Marantz 8 amp VS Dynaco ST 70

Fisher 50a, 100, 200 monoblocks. The 70/80az monoblocks are good as are the 300 and 1000 stereo amps. However the only Fisher amps that can be compared to Mac, Marantz and Citation are the first 3 mentioned.
 
Marantz 8b marantz 2s

I have completely rebuilt Marantz 8b ,Citation II, Marantz 5 and Marantz 2s

The 8b is the most solid stereo amp of classic design in its power range. It is better engineered IMO from a construction and parts point of view than the Citation and almost any consumer amp except the Western Electrics. I like any Marantz better than the Citation BTW..just my taste.

It is steak and hamburger. The steak is better -no question- hamburger is good but will never be a steak. Unfortunately, steak costs more you do get what you pay for.

It is true that that the Marantz will always rise in value the Dynaco will hit a wall in performance and value.
Hi, luv all the Marantz tube amplifier. I am getting a Marantz 8B to sit side by side with my Mcintosh MC 225.(225 is breath taking) Just wondering if the Marantz 2's are a 10 where would the 8b stand. Please only compared side by side on the same equipment. ANYONE???? Thankssssssssssssssssssss!
 
I 'll take a lafayette KT550, A Citation II, Mac MC240's, just to name a few, over an 8B, especially when one considers the price.
One well regarded member who has overhauled Mac 240, Cit-II, ST-35, Marantz 8 and 8B preferred the 8 to the others.
 
Fisher 50a, 100, 200 monoblocks. The 70/80az monoblocks are good as are the 300 and 1000 stereo amps. However the only Fisher amps that can be compared to Mac, Marantz and Citation are the first 3 mentioned.

Have a few buddys that run many of the amps mentioned thus far.All of these tube amps that ive heard, in my opinion,are excellent .One of my buds who owns a beautiful condition Mac 240 was over for an evening a couple of weekend back to do some listening and to tip back a few,after compareing what I'm running to his mac 240/C-20 he was quite shocked at the level these perform at.He was totally impressed with the sonics of the HHscott LK-150 {6550's} but when I fired up the Fisher 50A mono's his jaw dropped.They tend to do that to people..

hunter
 
8B> a whole bunch of other stuff> 8> a whole bunch of other stuff> ST70> a whole bunch of other stuff.....

I like the ST70 a lot, I don't think there is much that can compare to it for what it is. I have one and have no plans to let it go. If I had a V8 Maverick I'd say the same thing. I've had an 8B on extended listen and should have bought it but did not. Never messed with an 8 but have heard much of what's said about it here before. I have little doubt it exceeds an ST70 but not by the margin that an 8B would. If I had $2G for a new amp I'd wait until a restored 8B came up as you are nearly there anyway. Or, take that and hunt down a restored Citation II with some left over.
 
So given the issues with PP tech in the amps discussed so far, where do the common bigger amps not yet discussed fall - specifically the Marantz 9, the Dynaco Mk VI stock or modified, anyone's Dynaco based A440 or A450 type design, or any Acro or Peerless transformer based design (Acro stereo or mono, or Heathkit)?

Have wondered whether there are decent mods for the Acro / Peerless based amps using more modern front ends and better power components.
 
It's interesting to hear about the Fisher Monoblocks, only seen a few of them in the flesh but never heard them. I have 3 Scott 265a amps waiting for rebuilds and wonder what they may sound like. Many Scott owners seem to like their Mono blocks (240, 250, 280 and an LK model in there too IIRC) and a few of the smaller units too.

So many vintage tube amps, and so little time. And we haven't even touched on ARC or CJ.
 
Many Scott owners seem to like their Mono blocks (240, 250, 280 and an LK model in there too IIRC) and a few of the smaller units too.
Ive not heard the respective HHscott 50's mono blocks myself but have been looking for them for some time.I finally gave up the search when a HHscott LK-150 showed up then I pursued the matching LC-21 tube pre.The LC 21 was a complete basket case/gutted so it was a ground up rebuild other than the trafo's were original and present.
The LK-150 is a very dynamic amp and was a direct competitor o the HK citation 2 sold at around the same time for close to the same money new,and in my opinion perform up to par with one another,both PP powerhouses the Cit. using KT88 and the HHscott 6550's.
Myself,being a vintage mono amp fan puts the Fisher 50A's on the next level up over the previously mentioned top amps from their manufactures.Dynamics and channel separation being the desideing factor for me noteing all mentioned are phenominal amps produceing sonics as would be expected...

If and when I stumble across a pair of HHscott 265 mono's I will snap them up as I'm a fan of the 6l6 OP tube and see how they measure up to the Fishers.

hunter
 
It would be really cool to have a shootout of these classic amps, including some of the ARC and Conrad-Johnson amps and some modern revisions, such as a Mcintosh 275 VI, CJ Classic 60 SE, Latino's M125 monoblocks, etc.
 
It would be really cool to have a shootout of these classic amps, including some of the ARC and Conrad-Johnson amps and some modern revisions, such as a Mcintosh 275 VI, CJ Classic 60 SE, Latino's M125 monoblocks, etc.
While i agree and know for a fact we (AK) as a body have everything suggested in multiples and more, It seems unlikely we could pull together a regional meet. (I know of a Acrosound owner nearby who'd be willing to play too). I think there are some fairchilds and (i'm forgetting now) somebody has this EL 84 thing made in Belgium (two box PS and amp) looks pretty stout. Honestly we can collect some excellent Iron . I doubt we'd have a consensus winner. I wouldn't be surprised if some of us came home wanting something different than we came with.
 
On a slightly different note I have an ST70 Series II produced by Sound Valves in the 90’s. I bought it used, it was a domo. It is mostly based on the original circuit but uses 6GH8A inverter tubes and has an all SS power supply and a bigger power transformer. Supposedly the output transformers are copies of the originals. The parts are modern parts, it is mostly stock except for the coupling caps. It sounds very good and produces more than enough volume. It has been rock solid dependable. That being said, the closest I have to a vintage tube amp (other than receivers and integrateds) is my McIntosh MA-230 set up as a standalone tube amp. The SS preamp section is bypassed. My 230 beats it in every way. My 230 is totally stock except tubes but is currently taken out of service until I get the time to change all the lytic caps. And some other upgrades. I also feel that my restored Scott 299C is a bit more pleasant sounding. I do like my 70, the differences aren’t good and bad but good and better. Mine is a bit of an unusual piece in that they didn’t make too many of the Series 2 ST 70’s
 
If and when I stumble across a pair of HHscott 265 mono's I will snap them up as I'm a fan of the 6l6 OP tube and see how they measure up to the Fishers.

hunter

Thanks, I really want to get these up and running some time soon. They initially specified the 1614 metal version of the 6L6, what would be the recommendations for using other variants of the 6L6 lineage in them, generally speaking? Were the metal version tubes any good or useful?
 
Thanks, I really want to get these up and running some time soon. They initially specified the 1614 metal version of the 6L6, what would be the recommendations for using other variants of the 6L6 lineage in them, generally speaking? Were the metal version tubes any good or useful?

My Fisher 50A's originally came with the metalized 1614 op tubes stock in 1954..My first unit I found in an original mono system with a JBL single speaker.The 50a still had those black metalized tubes still in place and I assumed they were original to the unit as the complete system sat for half a century in a basement unused.I remember they test good as well.Still have them and have bought close matched pairs over the yrs as backups as their cheap compaired to other clear glass 6L6gc's{no light show effect}.
So the metalized 1614 is the same as the 6L6 GC but you can not sub in non GC 6L6's.I also have a pair of Stromberg Carlson AP-55's that run 4- 6L6's per mono and you can sub in the 6L6 gc in those as well.
The 6L6 has a lower power rateing {25 w} vs the current standard 6L6 gc"s{30 w} so if the circuit calls for a 6L6 gc you couldn't go the other way and use a 6L6 as its not rated for the higher plate voltages
I find both the 6L6 and the 6L6gc's are great tubes for extended detail and dynamics in these amps,i prefer them over el-84/el-34 and they don't break the bank to aquire.

hunter
 
when is the regional tube amp sampling going to happen? What are the speakers being used. Are Tim de Paravicini's designs allowed? I have a pair that have not been tube rolled to be the best they can be and they sound great.
 
On a slightly different note I have an ST70 Series II produced by Sound Valves in the 90’s. I bought it used, it was a domo. It is mostly based on the original circuit but uses 6GH8A inverter tubes and has an all SS power supply and a bigger power transformer. Supposedly the output transformers are copies of the originals. The parts are modern parts, it is mostly stock except for the coupling caps. It sounds very good and produces more than enough volume. It has been rock solid dependable. That being said, the closest I have to a vintage tube amp (other than receivers and integrateds) is my McIntosh MA-230 set up as a standalone tube amp. The SS preamp section is bypassed. My 230 beats it in every way. My 230 is totally stock except tubes but is currently taken out of service until I get the time to change all the lytic caps. And some other upgrades. I also feel that my restored Scott 299C is a bit more pleasant sounding. I do like my 70, the differences aren’t good and bad but good and better. Mine is a bit of an unusual piece in that they didn’t make too many of the Series 2 ST 70’s

I had a restored 230, it was little bit of an oddball. I'm pretty sure Macs only hybrid integrated. It was much maligned for its SS front end. Truthfully, restored it was really a nice piece. Also the amp section wasn't a unity design. It kind of fell between the cracks but Mac wanted to get in in the integrated market. I've preferred my Fishers and based on sales I'd say it was beat out by Scotts, sherwoods, Eicos. You could do a lot worse. (It was also an infamous 7591 killer)
 
I knew that that thread was floating around here. Though GU (geographically undesirable, for me a bit of a shlep).
I wouldn't mind attending a more local one . (I would've like to attend that one if it were closer):jump:
 
I knew that that thread was floating around here. Though GU (geographically undesirable, for me a bit of a shlep).
I wouldn't mind attending a more local one . (I would've like to attend that one if it were closer):jump:

Drag your amps over and we'll see if anyone else wants to give em a listen. I got some sand amps to compare but my tube amps sound better. Heck even Thain might bring over a tube amp or three. He does that a lot.
 
That so called replica is much closer to an EICO HF-89 than it is to a Marantz 8B. It omits several key design distinctions of the 8B's design including the pentode input, and the tertiary feedback winding on the output transformer.

Really its just a Mullard circuit which lacks the design details of the 8B which make it unique.
 
Back
Top Bottom