• 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 X202B, TA-800, 600, 1800 shootout under way!

I have put the X202B through the same paces as the 1800 and TA-800, and it seems to be very close to the 1800. My wife and I could not really tell that either sounded better or different, but the X202B seemed to have more power on tap.

We both think the TA-800 has a sound that is cleaner, and super detailed compared to the others. Now I'm not saying the others are not good, but there is a little magic in the 800. I know Jim was blown away by its sound after he restored it, and claimed it was the best sounding tube amp to come across his bench.

Last but not least, the TA-600 gets to show its stuff tomorrow, should be interesting.



attachment.php
 
Interesting that your red and green jewels on your R200 are reversed compared to those on mine......

Dave
 
dcgillespie said:
The heart of the problem is where Fisher placed the volume control -- right at the input of the power amplifier section. The huge advantage of such topology is that at low or minimum volume settings, any low level noise is almost non-existent. However if the input to the power amplifier section is a triode, then the downside of this configuration is that the variable impedance that the volume control represents causes the the HF response of the input stage to vary with the setting of the control.

This is because triodes suffer from Miller Effect -- where high frequency signals at the plate of the tube can be fed back to the grid by way of the internal capacitance that exists between the plate and grid within the tube. But its not just by the amount of the static capacitance value that you quoted; it's by that amount TIMES the amplification factor of the stage. Therefore, the signal is not being fed back through a 1.7 pF capacitance, but by an amount that is about X60 that value, or about a 100 pF cap. That's significant.

One approach for resolve is to keep the driving impedance at the grid very low, so that even with an effective 100 pF cap in place, the impedance it is trying to drive into at the grid is so low as to have little effect. But if the source is a 500K volume control, keeping the source impedance low is almost impossible -- particularly at the mid rotation settings of the control. Now Miller runs wild.

Fisher wisely used the HF roll off created by Miller to help stabilize the HF response of the circuit under feedback conditions, which helps significantly. But against that, in those designs that use a 7199 driver tube, the input stage is a pentode. Pentodes don't suffer from Miller to any significant extent, as the screen grid acts as an electrostatic shield between the plate and grid within the tube. But then, that starts the pentode versus triode wars.......I'm outta here!

Back to the shoot out!

Dave
Click to expand...


hm, so its grid-plate not grid-cathode then? In that case I'd figure the 7247 would be worse off. Looks like they also added a 2pf cap from grid to plate on that section, so that would roll it off a smidge more. Would that still suffer from the multiplication effect since it is external? I do notice that the top end seems rolled off, but I haven't finished re-capping it yet either so I haven't wanted to judge too harshly. Also, would a higher value volume control make this even worse?


Apologies to the OP for the thread derail. I tend to get a bit wound up in technicalities. Interesting that the pentode-input TA-800 has better top end, which does sort of go along with that discussion though.
 
Ok, looks like the TA-600 takes top prize for best sounding with vinyl. It even has better detailed sound than the TA-800, but since it lags in power output, and doesn't fair as well at high volume levels, it didn't win for overall sound. I can remember when I had Cornwalls, the 600 sounded the best paired with them, along with my Frazier Concerto's. It almost seems like the 600 brings out nuances, and detail that I never noticed before in certain tracks. The 600 also seems to be the brightest sounding, not the best for digital tracks and horn speakers. Spinning vinyl, and hooked to efficient horn speakers gives my restored 600 the top spot for goose bump causing, lower listening level, quality sound.

This is my list for the results of the shootout, based on my wifes opinions and mine. She liked the TA-800 better than the 600, she hears much higher than I do and thought the 600 was too bright.


Best sounding for vinyl

#1 - TA-600
#2 - TA-800
#3 - 1800
#4 - X202-B (seemed slightly less clean sounding than the 1800)

Best sounding for CD's / MP3's
#1 - 1800
#2 - X202-B
#3 - TA-800
#4 - TA-600

Best sounding FM / best tuner
#1 - 1800
#2 - TA-800
#3 - TA-600
#4 - NA

Best looking :D
#1 - 1800
#2 - (Tie) TA-800 / TA-600
#3 - X202-B

My favorite over all
#1 - Fisher 1800
#2 - Fisher TA-800
#3 - Fisher TA-600
#4 - X202-B

For me it's not always about the best sound, especially since they all sound very good paired with my Klipsch Belle's. But there is no getting around how special the 1800 is in every way, it is stunning to look at, every function has the feel that it is brand new to it, all the connections are easy to figure out and laid out nicely. The sound is very full, and gives you the warm, and lovely Fisher tone. The FM section just works flawlessly, and the sound from it is as clean and clear as I have ever listened to. Even the AM section has very good sound quality, how often can you say that? And yes, there is no getting around the fact it's truly tube eye candy. :thmbsp:

Much credit has to be given to Dave for putting his talent, and passion into the restoration of my favorite Fisher. I believe if I ever lost my hearing, I would still have it around to just look at. :yes: :D

Probably the most surprising to me was the X202-B, I expected it to be on top or very close as far as sound quality. Part of this could be that it has the least amount of run time on it since being restored and upgraded. It most certainly has great power output, but seems to have a little less clean, detailed sound. It is a time capsule though, sporting all original tubes that either tested new or good, rear jacks that showed only a tuner and turntable were ever used with it. It lacks the beautiful tuner face being just an amplifier, but it is as clean as they come. This unit works flawlessly also, Much credit goes to Dave again for the wonderful restoration.

The TA-800 just lost out because of function, and the lack of stereo FM. There is no question it has something special going on when it comes to sound and power output. It's also a very beautiful looking Fisher, but connections are more of a challenge because of layout, and design.

The TA-600 really has magic to it's sound, as I stated before, it brings out details in certain tracks that you might not of realized were even there. Paired with smaller Frazier Concerto speakers, it probably would win out for sound all the way around. The lack of power compared to the other Fishers limits it up to a certain volume with the Belle's. It also matches the TA-800 in the fact that the connections, and FM mono are negatives compared to the 1800.

This was quite a lot of listening, my ears really need a break since I did push some high db's with every unit. But now I can actually say I compared my Fisher collection, and have an honest opinion to their sound, and functions.
I can honestly say that every unit sounded excellent, I could feel satisfied just owning any one of them. Waiting in the wings though, are a Fisher 400, and Scott 340B, they will get their chance down the road. It will be interesting to see if the Scott can hang with the school of fishies. :dunno:

002.jpg 003.jpg


attachment.php
 
Last edited:
Nice reviews Steve, very fun read. I am not surprised by your findings - I also prefer the sweet and incredibly clear and detailed sound of my little Fisher X101ST 7189 amp over a fully restored 500C, 500B, and 800B. There is something magical about that tube that the 7591 based amps can't touch IMO.
 
That 1800 does have a very interesting and unique look.


Sounds like I really need to try my 600 out on a turntable. I have yet to actually do that. I've never heard the famed Fisher phono stage before. My only other Fisher is a chassis from a Philharmonic console, which did not include a mag preamp.
 
Crestwood23 said:
Nice reviews Steve, very fun read. I am not surprised by your findings - I also prefer the sweet and incredibly clear and detailed sound of my little Fisher X101ST 7189 amp over a fully restored 500C, 500B, and 800B. There is something magical about that tube that the 7591 based amps can't touch IMO.
Click to expand...

I'm not sure who all got to listen to my TA-800 while Jim had it, but according to him, paired with some W-90's it was something to behold for everyone present.
 
gadget73 said:
That 1800 does have a very interesting and unique look.


Sounds like I really need to try my 600 out on a turntable. I have yet to actually do that. I've never heard the famed Fisher phono stage before. My only other Fisher is a chassis from a Philharmonic console, which did not include a mag preamp.
Click to expand...

Your in for a treat! :thmbsp:
 
Steve -- Thank-you for taking the time to undertake and post the results of your Fisher shoot-out! It will be useful to all of us here in more ways than you likely realize. While no doubt fun, I'm sure it was also more work than anyone realizes to organize such an effort and present it in such a clear and useful way. Giving your sonic impression of all three sources (where possible) on all four models is no easy task, but provides the most thorough results possible. Having your wife's added input is a wonderful bonus, as the impression of the fairer sex is often different, but so important with our hobby. I especially appreciate the fact that you also address the practical and very real aspects regarding ease of everyday use/connectivity, attractiveness, and overall impression that a unit imparts to you. Our human emotions are definitely impacted by far more than just what our ears hear with this equipment, as the pages and pages of AK threads here show and prove. If not, terms like eye candy, or nude photos would have no meaning here!

But even though you have your favorite ranking for any particular use/source now, it's still gotta be tough deciding which unit to play on any given day! No doubt falls into that category of: yeah, but somebody's gotta do it..... What a hard life :)

Thanks again!

Dave
 
dcgillespie said:
Steve -- Thank-you for taking the time to undertake and post the results of your Fisher shoot-out! It will be useful to all of us here in more ways than you likely realize. While no doubt fun, I'm sure it was also more work than anyone realizes to organize such an effort and present it in such a clear and useful way. Giving your sonic impression of all three sources (where possible) on all four models is no easy task, but provides the most thorough results possible. Having your wife's added input is a wonderful bonus, as the impression of the fairer sex is often different, but so important with our hobby. I especially appreciate the fact that you also address the practical and very real aspects regarding ease of everyday use/connectivity, attractiveness, and overall impression that a unit imparts to you. Our human emotions are definitely impacted by far more than just what our ears hear with this equipment, as the pages and pages of AK threads here show and prove. If not, terms like eye candy, or nude photos would have no meaning here!

But even though you have your favorite ranking for any particular use/source now, it's still gotta be tough deciding which unit to play on any given day! No doubt falls into that category of: yeah, but somebody's gotta do it..... What a hard life :)

Thanks again!

Dave
Click to expand...

Nicely put Dave, thanks for the kind, understanding words. I will eventually have them set up so I can easily rotate to the next one with only a push of a button or two. The Scott 340-B should be here by the middle of next week, It will get put through the same tests as the previous fisher's so I can decide how it compares. Then, once the final fisher in my collection is restored (400), It will get its chance to shine.
 
A lot has happened in the last year since this little Fisher shootout took place, mostly my school of Fisher's has grown a bit, and I have also found that the Cornwall speakers are a better match for the Fisher equipment, better balance is noticed with more effortless bass.

One of the most exciting changes was finding a KX-100, and doing my very first restoration. With the guided help from some of AK's finest Fisher experts, it turned out very well. The KX-100 now sounds very much as good as my 400, it was a very good unit to cut my teeth on.

I now have my 400 completely restored, and also acquired an unmolested 400 time capsule that has all original Fisher tubes throughout. The unmolested unit sounds better, and I believe the reason why is that the restored unit has all new modern production tubes. Probably the closest in sound to the TA600.

The other change is with my TA600, it started to develop a hum along with a very scratchy volume control. A trip to Dave G. for a service turned up some pretty shoddy work inside, all is fixed and working fine now. The TA600 has some sort of magic going on inside, paired with the Cornwall's it's just better than anything I own for vinyl. The clean detail it produces brings out nuances in certain tracks of music that you really didn't notice before. Special thanks to Dave for putting his love and expertise into this special receiver.

Most of my listening of CD's happens with either my X202B, or 1800. Both of these units hooked to my Belle's produce the best sound for digital tracks. The 1800 is used for FM also, it has the best tuner out of all my equipment, even AM sounds exceptional.

My Scott 340B receiver was thoroughly tested at our South Florida AK gathering, I had it hooked to my Frazier Concerto's and Cornwall's for a good part of the day. It was very much liked, but my X202B seemed to perform better on that day.

I now have a very nice 800B, 800C, and 500C that I'm in the process of restoring with help from the AK Fisher community, so I have a pretty good sample of the different models. I'd say the 800B is a close second to the 1800 for looks, it is a real beauty with the gold tinted face plate and knob layout.

So bottom line is this, The TA series of receivers to my ears have an almost magical detail to them, not a huge difference, but it's there when spinning vinyl. I still prefer the more modern 1800 for overall fit and function, the TA series seems to bright and shrilly playing modern digital tracks. The difference between all these units is small, but sometimes the smallest details can make the biggest impact to our listening pleasure. Thanks for listening.
 
Last edited:
Super info Steve! Based on your comments, the one piece I don't believe you have, and the one piece I think you would dearly love, would be an X-202 integrated amp. The 202B superceeded it of course, but in doing so, converted to the 7591 output tube. The X-202 is a 7189 based unit, and in my opinion, the finest of their 7189 offerings, with all the magic that tube has to offer. It was basically an effort to glue together a 400C standalone preamp, and the SA-100 stand alone power amplifier, which is certainly a winning combination. The X-202 accomplished that end very successfully in my opinion.

Thanks for the info!

Dave
 
dcgillespie said:
Super info Steve! Based on your comments, the one piece I don't believe you have, and the one piece I think you would dearly love, would be an X-202 integrated amp. The 202B superceeded it of course, but in doing so, converted to the 7591 output tube. The X-202 is a 7189 based unit, and in my opinion, the finest of their 7189 offerings, with all the magic that tube has to offer. It was basically an effort to glue together a 400C standalone preamp, and the SA-100 stand alone power amplifier, which is certainly a winning combination. The X-202 accomplished that end very successfully in my opinion.

Thanks for the info!

Dave
Click to expand...

Yeah, the X-202 is on my wish list, and possibly the SA-100. I still kick myself for passing up a X-1000 a few years back.
 
I think if I were looking for another Fisher it would probably be a 202B just so I could give an honest comparison to my Sherwood S5500. They're about as equal as it gets in terms of features, power, basic amp topology, etc. I've never heard a 7591 Fisher, so it would be interesting. I do rather like the TA-600 that I have though.
 
gadget73 said:
I think if I were looking for another Fisher it would probably be a 202B just so I could give an honest comparison to my Sherwood S5500. They're about as equal as it gets in terms of features, power, basic amp topology, etc. I've never heard a 7591 Fisher, so it would be interesting. I do rather like the TA-600 that I have though.
Click to expand...

My X202B is about as close to being out of the box new as they get, I even have the original box that is like new. Although it looks like it was seldom used and still sports its original tubes, it had capacitors that were on their way out. It probably gets used more than most of the others here, and is impressive with plenty of power. I still believe the TA-600 paired with Cornwall's is an audio match made in heaven, very hard to find a better sounding combination.
 
Nice shootout and collection you have Steve! I'd like to find a 1800. Fisher really changed the look and I think it's the best looking receiver Fisher made. Like to hear a TA 600 and 800, and find a X202.

Thain... I've had a Sherwood S5500 since I was a teenager. Beautiful sounding amplifier but different than the X202b. Hard to say which of the two I prefer. Sherwood changed the S5500 several times during production.
 
Last edited:
Yeah, I have an S5500-II but that also doesn't seem to say much. Its more like a -III than a -II as far as I can tell. I like it quite fine, but my only other 7591/7868 amp to compare it to is another Sherwood. I'd like to hear it compared to one of the "other guys" some time.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom