• The move to the new server is done. There are some software and database maintenance updates in process. This has us passing the hat around to help out. We appreciate any donations. Seriously, even a dollar helps. The payment page may be found here - https://www.audiokarma.org/support.html

Fisher Model 500 B & C + ?

dc270

dc270

Now Off the Reservation
What is the differance between these "B" & "C" Fisher 500 tuber receivers?
(I have the "B"

Why is this particulalr model called "The Fisher" instead of just Fisher?

Is "Vacuum Tube Valley" a good place to buy rebuild kits for these?

Is there a good source for wood cases? Used is fine

Looks like I am into tube gear now.......

Thanks ALl-
DC
 
Register to hide this ad
dc270

Check out Dan Crosby's fine wood workings.

I have an original case, they're not that great.

atuque
 
I would check out Dan Crosby, he has a banner at the bottom of the forum (McIntosh Cabinets). His case will cost about twice as much as an original, but they are much nicer. The 500C is also called "The Fisher", as far as I know, it was just a Fisher trademark. Something to set them apart. The 500B has the EM84 tuning eye, the C has signal strength meters. 500B also has smaller output transformers, and a different faceplate layout. I don't think you would gain much by going to a 500C, but you could just be nuts like me and try to get all the Fisher receivers. :D
 
dc270 said:
What is the differance between these "B" & "C" Fisher 500 tuber receivers?
(I have the "B"

Why is this particulalr model called "The Fisher" instead of just Fisher?

Is "Vacuum Tube Valley" a good place to buy rebuild kits for these?

Is there a good source for wood cases? Used is fine

Looks like I am into tube gear now.......

Thanks ALl-
DC
Click to expand...

Most tube-era Fisher equipment says "The Fisher" on the front. I have no idea why.
 
I'm pretty sure the biggest difference is, the B is FM only, & the C is AM-FM. Not worth worrying about much, unless you listen to baseball games on AM.
 
Doh, put my foot in my mouth again. :D I'm not really familiar with the 500s, but knew the 800-C was like that.
 
I also received this detailed reply from Mike Urban from http://www.urban-antiqueradio.com

.......The following Fisher receivers (400, 500b/c, 800 b/c) sound equivalent because they are basically the same design with a few (more or less) minor differences.
The 500c and 800c have the most features with slightly larger output transformers and the 800c is identical to the 500c except it receives both AM & FM.


The 500b is unique, similar to a 400 but with 7591 outputs, phono level controls and no headphone jack.


The 400 is basically the same receiver except for the output tubes (7868 vs. 7591). Both tubes are electrically identical but physically different. The power output is 65 watts total for the 400 / 500b / 800b and 75 watts for the 500c / 800c. Also, there is one pair of speaker terminals for the 400 / 500b / 800b and two for the 500c / 800c models. I find I can drive any type of speaker that I hook up to any of these receiver models. Some minor differences are eye tubes vs. meters and auto FM stereo switching in the 500c / 800c. Finally, there is the benefit of a more direct signal path with the 400 / 500b. With this said, I obtain the SAME listening pleasure with all of these models........

My question is this, can one change the output tubes to those in the C model?
Thanks Guysl
 
dc270 said:
My question is this, can one change the output tubes to those in the C model?
Thanks Guysl
Click to expand...

If you are asking whether you can modify a 400 to accept 7591's- the answer is yes....you would need to drill out the rivets for the novar bases, screw in octal sockets and wire these up...not exactly brain surgery, but surgery nonetheless.

If you plan to use the EH new production tubes, I wouldn't bother....I think the new EH7868 sounds better than the EH7591 anyway. I have them in a Fisher 400 and couldn't be happier. The EH7868 has a smaller bottle size and fits very nicely......the new EH7591 is a bit of a big fat bloated glass beast...
 
Dadbar said:
If you are asking whether you can modify a 400 to accept 7591's- the answer is yes....you would need to drill out the rivets for the novar bases, screw in octal sockets and wire these up...not exactly brain surgery, but surgery nonetheless.

If you plan to use the EH new production tubes, I wouldn't bother....I think the new EH7868 sounds better than the EH7591 anyway. I have them in a Fisher 400 and couldn't be happier. The EH7868 has a smaller bottle size and fits very nicely......the new EH7591 is a bit of a big fat bloated glass beast...
Click to expand...

VERY GOOD information- exactly what I was looking for, good honest solid fact with opinion and solution!!! THANKS a lot. What I am hoping to do is to get a bit more output from the 500 B version to that of the 500 or 800 C version.

Do you have a outlet where to best buy the EH7868 tubs? For that matter is there a complete tube lit for this model? Vacuum Tube Valley has a complete rebuild kit (- tubes & cans), with optional FREDs for like $125.

Thanks again folks...
DC.
 
Cosmetically, I think that the 500B looks nicer than the 500C - No headphone jack on the front panel. I also second Dan Crosby for a Cabinet. He built my Burl Wood Bubinga for my Fisher 500B pictured below.

Front-Top.jpg
 
Last edited:
WOW absolutely incredible looking!!! MOST impressive!!! DO you mind me asking the $$$ for this cab?
Thanks for the eye candy- I am very impressed!
DC
 
I personally don't think the few watts difference is worth hacking up your 400. You've got to double your wattage to get 3dB more out of your speakers. If your speakers are marginal with the 400, they'll be just one iota less marginal on the 500/800. IMO more efficient speakers is the real answer if you want to stay with Fisher and you feel underpowered.
 
JonL said:
I personally don't think the few watts difference is worth hacking up your 400. You've got to double your wattage to get 3dB more out of your speakers. If your speakers are marginal with the 400, they'll be just one iota less marginal on the 500/800. IMO more efficient speakers is the real answer if you want to stay with Fisher and you feel underpowered.
Click to expand...

As I reflect on it now you are correct. I will direct my thoughts on the better sounding tubes and longevity!
Thanks DC
 
dc270 said:
I also received this detailed reply from Mike Urban from http://www.urban-antiqueradio.com

.......The following Fisher receivers (400, 500b/c, 800 b/c) sound equivalent because they are basically the same design with a few (more or less) minor differences.
The 500c and 800c have the most features with slightly larger output transformers and the 800c is identical to the 500c except it receives both AM & FM.


The 500b is unique, similar to a 400 but with 7591 outputs, phono level controls and no headphone jack.


The 400 is basically the same receiver except for the output tubes (7868 vs. 7591). Both tubes are electrically identical but physically different. The power output is 65 watts total for the 400 / 500b / 800b and 75 watts for the 500c / 800c. Also, there is one pair of speaker terminals for the 400 / 500b / 800b and two for the 500c / 800c models. I find I can drive any type of speaker that I hook up to any of these receiver models. Some minor differences are eye tubes vs. meters and auto FM stereo switching in the 500c / 800c. Finally, there is the benefit of a more direct signal path with the 400 / 500b. With this said, I obtain the SAME listening pleasure with all of these models........

My question is this, can one change the output tubes to those in the C model?
Thanks Guysl
Click to expand...

Obviously the 65 - 75 watts figure is the sum of the two channels... I'm more used to see something like 30 - 35 watts per channel for 7868 or 7591.

I know it's a detail but...
 
The output power for the Fisher tube receivers is quoted as "IHF Music Power", which was Fisher's usage of "peak" power.

The receivers quoted as having 65 watts (400, 500B, 800B) are 28 w/ch, RMS. The receivers quoted as having 75 watts (500C, 800C) are 32 w/ch, RMS.

This is not a significant difference, either electrically or acoustically. You would not be able to hear a difference. The speakers you choose would have far, far more impact on "loudness" than the choice of receivers.
 
Fisherdude said:
The output power for the Fisher tube receivers is quoted as "IHF Music Power", which was Fisher's usage of "peak" power.

The receivers quoted as having 65 watts (400, 500B, 800B) are 28 w/ch, RMS. The receivers quoted as having 75 watts (500C, 800C) are 32 w/ch, RMS.

This is not a significant difference, either electrically or acoustically. You would not be able to hear a difference. The speakers you choose would have far, far more impact on "loudness" than the choice of receivers.
Click to expand...

Ok, I understand now: I see my Scott as "72 watts" amplifier but 35w/ch (on H.H. Scott site). Must be a similar thing.

Thanks.
 
They're all good.

I think the decision should be based on:
1. what you can get
2. whether you can restore it, buy it restored, or afford to have it restored
3. if you want the tuning eye.

I have had the 400 and 500-C. I was driven to get a 500-C off the Stereophile article rep, plus the Fisher Kings article, but the C isn't better enough to justify buying it over the others. It does have one kinda nice thing. You can switch outputs between stereo output A and stereo output B. I don't recall if the 500-B has that, but the 400 doesn't.
I have a B, but it needs work. I bought the B because I decided I didn't like the stereo beam in the C and the B is most comparable.

That being said, I have a 400 that sounds the best of the bunch. 400s come in the cheapest, still sound good, and are based on the 500-B with a different output tube. Imagine two designers got the 500-B and one was charged with upgrading and increasing power and the other with miniaturizing and cost reducing. The 500-C is one, and the 400 is the other. Cheaper doesn't mean not as good though. The 400 is a worthy younger brother to the 500-B.

Treat 'em right, roll some tubes in the phono and line stage, and enjoy.
They're all good.
 
dc270 said:
Is "Vacuum Tube Valley" a good place to buy rebuild kits for these?
Vacuum Tube Valley has a complete rebuild kit (- tubes & cans), with optional FREDs for like $125
Click to expand...
Is VTV still even in business?? It's proprieter and editor the late, great, Charlie Kittleson passed away last February. I havnt heard if the other partners- Ed Duda and ??? have continued on with the business??
I looked at the website, and it's still up, but I'm wondering if its just been running on idle without any upkeep since Charlie's passing?
I would call the phone numbers on the website and speak with someone before I sent a PayPal payment for an order or anything....
If I'm outta line, please somebody say so!
WopOnTour
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom