Sherwood s-5000ll vs Fisher x-101c

[pjkkaf]

Hello,
Ok, from what I've read it's coming down to these two amps for my main system. I have Speakerlab K's and like vinyl over cd but listen to both and all kinda genres. What are major characteristic differences? Is there something else in this price range I should consider?
Thanks,
Pat

 

[Dadbar]

In that same genre/price range you might also consider the Scott 299C/D/ LK-72/72B and 233 family. Better phono stage than the Fisher and better looking than either (your taste might vary). All of these are 7591 based.

 

[pjkkaf]

There is a Scott 299 for sale an hour and a half away. I kinda like the idea of an adjustable phono stage on the Sherwood.

 

[mhardy6647]

The Scott has the best-sounding phono stage of Scott/Fisher/Sherwood (although none is what I'd consider "world-class").
The Fisher and the Sherwood - pretty much a toss-up. I'd recommend one of each (and I am only being partially facetious).

EL84 PP amps sound better (to me) than the 7591/7868 PP amps (FWIW) - you might want to consider a Scott 222C or EICO HF-81 unless you really need the 3 dB of additional power. Sherwood and Fisher also each had integrateds using either EL84 or its iron-pumping cousin, the 7189.

 

[Dadbar]

The Fisher 101C is cathode biased IIRC....so it would put out a little less power than the Sherwood or the Fisher.

+1 on the previous comments re: EL84 versions of these amps. That opens up a much greater range of Sherwood/Fisher/Scott/Eico/Pilot models to choose from....with great sound.

 

[Brian]

You can't go wrong with either but, the Sherwood edges out the Fisher for me. I like the control setup better though it takes a bit of getting used to at first. Working on the Sherwood is tighter but the circuit is not as complex and easier for component changing. The shortcoming of the Sherwood is the white painted face. It is somewhat easy to scratch but, simply put a clear piece of heavier plastic sheet over it an you'll be protected.

 

[pjkkaf]

What makes a phono stage good or bad?

 

[Brian]

Circuit, parts selection, layout and power supply. A variable to consider is the cartridge loading that the cartridge has on the preamp. Sadly, few preamps are setup for the user to change the loading charactoristics.

 

[audiodon]

What makes a phono stage good or bad?
Ultimately, the sound that comes out of the circuit. Everything Brian says I agree with, but ultimately it comes down to the final product.

 

[pjkkaf]

That eico hf 81 sounds interesting..never had considered it but seems to be well regarded.

 

[audiodon]

I have both the Fisher X-101-C and the Sherwood S5500-II. I haven't restored the Sherwood yet though so I can't do a fair sonic comparison but I can compare other things.
Physical ratings:
Mechanical design - both are cool. Sherwood and Fisher are both mid-century modern masterpieces. Sherwood is vertically smaller and the design layout with the copper chassis and angled caps and tubes is compelling. Points to Sherwood
Cabinetry - Sherwood has a metal cabinet and Fisher uses a standard Fisher integrated sized cabinet. Points to Fisher.
Controls - Sherwood has somewhat incomprehensible speaker wiring, very tight RCA inputs and an odd but well loved set of rotary controls on the front cover. Fisher has a couple knobs, some pushbuttons and a hideaway front panel for most knobs and all switches. Points to Fisher.
Working space under the chassis - Can't do a fair comparison.
My S5500-II uses 7868 outputs, not 7591s as the Fisher does.

Audio ratings:
Sonics - I can't do a fair rating because the Fisher is totally restored and the Sherwood is totally unrestored.

I can say that the Fisher X-101-C is my favorite of all Fishers that i've heard so far and I've heard at least eight models. That sets a high level for the Sherwood to meet but rumor has it that the Sherwood is up to the challenge when restored.

Hope this helps.

 

[Brian]

The Fisher is nothing to sneeze at. The reality is that with either, you win. The S5500 has the impedance selection wire while the S5000 is conventional in that regard.