HHscott tube Components "roll call"

Jenkster said:
I have a restored LK-72 and an unrestored 299D, both with cabinets. I have the cabinet off the LK-72 to do some 12AX7 rolling. I am missing the screen for the other cabinet. I have been meaning to post a WTB on BT. The output transformers on the 299D seem kind of wimpy compared to the LK-72. I have owned quite a few tube amps/receivers and I have to say the LK-72 holds its own against the best of them.
Click to expand...

Hi Jenkster, you are correct in your observation of the transformer size on your 299D. I have owned both the small transformer (TRA-8-5 maybe?) version of the 299D and the large (TRA-11-2) transformer version. Both sounded great but the larger one outperformed the smaller version one when it came to power and bandwidth (and probably distortion but I don't have the equipment (or the ears) to measure that. Just going by what I have read).

When it came down to realizing it was time to thin out my Scotts (I am quite done thinning and have a couple of regrets but I will get over it), I sold the smaller transformer 299D first, then a few years later I sold the large transformer 299D to a friend of mine who is close by so I still get to listen to that amp. But still, a 299D with the smaller transformers is no slouch whatsoever. You must be proud to have it as part of your collection.

Very cool to see all of the nice Scott equipment here!

You folks have some amazing "inventories".
 
Thanks getter 365, I appreciate the info. I am trying to settle on one system and fund some additional projects. The LK-72 is mostly restored and sounds wonderful. It has the original "can" capacitors but everything under the chassis, including the selenium rectifier, has been replaced. I just have some minor hum which I can live with. One nice feature of the 299D is the headphone out. I do occasionally like to block out the world and listen to my cans. The 299D is not restored, I haven't yet put power to it. I will save that for my friend who has a Variac and proper monitoring equipment. Depending on the amount of work needed, and of course the cost, I may have it restored and compare the two. You indeed have a great collection of very cool gear!
 
Hi Jenkster, sounds like a good plan for your 299D. It is a fine amp too. When you have it done, I am sure you will like it. I hope you can solve your lk72 hum. That is an amazing amp..like a simplified 299C. On my lk72 I didn't replace much either, like you. Just replaced the 4 coupling caps, did the usual fare on the bias supply, and I also replaced the first can cap 30uF + 30uF since it was the one with the highest voltage on it. I saved the original because I brought it to work and tested it and it was fine. Anyway, thank you for the compliment. Keep those Scotts sounding great!
 
Here's my contribution, a Scott 299b (restored), looking good and sounding that way too.

18Ey2rw.jpg
 
Wharfcreek said:
Scuba, there were actually 5 different versions of the 299. It's often overlooked, but the first 299 was actually different from the first 299A. So, counting those 2 as 2 different amps, then the B, C, and D would make it 5 in the 299 family. However, my comment was more to the aspect of this that amps with the same model designation can also show this iron differential. I have 3 LK-72s.....two of which are 'brown face' versions..... and both of those have different OTs in them. Other than that, they appear identical. So, I was just wondering if Scott.....like so many other manufacturers, would use 'what was available' vs what the original design spec called for when putting together a product? Also, things like one vendor running out of product and forcing a change to another vendor...those can make for running changes as well. Some times manufacturers will have several vendors for the same product just to assure 'availability' at the assembly line. I'm wondering if Scott had multiple transformer vendors....and if so, who they were? Did Scott make their own transformers....plus maybe buy some from outside if they were running low? Just curiosity typing away......lol WC
Click to expand...
Thanks for the info Wharfcreek. Having a pair of 222C's at home, you've tickled my curiosity bump.. When I get home in a couple of weeks, I will have ro take a look under their respective hoods. I do find it odd that a company like Scott would use transformers with different specs rather than source OPT's of similar specs from various manufacturers. Could the kit aspect of the LK72 lead them to offer various different OPT's at varying price points? Just thinking aloud. 40 watts per chanel puts it up among the more powerful Scott amps out there. Why would they risk missing their posted specs by using lesser transformers?
Curiouser and curiouser.
 
Would you believe that the 299C came in 7 different versions, albeit some rather slightly different. I am sure that Scott put out the documentation of all of them "Back In The Day". But remember how many years ago that was? I do, I am 67 and sold this stuff at E.J. Korvette as a teenager. Gosh, I should have hoarded the stuff New In Box...
 
getter365 said:
Hi Jenkster, sounds like a good plan for your 299D. It is a fine amp too. When you have it done, I am sure you will like it. I hope you can solve your lk72 hum. That is an amazing amp..like a simplified 299C. On my lk72 I didn't replace much either, like you. Just replaced the 4 coupling caps, did the usual fare on the bias supply, and I also replaced the first can cap 30uF + 30uF since it was the one with the highest voltage on it. I saved the original because I brought it to work and tested it and it was fine. Anyway, thank you for the compliment. Keep those Scotts sounding great!
Click to expand...

I've been told the 4 75/75 caps in the 72 should be replaced. Of course you can't find that value cap so would changing the value have the potential of altering the sound?
 
Jenkster said:
I've been told the 4 75/75 caps in the 72 should be replaced. Of course you can't find that value cap so would changing the value have the potential of altering the sound?
Click to expand...

The 4, 75uF/75VDC caps are part of the bias supply and they also power the 4, 12AX7 filaments. Obviously they are very important. I doubt you will hear a difference if you change those caps. They are strange values but you can use combinations of smaller capacitance values to get the 75uF. Or just buy a new replacement can capacitor from Antique Electronics Supply or somewhere else.

Have a nice Thanksgiving to all my A-K friends!!!
 
kvflyer said:
Would you believe that the 299C came in 7 different versions, albeit some rather slightly different. I am sure that Scott put out the documentation of all of them "Back In The Day". But remember how many years ago that was? I do, I am 67 and sold this stuff at E.J. Korvette as a teenager. Gosh, I should have hoarded the stuff New In Box...
Click to expand...

Hi kvflyer, Boy you sure lived the Scott life. In the 70s I remember going to Korvettes with my mom. I think we used to buy 45 RPM records there....too bad that may have been after "the Scott years" at Korvettes as I was just a small boy in the early 70s, but one that was quite intrigued by my dad's H. H. Scott components (still in the family of course).
 
One can see that I have a like of HH Scott equipment. As a teenager, I built the LT-112B-1 tuner kit.

I forgot my oldest Scott amplifier, a 210B...
 
Jenkster said:
I've been told the 4 75/75 caps in the 72 should be replaced. Of course you can't find that value cap so would changing the value have the potential of altering the sound?
Click to expand...
That's the cap can that connects to the bridge rectifier, right? The four 75 uf sections are just smoothing capacitors in the circuit that biases the power tubes and powers the heaters in the little tubes, so there's no need to worry about altering the sound. You can use easily available parts such as four new 100uf/100 volt caps, mounted underneath the chassis. The important thing is to observe the correct polarity: the cap can you're replacing is common-positive, so the four new caps need to have their positive leads connected to ground, not their negative leads.
 
Daily driver: LK-72 chocolate brown paired with a chocolate Brown LT-110 ( the version with the stereo pilot light controlled by an extra 6AV6 );

Week-end cottage daily driver: 222D with russian tubes paired with a 350A.

Cottage basement: LT-10.
 
hunter00 said:
We have a recent thread in The Fisher forum titled Fisher roll call.As much as I love my Vintage Fisher tube system my 2nd system in the house is all matching Vintage HHscott tube seperates.
So here we go lets see what AK members are sporting in the way of Vintage Scott tube gear..
Ill start
Amp: HHscott LK-150{75 wpc ,tungsol 6550 output tubes/Amperex gz34}

Preamp: matching HHscott LC-21

Tuner: Matching HHscott LT-110/LT 110b

Optional: Speakers used 1964 Braun L-1000 Monitors
All pieces refurbished

hunter
Click to expand...

Scott 299B integrated
Scott 222C integrated
Scott 350A tuner

Used to have a 130 preamp and a pair of 250 monoblocks

Someday I may pick up an LK-150 and a LC-21
 
EliFisk said:
Scott 299B integrated
Scott 222C integrated
Scott 350A tuner

Used to have a 130 preamp and a pair of 250 monoblocks

Someday I may pick up an LK-150 and a LC-21
Click to expand...

the 250 mono amps were the way I was going until I realized there rarer than hen's teeth.I bought a very nice HHscott LK-150 and sourced a LC -21 that was a basket case and my tech rebuilt the entire preamp from scratch pretty much.So happy I went that way.These LK-150's have the sonics and jam!!
Nice lineup of Scott gear you have there ELI

hunter
 
130 (restored)
250 pair (need restoration)
310C (needs alignment/restoration)
335 (needs alignment/restoration)

Dave
 
^^^^^^^Hey hunter00, I still have another one waiting for me at the same storage locker.
When I went to pick up the 150, my friend asked if he could buy it from me. The price was too good to pass up.

BTW, the one that is left is in perfect cosmetic condition. I just need to fork over $300 and it's mine. ;)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom