vintage gear intergrated or seperates

[floyd]

I'm thinking about dippin my toe into the tube waters. I want to get a room set up for some nice stereo listening with tubes.

I am considering a Scott intergrated but there are some Dynakit power amps out there but then I need a pre. In the future I would like to ask Grover to build me a preamp but right now I can't do everything I'd like.

I know Steve has said good things about Scott does that apply to the intergrated amps too. Also how hard are the tubes to find??

I will probably just hunt off Ebay since I have actually had an eye out for such equipment for years now but have never scored the garage sale or thrift store find.

Steve, you mentioned your friend Shurefire in another thread does he sell amps that he has refurbished. I just can't buy something that I have to fiddle with to make work since I have no idea what to do.

[audio]

Steve has said in the past that he likes the Scott 299 and the Fisher 500 and 800 integrated amplifiers/receivers. You can't really go wrong with any nice Scott or Fisher, from what I've heard. Give us an idea of how much you want to spend, the type of music you listen to, and how efficient your speakers are and I'm sure we can come up with some suggestions. From what I've heard thus far since I've been into tubes, here are my impressions. Keep in mind that this really doesn't mean all that much because were talking about my ears with various speakers and various rooms, but I'll tell you anyway:

Fisher X-202-B- smooth, natural, punchy, non-fatiguing, nice imaging and wide soundstage, fills the room and sounds immediate without being harsh, draws you in, excellent and clean bass. A fantastic all-around amp with minimal complaints overall.

Scott 299, 399, LK 72, 222B- warm, velvety, thick, syrupy, mellow,extremely pleasant, very dynamic, sparkly, so-so imaging and 3-D space only because it's a little too romantic to be real, also tends to sound a little one dimensional. For casual listening and background music, the Scotts are the best vintage tube amps I've heard.

McIntosh 240- rich, powerful, robust, colored in a good way like the Scott, loud, slightly "slow" or "spongy", exciting

Marantz 8- the finest sounding, most accurate, vintage amp I've ever heard, pinpoint imaging, incredible soundstage, extremely life-like, smooth, and natural, clean, loud, clear, tight, just sounds right. A true audiophile piece.

Harman Kardon A500- smooth, nice highs but clinical, harsh and slightly top heavy, narrow and tunnel-like sound, no balls, small soundstage, but excellent imaging, lousy bass, dead quiet. Could be a good amp with the right speakers.

Realistic Stereo 24- a lightweight piece, only worthwhile for a bedroom or office system. Pleasantly colored and VERY warm, loose and boomy bass, rolled off highs, only 2.5 wpc so there is no slam at all, veiled, poor for rock, but sounds really nice with jazz, instrumental, new age, etc.

Eico HF-60 monoblocks- warm, nice sounding, powerful, but dull sounding, too colored, and boring. Not the worst I've ever heard, but not great either. Does many things right, not offensive, but failed to thrill me like some of the others.

[HeavyDistortion]

I'm very happy with the sound of my Scott 299-D integrated tube amplifier, and I've also heard some Fisher integrateds, and they sound excellent also. I don't think that you can go wrong with either a Scott or Fisher integrated tube amplifier. Nice descriptions, Prix.





Ed Hurdle
HeavyDistortion

[indy mike]

Hey, Dynaco made a tube integrated amp (and it's transformers are supposed to be the kitty's meow)...

[Gary]

Originally posted by prix
Marantz 8- the finest sounding, most accurate, vintage amp I've ever heard, pinpoint imaging, incredible soundstage, extremely life-like, smooth, and natural, clean, loud, clear, tight, just sounds right. A true audiophile piece.


Have you heard the '80's reissue of the 8B? Any comments on that one?

[Steve Hoffman]

Originally posted by Gary


Have you heard the '80's reissue of the 8B? Any comments on that one?

Sounds about the same, just without the glamor...

[audio]

Originally posted by HeavyDistortion
I'm very happy with the sound of my Scott 299-D integrated tube amplifier








I don't blame you! I'm lusting after Scott gear right now. I've got three pieces on the way to me in the mail and I can't wait. The stuff is so gorgeous. I passed on a $150 'buy it now' 299C the other day on ebay and I really regret it. You should post some pics of your setup!

[electrode10101]

Remember, the 299A & B used 7189 tubes in the output (industrial strength type similar to 6bq5/el84), while the 299C & D used 7591 output tubes, for more power. While there is a family resemblance between them, they do sound different.

Don't forget the LK-48 (with 7189 outs) and the LK-72 (with 7591 outs), which were kit built items, but sound just as good (I have both of these, and a 299B, and the LK's sound superior), and can be found sometimes for less.

For some tube rolling, try substituting a 7687 for the 6BL8/6U8 driver/phase splitter. Cleaner sound, better bass. Unfortunately, the cat's out of the bag on this tube, and it's price has jumped better than 4 fold in the last several years, but, if you look around, you can find some...

I just checked AES, and they want $30 for this tube! Sheessh. this used to be a $5 tube! Is it worth the $60? (for 2). If you've already dropped some cash on new output tubes, recapped your amp, and are looking for a bit more refinement, yes. If not, spend it on some output tubes, or some vinyl!!:D

Looks like it's time to hit the hamfests again.


John Diamantis

[floyd]

Thanks everyone.
John you said the Scott 299 a-b-c-&d sound different. Is there a preference or are they just different.

As for the Marantz 8 is finding the tubes for this one hard. Now this one would need a preamp right? Any specific one that goes better with this one? This may also be one to get Grover Huffman to build a line stage for.

As for price I'm kind of all over the place. I could go more if I was very comfortable but it is still scary when buying something that old and not knowing what it will be like finding parts (tubes) etc... That is why a modern amp like a Jolinda (mentioned in the inexpensive intergrated tube amp thread is interesting.)
I've gone into some high end stores around here (Madison WI) and have practally been laughed out of the shop when I inquire about tube stuff. So I'm kind of on my own (along with your help)

[audio]

Originally posted by floyd
Thanks everyone.
John you said the Scott 299 a-b-c-&d sound different. Is there a preference or are they just different.

As for the Marantz 8 is finding the tubes for this one hard. Now this one would need a preamp right? Any specific one that goes better with this one? This may also be one to get Grover Huffman to build a line stage for.

As for price I'm kind of all over the place. I could go more if I was very comfortable but it is still scary when buying something that old and not knowing what it will be like finding parts (tubes) etc... That is why a modern amp like a Jolinda (mentioned in the inexpensive intergrated tube amp thread is interesting.)
I've gone into some high end stores around here (Madison WI) and have practally been laughed out of the shop when I inquire about tube stuff. So I'm kind of on my own (along with your help)



Finding tubes for the Marantz 8b is cake. They still make the power tubes, so you're fine there. The Marantz will drive any speaker and it's easy as hell to bias. The problem is that a decent one is going to cost you at least a grand (the guy who's amp I heard bought it for $30 at a yard sale recently!). If I were you, I would start out with a Scott or a Fisher to get your feet wet. Then if you like, you can start to upgrade. Plus, if you jump in and get the best right away, it sort of takes the fun away because then you've got nothing to look forward to or improve upon. If you pick up a cheap integrated on ebay, I've got a tech I can refer you to that can restore it or bring it up to snuff. He's got pdenny's Fisher 800C right now. If I had to generalize, I would say that Scott sounds better, but is less accurate. Fisher is tighter and more on the money, but doesn't have as much tube warmth as Scott. Here ya go....grab this one:

http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=3057922555&category=50593

[electrode10101]

My take on the 299 Scott family, and others:

I like the earlier A&B versions better than the later version with 7591. However, I like the LK-72 with 7591 better than any of the 299 series.

The LK-48 uses the 7189/el84 output and sounds a bit sweeter and has a better midrange than any of the others, but lacks the power in the frequency extremes that the LK-72 posesses. I run an LK-72 into a pair of JBL L-112's in my family room, and the system sounds great. Midrange magic, smooth high end, and lots of clean bass. Friends and family who've heard this system can't get over how "realistic" it sounds, and really can't get over it's powered by a 40 year old tube amp!

Having said this, there are some other worthy contenders out there:

The Dynaco SCA-35. Uses the EL84. A little dark sounding, unless modified/upgraded, but has some midrange magic. Lots of mods available. Can be turned into a great amp with some effort (the real magical midrange find is the ST-35, a power amp using the same Z535 output trannies as the SCA-35, but with a triode driver/phase splitter, and midrange to die for. Best with efficient speaks. Rare unit, though, and commands ever increasing prices and needs a preamp.)

The Sherwood 5000 series. Sleepers. Nice sounding units. Won't break the bank. power output about 30 watts.

A real sleeper is the Heathkit AA-32. A very clean 12-14 watts for very little $$$. Its' 6eu7 preamp tubes may be a bit pricey, but they are rarely bad. ECL86 outputs are reasonably priced as well. A good starter/bedroom amp. I drove a pair of KLH-17's with this amp for a while, and the system sounded great. Especially when you consider I bought the speakers for $20 and the amp for $35!

One other great sounding integrated amp is the Eico HF81. Uses those great EL84 tubes (no $$ for Mullards? Try those Russian Military 7189 equivalents. You can get 4 for about $30 and they sound really good. Check eVilbay for the tube guy from Latvia). The only problem with this amp is cosmetic. The brass faceplate never seemed to age well. With a little clean up they don't look half bad, and you'll be treated to about 15 of the nicest sounding tube watts this side of a Dynaco ST-35. Prices on this amp hover between $125-200.

These are the integrated tube amps I've played around with in the last several years that struck me as worth fixing and using in a system around the house. There may be others. YMMV

John Diamantis

[Rivendell61]

First time poster--I will throw in my two cents:
I love my Scott 299B! And comparisons can be very difficult because it depends upon condition of amps compared: stock, re-built, re-built with what? So an Eico, Fisher, Scott (pick a model) may all sound 'better' than one another depending upon condition/re-build parts, etc.
Any vintage amp must have work done/parts replaced. And there are different opinions about how to do this.

But a re-built Scott should certainly not have any 'warm vintage' sound. Un-less--and I think some do this--you put in parts designed to acheive that end. Most folks are trying to maximize the quality of the sound and elect to use parts toward that end. Even retaining all extra perk circuits of the Scott integrated (tone, loudness, etc) a well rehabilitated one will give a much more expensive modern tube amp a run for its money.

Incidentally (I hope I am not violating any forum rules by mentioning this) if you look at the new Mapleshade catalog (or web site) he is touting re-built Scotts for sale--and I quote 'whipping $5000 solid state amps'! But he is over hot-rodding it in my opinion--cutting out all extra knobs and switches. And a bit too pricey.

My amps were totally checked out and all--or almost all (40 parts)-- underchassis bits replaced: caps, bridge rectifier, resistors, etc. Used Auricaps in the 299B and Russian mil Film & Foil in 222C ( My choice after phone conversations with my re-build guy--just to see difference). Also had bias points added to top of chassis to make biasing easy. This was a package designed to give the 'best' sound and reliability. And not as expensive as it sounds!

So regarding your questions: 299 a-b-c-d. There are differences that matter--and some that matter less (apologies! It is late...). For instance 299A 'Version 1' is thought best to avoid--later 299A's ok. This could get way to long but while each has adherents the 299B/222C topology--with readily available, much liked 7189 output, seems to have most fans: thus my choice! The kit version of the 299B is the LK-48. But unless it was a factory wired kit (I don't understand that either) you rely upon unknown skills in soldering.
Good luck!

[Dave]

Hi Rivendell61, nice starting post. Thanks for the education/opinion.

Welcome aboard! Post often. :wave:

[Rivendell61]

Thanks Dave!
Nice place you have here!

[floyd]

Originally posted by prix




I would say that Scott sounds better, but is less accurate. Fisher is tighter and more on the money, but doesn't have as much tube warmth as Scott. Here ya go....grab this one:

http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=3057922555&category=50593

Oh well that one sold already. I have a couple "feelers" out right now we will see what comes back.

[electrode10101]

While the Scott LK series were kit built by their owners, any that are still working were obviously put together well. Any amp of this vintage should have it's solder joints inspected, be it a kit or factory wired.

The LK's can be found at a discount, compared to the 299/222 series, and with some inspection and joint touch up (heck, if you're replacing all of the passive components in your amp, you're essentially doing this) will work as well as their factory built counterparts.

I hope this isn't considered "thread crap", but I think a few words on safety are in order, for those who are just entering into the wonderful world of tubes, and refurbushing equipment.

A word on replacing resistors; Most metal film resistors are not rated for the voltages found in tube equipment. Make sure the ones you use are rated for at least 300volts. A better replacement for the old carbon composition resistors are carbon films (although opinions and discussions on this could fill pages, considering the equipment involved, carbon films will do just fine). If you are replacing components in the preamp section, a few judiciously placed metal films to reduce circuit noise will be ok.

The same goes for capacitors. Make sure the voltage rating is at least as high as the part you are replacing. Higher is ok. Don't increase the size of the capacitance beyond 10%, as you may effect circuit operation negatively, and possibly cause a failure in other components.

When first turning on a vintage amp, you should use a variac (variable AC voltage device) to prevent stressing power supply components. If the amp was in current regular use, you can just turn it on.

The most important replacements to consider with any vintage amplifier are the power supply capacitors (usually close to or at the failure point if they haven't been previously replaced), the coupling capacitors between the driver/phase splitter tube plates and the power tube grids, the bias supply components, and the driver phase splitter resistors. If you don't feel comfortable or qualified to inspect/test/replace these components yourself, find a good tech. REMEMBER, VOLTAGES INSIDE TUBE COMPONENTS ARE LETHAL!!

You don't need to spend a fortune on "boutique" parts to get your amp up and running, and sounding good. If you buy a $150 amp, and spend $400 in parts to make it sound "better", you should have spent your money on a better amp. Replacing those parts that are bad, and making sure you have good tubes will insure your amp will perform properly and safely, and sound good.

John Diamantis

[Steve Hoffman]

Thanks, John. Appreciate it.

[Rivendell61]

Hi John-

An interesting thing is that many of the LK-48's were actually 'factory wired' (it was an option)--I don't know what work the 'kit' involved then!
Since floyd is not going to work on the amp himself I suggest he look at the HHScott site (loaded with info) and contact a repair guy.
I use NOSValves (in Michigan)--Craig is in the opinion of many the *best* at Scott re-builds and does super quality work at great prices. And if you call he can help walk you through any E-bay offerings to sort out dog amps/sellers, etc.
And John is absolutly correct about not starting the thing up--whatever you get! When you find a repair guy: have the E-bay seller ship direct to him.
Saves you shipping twice--and temptation of turning it on before fixed-up.

I did go a (slightly) different direction than John suggests. Since I had been looking at some Weborne Labs SET stuff, spending a couple hundred getting the Scott 'maximized' seemed like a bargin. It just depends on your wallet and how much audio-tweaking at the margins matters you.
A basic Scott with minimal re-build will sound terrific I am sure. But for a bit more--you can (perhaps) make it just a bit better. And give you an amp full of reliable parts--good for another 40 years..? Top end parts for mine--labor, shipping, totaled about $250.

I got lucky and had strong telefunkens--new tubes can add a bit but a matched quad of Russian 7189's is only $30. Usually the multi-section cans (shiny 'can' things sticking up on top) can be succesfully 're-formed' but, again, re-placing a bad one will not be too bad.

A good tech guy will ask what you want, what you listen to, how loud, how 'picky' (!) about sonics, etc--and fit his work to what will make you happy. Hope you get a tube amp!

[floyd]

I may bid on this one.
http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=3057131607&category=50593

what do you think.

Steve, you suggested Shurefire in an earlier thread to someone, I sent him an email last night so we will see if he has something.


I like the suggestion to get "my feet wet" with a Scott. who knows maybe latter I'll get the marantz 8 and ask Grover about building a line stage. The scott could easily go to the bedroom.

[Steve Hoffman]

Wait for one with a proper case....

[electrode10101]

Floyd,

That unit looks like it's in nice shape. You might ask the seller, if you win, to remove the tubes, and pack them in bubble wrap separately. Cheap or not, it'd be a shame to replace tubes because they fell out of the sockets in transit.

Also, ask if he would at least bubble wrap the whole amp with the large bubble type, and put it in a box with packing peanuts (double boxing would be preferable; I would even pay a premium for it)

The way UPS chucks boxes around, that nice looking chassis would be a perfect candidate for a big corner crunch.

Good luck.


John Diamantis

[floyd]

I'll ask if it has a proper case. Thanks!

[floyd]

I've been doing a little homework on the Scott amps and it looks like the 299 C and D are the only ones with a headphone jack. Sometimes I do have to listen on headphones are these jacks anything good enough to sway my choise to the C or D ? I could always pick up a seperate headphone amp too.

[HeavyDistortion]

"I'll ask if it has a proper case. Thanks!"

I doubt that the Scott that you are looking at on eBay has a wooden case. If it did, I'm sure that it would be mentioned and shown in the pictures, because it would be another positive selling point for the amplifier.





Ed Hurdle
HeavyDistortion

[floyd]

Originally posted by HeavyDistortion
"I'll ask if it has a proper case. Thanks!"

I doubt that the Scott that you are looking at on eBay has a wooden case. If it did, I'm sure that it would be mentioned and shown in the pictures, because it would be another positive selling point for the amplifier.





Ed Hurdle
HeavyDistortion

I doubted it too, but figured it was worth the question. Anyway I asked and it didn't naturaly.