• 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

Scott 222d or The Fisher 400?

M

Manticore

Active Member
Hi everyone,

I am thinking about entering the world of tube-amplifiers. Since I am new to tubes, I thought it would be best to ask for a little help. There are two amps that caught my attention : the Scott 222d and The Fisher 400. What would be the best choice to make and why? I know nothing about both amps so vintage-lovers give me some help.

Thanx in advance.
 
Register to hide this ad
Are both in orig. conditions? You have to know that either will need the basic restoration
 
the fisher is a receiver and the scott is an integrated amp for starteres. two different critters. best to get the scott if its working and all there and not more than say $250.
I got a 299B very good condition for that.
 
IMO, both of those components are very nice. I currently own a Scott LK-48-B which is (if I remember correctly) the kit version of the 222D.

As far as which one you should purchase, I recommend keeping an eye out for any vintage tube integrated amp (that seems to be what you are after). You will wait forever for an amp to become available to you in the right condition, at the right price, if you narrow your search to much. I would recommend broadening your search to at least multiple models by these manufacturers. For example you should be looking for any of the Scott 222s or 299s, as well as their kit variants, the LK-48 and LK-72.

Most amps of this vintage will need recapping, and potential replacement of parts such as the original selenium rectifier, which can damage other parts in the amp when it fails--even if the amp is "fully functional". So you should probably budget a few hundred bucks to have it gone over by a tech, or a lot of your own time (and tools) if you plan on restoring it yourself.

Your budget, and the types of amps available will ultimately dictate which amp you end up with. When you see an amp and price that you like, you can always ask more specific questions in Dollars and Sense. I also recommend subscribing to AK to gain access to Barter Town, where you are likely to find nice amps like this at a fair price.

I guess I didn't really answer your question, but that is my $.02. I'm not ready to engage in the Scott vs. Fisher debate right now.
 
Manticore said:
Hi everyone,

I am thinking about entering the world of tube-amplifiers. Since I am new to tubes, I thought it would be best to ask for a little help. There are two amps that caught my attention : the Scott 222d and The Fisher 400. What would be the best choice to make and why? I know nothing about both amps so vintage-lovers give me some help.

Thanx in advance.
Click to expand...

I would highly recommend the Scott 222...I have a Scott 233 (similar, but 7591 output tubes). The Scott has several advantages over the Fisher 400, IMO:

-EL84 output tubes are much easier to source (and are cheaper) than 7868's.
-Easier to work on (no complex FM circuitry in the way:))

I had a Fisher 500C and an 800B in the past and didn't keep them for long.
They're pretty to look at, but just didn't really 'do it for me'.
Just my 2¢...
 
byoungman1 said:
I would highly recommend the Scott 222...

-EL84 output tubes are much easier to source (and are cheaper) than 7868's.
-Easier to work on (no complex FM circuitry in the way:))
Click to expand...

I believe the 222 uses 7189 output tubes, which (I think) are similar to EL84, but operate with a higher plate voltage. Using EL84s in a 222 may result in short tube life. That being said, 7189s are commonly available, as are their Russian counterparts.

It would be easier to work on the Scott, if you don't need a tuner.
 
Get the Fisher 400 if you want to listen to FM and have good stations worth listening to.

Get the Scott 222d if you prefer listing to vinyl.

If you plan to do the work yourself, either should be a decent project. The Fisher, even with is FM section, will be easier to work on if it is one of the later model numbers (past serial 70,000) because it will have all silicon diodes and Fisher used decent quality resistors and cans that seem to hold up better (except for the cardboard bias supply can under the chassis). The 222d might still have a selenium rectifier that will need an update. Electrolytic caps on both units will need a changeout. The Scotts are usually easier to bias and the EL84 tubes are slightly sweeter to listen to but the 7868 is a great tube, too with slightly more oomph.

Cosmetically, either unit will have issues with missing knob brights but the Scott chassis will be aluminum with less rust...the Fisher steel chassis will probably need more TLC. Either way, the decision is a photo finish.

I have similar units from both camps.....a Fisher 400 as well as a similar Scott 299A and 340A (the receiver that is the comparo to the Fisher 400). I think these are all nice units when properly updated and used.
 
So it seems that Scott would be the way for me to go. I have someone who can restore these vintage amps the way it should, so no worries here. There is also a Scott 299 for me to choose. so the question now is which to choose, the 222d or the 299? What are your thoughts?
 
Manticore said:
So it seems that Scott would be the way for me to go. I have someone who can restore these vintage amps the way it should, so no worries here. There is also a Scott 299 for me to choose. so the question now is which to choose, the 222d or the 299? What are your thoughts?
Click to expand...

Since those encompass THREE completely different integrated amps (tubesets for the splitters and power tubes), and many different series of the 299, you'll need to be more specific as to the model 299 that's available to you. 299, 299A, 299B, 299C, 299D.

Also note that as time went by, quality seemed to go downhill at HH Scott in switches and several other components. The 222D is also one of those later versions. Let us know on that 299 model.

The Falcon has spoken. Do with it what you will.
 
Manticore said:
@FalconEddy : It's a Scott 299A.
Click to expand...

Excellent!

There's ALSO two versions of THAT one. :yes: Which is easily determined by checking one resistor(s) just after the GZ34 rectifier. It will either be a 330 ohm 10W, or a 160 ohm 20W on pin 8. If it's a 330 ohm, there will be another 330 ohm resistor on pin 2. This will let you know which schematic to download and use.

So, you'll be using ECF80's,(or 6BL8's) and 7189's on this one, or a sub (7189A's, 6BQ5's)

That's a very nice amp. Hopefully, it's in good shape physically, and your restoration guy does a good job for you. Make sure he changes the All mulit-can power supply caps, selenium rectifier, American Radionics caps, and uses something cost effective, but not crap for the four coupling caps. Vishay 716P Orange Drops for that position would be an excellent choice, but 715P's would also be very good. Illinois Capacitor MWR series, or CDE WMF Series.

The Falcon has spoken.
 
I have a 222c, but I hacked it with the help of NOSValves to have a biasing circuit similar to a 299 amp. That said, I would prefer the 299 since you can bias up each tube individually as apposed to the original 222 circuit, where you 'balance' the voltage between tubes.

Personally, I love my Scott!
 
I have a Scott 299A (Version 2) and really like it a lot, you do as Fragger said have more
control over the Bias, DC balance than the 222's, and the Phono section can't be beat
in them. I also have a Fisher X101C as well and do enjoy using as well, it doesn't have
as good of a phono section, but I'm working on it and it 's getting there.

Tube
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom