The Statesman (202-T) Wide-Band AM-FM Multiplex Tuner Preamp

Oh boy -- we're on a roll now! I think we're up to what, 5 now? (the one I was at auction doesn't count because it could be one of the 5.....) Westy -- you're being just plain hoggish! :)

Dave
 
How high are the serial numbers on the known 100-Ts? Is it possible that the 202-T numbering started at 30000 and was simply the next block of numbers for the 100-T?
 
Fred -- Of the service manuals I have:

1. The Coronet has one manual serving 10001 to 29999, and another serving 30001 to 39999. I also have a 100-T manual serving 30001 to 39999. That's all I've been able to find.

2. The Statesman has one manual serving 10001 to 19999, and another with no serial number designations on it, although it would by all appearances serve units from 30001 to 39999. I also have a 202-T manual serving 10001 to 19999, and another serving 30001 to 39999. That's all I've been able to find. Strange that neither the Statesman nor 202-T has a manual serving 20001 to 29999 -- unless one has just not shown up for posting.

Since the serial numbers for both units overlap, it doesn't appear that the Statesman/202-T started where the Coronet/100-T left off.

Dave
 
The one that I bought separate from the console has a serial number 10073 A.

Mine is 31521D so that's quite a span. Mine is a stand alone unit and was not sold in a console, if that makes any difference in serial numbers.
 
Mine is 31521D so that's quite a span. Mine is a stand alone unit and was not sold in a console, if that makes any difference in serial numbers.

The 31137 D came with the console, so I doubt serial numbers had to do with the Statesman's designation.
I had custom cabinets made for it and a Scott 335. They look beautiful.
 
Mine falls in the middle of the bunch at 20388A so there was certainly a good run of these units. I agree that the serial number was almost certainly independent of whether it got a Statesman or 202-T face plate.

Dave
 
I joined this club on Tuesday! My serial number is really close to Westy's. The unit was serviced a few years ago and the MPX was installed and aligned by guy in my area who is supposed to be really good with MPX tuners - has all the equipment etc. Came with a metal cabinet, so I think it was originally sold as a stand alone. All I need is another 80AZ or a stereo Fisher amplifier and I'm good to go.











 
All I need is another 80AZ or a stereo Fisher amplifier and I'm good to go.

Don't worry too much about the brand of amplifier to match with it.
The hk citII paired with it sounds better than the sa100 that came with it.

Funny. but the sa100 sounds better to me paired with the hk citI.
 
I have some other brand tube amps to use it with. I listened for a while with some Dynaco Mark III's today, very good sounding preamp with a lot of tone control range. I'm really happy with it!
 
I have been off AK for a while, I know I'm resurrecting an old thread...but I sent my 202t to Dave years ago. I had a 500c that audiodon had re done and loved it, I didn't like the way the bass sounded however. I have played bass guitar for almost 40 years..so I am a tad persnickety about bass. I loved the 500c through headphones however. Audiodon (rip) was investigating uncoupling the preamp for the 500C so that I could then drive it with a solid state power amp to get the bass I was after. I can't really remember where I even got the 202t but at that time I had an McIntosh mx110z that I liked quite a bit. Prior to sending it to Dave I had it w/ a local tech who was investigating installing the mpx. He couldn't get it going so I brought it back from his place, I had an AK buddy in the house and we were listening to the Mx110z....I unhooked it and then hooked up the Fisher and both of our jaws were on the floor. I am grateful to the AK community for having techs like Dave G, audiodon, w1jim and 39cross to restore old gear for me, keep it in great shape and in circulation. I don't have all the gear any more as I've cycled through some things but I do have the 202t.
 
Bumping an older thread. I have a 202T, restored by the late Paul Grzybek. I had him install a MPX65 to allow for FM stereo. I received it back from him and it worked ok, but it seemed like there were some operation quirks that I could not adjust to. FM was either stereo, or mono and I had to switch functions to switch from mono to stereo reception. Also the volume/gain pots did not seem to work correctly. Anyway- it has sat on a shelf for a long time. In retrospect, this modification may have been beyond his comfort zone. This thread has inspired me to dust it off and reassess. Mine has a serial # starting 31xxxx.

I do have basic questions:

Is the 202T essentially a mono FM200, with AM added, or a mono FM-101, combined with a 400c preamp ? Or does it consist of circuits *based upon* the better known models, or possibly simplified circuits ?

How does the 202T compare to a McIntosh MX110Z (not withstanding that later having on board MPX)?

Thanks !
 
Last edited:
Bumping an older thread. I have a 202T, restored by the late Paul Grzybek. I had him install a MPX65 to allow for FM stereo. I received it back from him and it worked ok, but it seemed like there were some operation quirks that I could not adjust to. FM was either stereo, or mono and I had to switch functions to switch from mono to stereo reception. Also the volume/gain pots did not seem to work correctly. Anyway- it has sat on a shelf for a long time. In retrospect, this modification may have been beyond his comfort zone. This thread has inspired me to dust it off and reassess. Mine has a serial # starting 31xxxx.

I do have basic questions:

Is the 202T essentially a mono FM200, with AM added, or a mono FM-101, combined with a 400c preamp ? Or does it consist of circuits *based upon* the better known models, or possibly simplified circuits ?

How does the 202T compare to a McIntosh MX110Z (not withstanding that later having on board MPX)?

Thanks !

I at one point had both units (both unrestored) in the same room and hooked them up back to back, keep in mind the mx110z sounds VERY good...the 2 of us who listened immediately thought the Fisher bested it
 
Broadcast engineer note from KT. Crosby had a big problem which in 1961 rendered adopting Crosby FM Stereo a major problem. In most of the USA in 1961, FM broadcasting was a money losing proposition outside certain Northern USA states like New York, and Massachusetts. And big cities in California. The SCA (Sub Carrier Authorization) on two frequencies permitted background music to stores, restaurants, and industrial customers. That revenue helped keep FM stations on the air and helped pay the bills to keep FM alive. Crosby could not be used with SCA capability. Meaning FM was doomed if it was adopted. Zenith/GE's FM multiplex Stereo system also could coexist with SCA channels, which meant even with it's flaws and shortcomings, it was the most practical FM Stereo system which could prosper and get by.
 
For all intents and purposes, that was the sole reason the GE/Zenith was adopted. The Crosby format was technically superior in most aspects, primarily due to using FM for the sub-carrier channel rather than GE/Zenith's AM sub-carrier, so the Crosby system was inherently quieter. And, the Crosby system didn't have the synchronized detection requirement that the GE/Zenith system did either, so the adapter on the receiving end could be simplified. But, as Kent said, approval of the Crosby system would put the FM stations out of business, so the GE/Zenith system was chosen, and the rest was history.

Dave
 
Back
Top Bottom