IMO considering proximity to Wrotham I would go 5 element Blakes or Antiference.

Simon-in-Suffolk posted:

Hmm your typical GCHQ listening post looks innocuous enough  to me ..

Obviously the cheapskate version, sans the 10' tall masts!! I was just going by what is on their website, which looks seriously scary!

Indeed Mike, and the other thing that many forget is wind loading. A large or medium gain Galxie will require a large steel or 2" diameter aluminium pole against a heavy duty chimney or wall mounting kit. Avoild alloy poles, I had one of mine snap with the recent storms.

I think one of the main benefit of Galxies that I can see comes with their increased front to back gain difference which is best for reducing interference or reflections from behind you which unless in a high density area is probably only likely to effect you where there is sporadic E  or tropospheric ducting conditions which won't be often... this is like the old fashioned 'atmospherics' interference of analogue TV.

BTW still not holding my breath for FM switch off. I note by brand new car only came with an FM radio again, no DAB..along with its sat Nav. Still too many not spots for DAB with annoying drop outs.

We had to get planning permission for ours....

These days we have a simple five element pointed at the transmitter at Rowridge on the Isle of Wight, feeding the FM module of the 272. The 01 is super, especially if you are a really keen Radio 3 listener. 

Yes I use a baluned 5 element  (4 elements, folded dipole and reflector ) pointing to Tacolneston at under 30 miles away.

Is there much signal strength loss by positioning a RS Galaxie 14 inside the loft instead of outside?

naim_nymph posted:

Is there much signal strength loss by positioning a RS Galaxie 14 inside the loft instead of outside? 

Impossible to answer as no loft is the same;   tile materials, water pipes, tanks, wiring, guttering & wall reflections all come into play.  This link is about loft mounting aerials,  its mostly about TV, but same principles apply,  the longer wave lengths of FM suffer less attenuation.    Its worth a go but is dependant on transmitter power & distance & whatever hills & other other obstructions get in the 'line of sight' path.   If you want to tell me your location (area/town/city) & I can map the terrain to your transmitter.

I have a G-14 inside my loft,  but at only 5.6 km out from the 45kW Oxford area main transmitter, any losses are irrelevant.     I have it orientated 44 degrees off beam to the 45kW to pull in other local & more distant low power stations (the G-14's -3dB acceptance angle is 55 degrees)   I can also get BBC's from Birmingham 130km out, but R3 is a bit hissy.  The furthest low power station I listen to is a 3kW from 57km out & that's just about hiss free,  the weakest is a 0.2kW from 34km but it switches my NAT-05 to mono,  but its got essential local jazz music & gig info so is a must listen.   

I agree with Mike - there are many variables. The loss I guess will be about 3dB at FM and will be lower for slate tiles as opposed to concrete tiles. However reflections and interactions are going to be the big issue with any wiring laying horizontal on the loft floor as well as water tanks and pipes... so placement might be rather hit and miss - but if you are in a good signal area its certainly not a silly idea if you can't put outside. Remember however reflections from metal in the loft will affect resultant audio quality - its like putting a blur on smudge on the audio especially with stereo... such that sibilances will be more pronounced etc - and also metal will interact with the field pattern of the aerial and almost certainly diminish / distort its performance so probably not worth while for going too exotic a design..   so to be prepared for some trial and error. 

Of course, this whole discussion might prove to be irrelevant if the recent rumours prove true and the government goes ahead and turns off the FM signal later this year.

Mike-B posted:

 If you want to tell me your location (area/town/city) & I can map the terrain to your transmitter.

Thanks for reply Mike.

Is it true a NAT05 has better reception prospects in a weak signal area than a NAT01?

This is probably a weak signal area, but i'm not sure. If i put the G14 up on the chimney stack it would probably work really well but i'd become very unpopular with the neighbours,  although it would make a superb bird perch. I like the idea of a loft position for access and ease of adjustment, safe from stormy weather, and i'll just have to cope with the compromise. There is no water tank or any plumbing in my loft, the north and south sides are gable brick, east and west sides typical modern concrete roof tiles. Please drop me an email me at naim underscore nymph at btinternet dot com - so i may send you my postcode location for directional mapping. Thanks!

Debs

naim_nymph posted:

drop me an email ............  so i may send you my postcode location for directional mapping. Thanks!

Done