Heathkit W-5M Amps

MX117.MC7150

MX117.MC7150

Listener
Subscriber
Any Heathkit experts here?
What is the general consensus on the W-5M amps? I see them with a Peerless OPT, large iron OPT with no can and large canned, non-Peerless OPT. Is this simply a result of their being sold for so many years and Heathkit purchasing from different suppiers. Is one configuration considered better than the others?
Thanks.
 
Register to hide this ad
MX117.MC7150 said:
Any Heathkit experts here?
What is the general consensus on the W-5M amps? I see them with a Peerless OPT, large iron OPT with no can and large canned, non-Peerless OPT. Is this simply a result of their being sold for so many years and Heathkit purchasing from different suppiers. Is one configuration considered better than the others?
Thanks.
Click to expand...

There are numerous threads devoted to the W-5. The consensus seems to be that the smaller Peerless 16309 outputs are prone to failure without some modifications to the power supply, but even then there's no guarantee. They were very finely wound and I've seen several examples of corroded windings, perhaps from faulty potting. Sadly, they also sounded beautiful. The larger 16458 Peerless transformers, which were substituted by Heathkit after so many 16309 problems, seem to be reliable and good-sounding. There's some talk that the power transformers can be unreliable but I don't think that's as serious an issue, probably stemming from output failures in many cases. Adding a thermistor to reduce the turn-on surge can help avoid that problem. If by "non-canned" output transformers, you mean a pair that recently appeared on a popular auction site with some Eico outputs, there's not much left of the W-5 there, it's just a W-5 chassis with some other design stuck on it. It may sound good but it's not a W-5. The Peerless outputs are pretty much the heart and soul of the original W-5. To my knowledge there was never any other option with the W-5. If it were me, I'd spend my money on a known vintage design rather than something cobbled together on a W-5 chassis.

Restored and working properly the W-5s are very special amps.
 
Last edited:
I've been thinking about adding a Heathkit Williamson amplifier pair to my collection lately, and have not yet reached a final conclusion about which way to go. I think it will eventually come down to availability and price. I'm definitely hesitant to buy on eBay, and I think a lot of the "untested" W5 amplifiers out there are likely ones with failed transformers (call me cynical!)

One thing about the W5, is that the GEC KT66 output tubes cost an absolute fortune these days. On the other hand it is the most attractive looking of the W series, and those tubes are part of why.

I am not counting the W6 in my search due to rarity and price, and the fact that they are not actually a true Williamson amplifier - that said I would love to hear the W6!
 
maxhifi said:
I think a lot of the "untested" W5 amplifiers out there are likely ones with failed transformers (call me cynical!)
Click to expand...

prob not far off the mark. Either way I'd be leery about an untested / as-is sale on something that is known to have expensive transformer problems. Unless it was so cheap you could afford to replace the transformer(s) and come out OK. Is there a source for modern, accurate reproductions? If not that makes it less appealing (to me at least).
 
There's a beautiful matched pair of W2s with preamps up for auction. The price is highish, but tuned to Dave G. specifications they are beautiful amps. Mine are significantly modified with modern resistors and caps and have lost some of their vintage visual appeal, but those Peerless outputs are beautiful and hard to beat. The W4 is the least interesting, to my ears, because the Stancor output transformers don't have the magic of the Peerless. I have modified my W4s by substituting a pair of Acro TO-300s, which essentially turns them into W-3AMs. It's a lovely sound, one I could live with for a long time. But W5s with the more reliable 16458 outputs are quite special. The 12AU7 is usually not my favorite tube but Heathkit did something right with the W5 and it's a wonderful sound. Just my two cents. :)

The new Gold Lion KT66s are a more-than-decent substitute for the GECs and make a lot of nice music in any Heathkit amp.
 
zackthedog said:
There's a beautiful matched pair of W2s with preamps up for auction. The price is highish, but tuned to Dave G. specifications they are beautiful amps. Mine are significantly modified with modern resistors and caps and have lost some of their vintage visual appeal, but those Peerless outputs are beautiful and hard to beat. The W4 is the least interesting, to my ears, because the Stancor output transformers don't have the magic of the Peerless. I have modified my W4s by substituting a pair of Acro TO-300s, which essentially turns them into W-3AMs. It's a lovely sound, one I could live with for a long time. But W5s with the more reliable 16458 outputs are quite special. The 12AU7 is usually not my favorite tube but Heathkit did something right with the W5 and it's a wonderful sound. Just my two cents. :)

The new Gold Lion KT66s are a more-than-decent substitute for the GECs and make a lot of nice music in any Heathkit amp.
Click to expand...

Do you prefer the sound of the W2 or the W5?
 
maxhifi said:
Do you prefer the sound of the W2 or the W5?
Click to expand...

Unfortunately it's been a while since I've heard a W5 and I want to get my hands on a restorable pair when I've got the time to do it. My recollection is that they have an exceptionally realistic tone--there's something about the front end design that puts you right into the recording. They also have more power, of course, which can come in handy. The W2s, OTOH, are very sweet, and you have the option to wire them for ultralinear or triode operation. They are eminently restorable. Dave G.'s mods make them rock stable with clean highs and nice solid bass, while preserving that beautiful, classic Williamson-Peerless midrange. No sloppy "vintage" sound here. There's also no question of reliability with the W2s, they're pretty bullet proof. My pair were fairly affordable and had already been modified with replacement PS caps, so there wasn't any issue about keeping them "stock." If I didn't already have a pair I'd be very, very tempted. They don't show up very often, and if you can get away with 22 wpc (or even better, 12 wpc in triode mode!) they won't disappoint. And if you've never seen them in person, let me tell you that they are cute as a button! :) The chassis are smaller than a shoebox and just fun to handle and look at. You don't have to sprain your back to get them on the bench.

ETA: How many tube amps can you hold with one hand? :)

C2B3549F-2154-4CAD-A096-127421C9B5D4.jpeg
 
Last edited:
IMHO I preferred the W5 sound. I had both, 100% custom rebuild and the W5 is a very nicely sounding amp. Very clear and detailed.
The W2 is also very good, but a step behind.
 
The W2 came with the Peerless 16277. The W3 used the Acrosound TO-300. I don't think there were "options." The confusion may come from the fact that the W2 and W3 used basically the same chassis. But on the W3 the speaker outputs and test jacks were moved to the back and side of the chassis, respectively, to make room for the wider footprint of the Acro. So to substitute the Acro on the W2, you would have had to redrill the chassis, which would not have been practical for amateur builders.
 
Brice said:
IMHO I preferred the W5 sound. I had both, 100% custom rebuild and the W5 is a very nicely sounding amp. Very clear and detailed.
The W2 is also very good, but a step behind.
Click to expand...

Fond as I am of the W2, I think I'd probably agree with you.
 
maxhifi said:
I am not counting the W6 in my search due to rarity and price, and the fact that they are not actually a true Williamson amplifier - that said I would love to hear the W6!
Click to expand...

Its certainly Williamson-inspired though. Basically a Williamson with an added cathode follower between the driver and output tubes. Do those actually run in grid current (AB2) mode? Seems like it might be capable of it with those followers.
 
zackthedog said:
The W2 came with the Peerless 16277. The W3 used the Acrosound TO-300. I don't think there were "options." The confusion may come from the fact that the W2 and W3 used basically the same chassis. But on the W3 the speaker outputs and test jacks were moved to the back and side of the chassis, respectively, to make room for the wider footprint of the Acro. So to substitute the Acro on the W2, you would have had to redrill the chassis, which would not have been practical for amateur builders.
Click to expand...
Yes ,there was a option to choose a opt but Mabe it was for the W1 .I'll have to go look at some old ads.
 
Lots of good info here. I have several W5 amps, and wondered why they don't have identical transformers. I wonder no more! I grew up listening to my best friend's father's Heath system. The only source was a Garrard RC-88 turntable, and he had a mediocre ElectroVoice speaker, but it sounded awesome, nonetheless. I always wondered how it would sound in stereo. When he passed a few years ago, I acquired the system from his son, and have since acquired additional W5-M/WA-P2 systems, with an eye towards hearing it in stereo. Then I started noticing those different transformers, and wanted to be sure I have a matched pair. Still haven't heard two together, but the anticipation is building.

KPM
 
radioactive said:
Yes ,there was a option to choose a opt but Mabe it was for the W1 .I'll have to go look at some old ads.
Click to expand...

According to Charles Kittleson's article from Vacuum Tube Valley, both the W2 and W3 were offered in the same catalog for a brief period. The only difference between the two would have been the output transformer and the chassis punchouts.
 
zackthedog said:
According to Charles Kittleson's article from Vacuum Tube Valley, both the W2 and W3 were offered in the same catalog for a brief period. The only difference between the two would have been the output transformer and the chassis punchouts.
Click to expand...
that might of been what i saw (my memory aint as good as it use to be)although the wa-1 did use chicago transformers on the power supply chassis.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom