• 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 299 or McIntosh?

reverend13

reverend13

AK Subscriber
Subscriber
Hi all,

I have a Scott 299A that's in pretty decent shape, sounds great particularly in the phono stage. I got a McIntosh MA6100 to replace it, plugged it in and the bass was boomy, sounded pretty dark at times with loudness kicked in and really middy with no bass in the flat EQ position. There is an issue with the right output fading and disappearing but it would kick back in when fiddling with the volume knob. I replaced my Pro-ject Espirit TT with a new Marantz TT and pretty much had the same sound quality.

As a result, I decided to replace my existing Polk Audio towers with Klipsch RP-8000F's to get more defined bass and to help get some of muddiness out, since I found some reviews finding they can be "bright" (not sure if this is really true).

I shipped the MA6100 back for repair right before the Klipsch speakers arrived, plugged the Scott 299A back in but this time with the Marantz TT and the Klipsch's. Oh man! The sounds was glorious. Crystal clear with more definition and separation between the instruments. Played an old Cat Stevens LP and sounded like he was playing acoustic right in the living room. Also noticed bongos I hadn't heard before in a particular song. I'm surprised that the tube amp would sound brighter than the MA6100 even with my old Polk speakers. Didn't get a chance to A/B with the Klipsch's.

Obviously there were issues with the MA6100's output, but should the Scott 299A really sound better all things being equal? Is this normal, especially with the MA6100's boomy bass and muddiness?

Thanks,
 
Register to hide this ad
Given that there is a problem with the Mac, I don't think it is possible to form an informed opinion. Ears and tastes differ, systems and rooms differ, and speaker loads differ, so even if the Mac were in perfect working order, you might prefer the Scott. That shouldn't be surprising - both companies made excellent products.
 
I for one am really curious as to what you hear when the MAC is returned and both are working correctly ..

But, I'm admittedly not a fan of those 70's MAC's which I always thought were sort of dark and a bit syrupy ..
Please post your impressions of the two ...
 
Last edited:
Akustic said:
I for one am really curious as to what you hear when the MAC is returned and both are working correctly ..

But, I'm admittedly not a fan of those 70's MAC's which I always thought were sort of dark and a bit syrupy ..
Please post your impressions of the two ...
Click to expand...

I definitely will. I was listening to some Wayne Shorter and then Herbie Hancock Headhunters tonight. Amazing, so part of me doesn’t want to get it back and rewire everything to be disappointed, then do it again.
 
reverend13 said:
I definitely will. I was listening to some Wayne Shorter and then Herbie Hancock Headhunters tonight. Amazing, so part of me doesn’t want to get it back and rewire everything to be disappointed, then do it again.
Click to expand...

Except then you'll be the wiser ..
Those Scott's were some of the best stuff available ... and still are if they're mint ....
I been at this for too many years ..

Long ago Scott's, McIntosh, and Marantz were basically contemporaries ..
The Scott's got lost in the Solid State era ..
 
Thanks. Wanted to make sure I wasn’t crazy. Funny since I went into this to upgrade the amp but then ended up with a new TT and speakers, same amp.

Still wish the Scott had a headphone jack (I do have a separate headphone amp but don’t want to go through pain of connecting, disconnecting the TT each time), and the RCA inputs in the back are so close together that a lot of RCA cables won’t fit. So after all this, I still might be the market for an integrated but we’ll see.
 
reverend13 said:
Thanks. Wanted to make sure I wasn’t crazy. Funny since I went into this to upgrade the amp but then ended up with a new TT and speakers, same amp.

Still wish the Scott had a headphone jack (I do have a separate headphone amp but don’t want to go through pain of connecting, disconnecting the TT each time), and the RCA inputs in the back are so close together that a lot of RCA cables won’t fit. So after all this, I still might be the market for an integrated but we’ll see.
Click to expand...
Why not just use an RCA splitter box? Not the most elegant solution but it'll work. I did that for a while with my setup; I had one of the inputs going into a little box that had 3 inputs going into to it. You get a three for one (or however many the box has) deal...
 
I had a 299D that was totally rebuilt by a friend and I liked the sound but it couldn't hold a candle to my 2505 & C-26. Even though they had never been touched. I ended up giving it away to a friend. That's just my opinion and YMMV. According to Dave O'Brien who ran the McIntosh Clinics from start to finish there was only one other brand that met their advertised specs besides McIntosh. It was Marantz until Saul sold the company.
 
I have a 299c and a 6100 ...
both sound great, but the 299 won’t drive the diversity of speakers that the 6100 will.
The 299c and the 604Es Sound lovely though, but not as good as the Marantz 8b...

Like what you like.
Tell the others to take a hike.
 
Logically I should reserve judgement about the MA6100 until I get it back from Audio Classics and try it with the Klipsch’s. Perhaps the output issues were impacting the sound even when it wasn’t cutting out in the right channel. Maybe there’s also something else going on that makes it sound so dark, whereas the Scott doesn’t. Seems there are some who also feel the MA6100 might not have been that great of an amp by McIntosh standard?
 
reverend13 said:
Thanks. Wanted to make sure I wasn’t crazy. Funny since I went into this to upgrade the amp but then ended up with a new TT and speakers, same amp.

Still wish the Scott had a headphone jack (I do have a separate headphone amp but don’t want to go through pain of connecting, disconnecting the TT each time), and the RCA inputs in the back are so close together that a lot of RCA cables won’t fit. So after all this, I still might be the market for an integrated but we’ll see.
Click to expand...


All that really counts is that you're listening to more better music !!
 
reverend13 said:
Thanks for putting it into perspective. The TV never gets turned on in my house and certainly enjoying the tunes during pandemic.
Click to expand...

Same here, no TV for me since 2000 or so. I traded my upstairs TV which was brand new and sitting unused for a Sony preamp with a close friend.

As to audio, similar experience with me when I swapped out an HK tube amp for my Fisher 800B that was sitting unused. Unfortunately the euphoria was short lived since the Fisher developed what is diagnosed as a power supply issue and am getting it fixed. Technics SB7000A's driven by the 800B were awesome.

I also owned an MA5100 which was totally unimpressive while not the best looking either. A Scott LK150 kicked the MA5100 out of the house after I had it checked out by two competent techs but sold the LK150 which I now regret.
 
Except fpr Accuphase I will have to agree the Sansui made a great product that I enjoyed listening to. But compared to Mac direct coupled amps and Quad balanced amps the Sansui does not compare.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom