Indeed, that seems to be the case, so RF energy in the band with wider IF filter settings affects the reading. I consider it a cheap solution, which I want to avoid, so if I decide that I would settle with a HiFi unit, I would check it for that in more detail (perhaps I should have mentioned that as well). I think the dynamic range of the log amp doesn't go past roughly 70dBµV for most units, including SA5ES (and of course the meter reads less as the attenuation is activated). Hitachi explicitly mention that in FT-5500's service manual. However, more expensive builds, and particularly professional monitoring/re-broadcast receivers include a dedicated meter circuit, with a range of up to 100–120 dBµV, as you pointed out. This might also be the case with JVC FX-1010, except for the range (it's claimed that the meter circuit takes a lot of space and is quite accurate). However, I haven't checked the schematics, so I might be wrong about this. ----- I understand most listeners' accent on taste. However, this criteria for evaluation of audio sources works inside one's own world or friendly circle. Some people, predicated on taste or conditioned perception, insist that a reasonably good cassette deck and tape recording just sound better than a high-quality digital source, despite the differences in ex. frequency response, and the SNR and THD differences, which measure in orders, and despite the audible wow & flutter with many tape decks. But this is not a plausible argument for putting it on a list above the digital source as 'better', except for one's own reference, of course. In fact, when people refer to a source as sounding 'analog' and prefer it as 'better', in many cases this usually implies more imperfection, losses, and coloration. There is nothing wrong with tastes, except when they are taken to imply objective 'better' and 'worse'. Detailed technical specifications aside, I tend to aurally evaluate with regards to transparency (more/less, closer to/farther from). Now, as you all know, FM programs are all processed, the audio is compressed because of the narrow dynamic range of FM, ±75kHz deviation counting the pre-emphasis in, pilot tone, etc, but useful conclusions can still be done when comparing units, with some experience in processing and aural evaluation of audio materials, very good reception for a few stations, and also knowing the original source materials used in the comparisons. If ex. unit 1 consistently performs such that it tends to alter the audio signal more than unit 2, then unit 2 is the better or more transparent one, audio-wise, even though that might not match one's taste. Having owned and listened to the Kenwood models I mentioned (KT-7020/990D, 1100SD, 3300D), on both my monitors and monitoring headphones (I have a small home studio, for self-producing and audio restoration), I cannot give them so much credit; they have a similar signature, the peculiarities of which include flatter sound stage, poorer bass resolution and highs, while in comparison ex. Yamaha T-85 does better in that regard. I thought about modifying KT-1100SD, but did not found the time and dedication, so I sold it in the end. ----- As a side note to the previous replies (probably no need to mention): When it comes to builds, weight does not necessarily translate to better electroacoustical and sonic qualities between audio units (especially when it comes to comparing different eras, for obvious reasons). I have seen L-1000T's internals previously, but that's not what I was referring to. Of course, inside it has the typical sophisticated build quality for a L-series unit, and it's a L-unit after all. As I said, it's an undeniably good tuner, just somewhat over-rated IMO: inoperable without the remote, no dedicated measurement circuit and too few parameters measurable for a high-end unit, somewhat plasticky design/feel; and what about the audio section? It's been a long time since I had a glance over the schematics, but I think it was quite similar to KT-1100SD/KT-3300D (might be wrong though), and I don't find these units sonically satisfactory. This is the main issue with them (unmodified) as I otherwise consider them among the strong runners reception-wise. Frankly, L-02T and KT-917, possibly 600T are the Kenwoods I would consider at this point. All in all, it seems I'll settle with a monitoring or re-broadcast receiver by 2wcom, WorldCast Systems, or DIVA, which would fit well in my audio rack.