Scott tube gear- which one to keep?

[vendo81]

I’m keeping all three for now since they are hard to come by in their condition....

Good answer! My 296 is wonderful but I can't fit it in the case with my favorite 6L6GC tubes. It looks so nice in it's case! I've got to go back to the vintage, smaller 7581A's that originally came in the 296 amplifier

 

[vendo81]

What did you end up keeping?

The 399 is a beautiful receiver but the 296 is really an incredible amplifier. Recently I've been using it in place of my Fisher system. I did find that the GE 6L6GC's work so I can get the 296 in it's cabinet.

You can always get a 355 preamp/tuner (which I ended up doing) and use only the tuner section as it has outputs to bypass the preamp. It matches the 296 in size.

 

[slowpat]

What did you end up keeping?

The 399 is a beautiful receiver but the 296 is really an incredible amplifier. Recently I've been using it in place of my Fisher system. I did find that the GE 6L6GC's work so I can get the 296 in it's cabinet.

You can always get a 355 preamp/tuner (which I ended up doing) and use only the tuner section as it has outputs to bypass the preamp. It matches the 296 in size.

View attachment 1286420

I still have all 3, awaiting an opportunity to have them restored. Good idea about the 355.... !

 

[vendo81]

Very nice! I have a 399 as well and it's really a beautiful receiver. Only complaint is the mono FM. It has a very, very sensitive AM section as does the 355. One interesting thing about the
355 is it was the only Scott to put AM and FM on one dial instead of two like the 399. I also tried using a Scott 208 amplifier with the 355 but the 296 quickly became my favorite and the 355 is a good match.

Here's my 399 out of it's cabinet shortly after a rebuild. As you know it has the large "G" chassis and fits in the same cabinets as the 296 and 355. Photos don't really do them justice as
they are very large in person. The cabinets are over 16" deep so they won't fit on all shelves. I was amazed the first time I saw one, being used to the size of the 222c integrated and 130 preamp
I own. Scott made some nice looking stereo equipment.





Here's the unique AM/FM single dial on the 355

 

[vendo81]

Well I hope you get your Scotts restored! Nice that you have the cabinets too.

I went to visit a good friend today and he gave me two NOS matched pairs of 7581A's for my 296! A couple are the light base versions. He said he got these plus another matched quad as extras with a couple of amplifiers he recently bought. I had mentioned to him last month that I wanted a quad of 7581's that were NOS. Today I swapped the 6L6GC's I had in there and the new tubes are working out great. Nice as the 7581 are what originally came in the amplifier. The NOS vintage Sylvania 6L6GC's I had in the amplifier at first wouldn't fit inside the cabinet. These are "short as they come" and still almost touch the top. Check out the $4.55 price on the boxes

When I rebuilt the 296 I added bias voltage pots to the existing balance pots so it was very easy to bias the new tubes. These should last a while.

 

[twiiii]

I owned Scott and Fisher and none of them performed to pushed specs or expectations. You really only have two choices. Marantz or Mcintosh. And who is building tube systems now days. Its not Marantz. Give me a C-22III and two 275 VI's or two restored 3500's and I am ready for anything, almost. See any tubes in the adjoining picture.

 

[Patrice B]

I owned Scott and Fisher and none of them performed to pushed specs or expectations. You really only have two choices. Marantz or Mcintosh. And who is building tube systems now days. Its not Marantz. Give me a C-22III and two 275 VI's or two restored 3500's and I am ready for anything, almost. See any tubes in the adjoining picture.

It's not everybody having the funds for a Marantz or a Mac you know... Scott and Fisher made good products IMHO. And no, I can't compare with Marantz or Mac as I never had or heard one. But quite satisfied with my two Scott's and my Fisher.

 

[radioactive]

I owned Scott and Fisher and none of them performed to pushed specs or expectations. You really only have two choices. Marantz or Mcintosh. And who is building tube systems now days. Its not Marantz. Give me a C-22III and two 275 VI's or two restored 3500's and I am ready for anything, almost. See any tubes in the adjoining picture.

I would add Fairchild to the list of meeting specs.

 

[radioactive]

I can't compare to any fisher or marantz but I've owned a few scott amps lk72 ,lk72b, 233 and a pair of McIntosh mc30's and they all had their own sound. Its not always about published specs.

 

[vendo81]

I owned Scott and Fisher and none of them performed to pushed specs or expectations. You really only have two choices. Marantz or Mcintosh. And who is building tube systems now days. Its not Marantz. Give me a C-22III and two 275 VI's or two restored 3500's and I am ready for anything, almost. See any tubes in the adjoining picture.

Hello twiiii. Yes, you are right. If you want new equipment McIntosh is a good choice. I like the fact that they copy some of their old designs.

 

[vendo81]

I would add Fairchild to the list of meeting specs.

And some of the finest audio items I've heard

 

[twiiii]

I have to agree with the right very efficient speakers Scott and Fisher can sound very nice. Hook a 299D Scott or a Fisher 500 up to a pair of AR-3a's and try to crank it up and you will be very unpleasantly surprised. OH. They are great with a pair of Bozaks Symphonies where you listen at 2 watts most of the time or Klipsch Corn walls where a 1/2 watt is all that is necessary most of the time. And as long as stick with LP's with limited bass response and dynamics you be OK, too. There are few exception like Sheffield and Mobil Fidelity Discs. But you start dabbling with digital and using less than efficient revealing speakers and you will be in a real world of hurt in a hurry. I agree Mac is expensive, no matter the age. Some of my pieces are 47 yeas old. I'm glad I bought them then and have kept them maintained. But they are all SS. I'd be in the poor house buying good KT88' every year or two for the pair of 275's I had.

I would hate to own a Ferrari and only be able to afford recap tires. Thats the way I reel about tube stuff. Using old tubes is like using recapped tires. You never know when the tire is going to fail, and you better hope you aren't going over 45 mph. .

 

[vendo81]

I can't compare to any fisher or marantz but I've owned a few scott amps lk72 ,lk72b, 233 and a pair of McIntosh mc30's and they all had their own sound. Its not always about published specs.

So true. Specs are great for some but I'd never use them for a purchase. It's all about sound and senergy with a particular speaker.

 

[vendo81]

It's not everybody having the funds for a Marantz or a Mac you know... Scott and Fisher made good products IMHO. And no, I can't compare with Marantz or Mac as I never had or heard one. But quite satisfied with my two Scott's and my Fisher.

So true. I happen to have the good fortune to own 20+ Macs and they are all tube. Still prefer the 296's sound, bad specs or not over my McIntosh amplifiers.

Here's my favorite Macs....

 

[vendo81]

I have to agree with the right very efficient speakers Scott and Fisher can sound very nice. Hook a 299D Scott or a Fisher 500 up to a pair of AR-3a's and try to crank it up and you will be very unpleasantly surprised. OH. They are great with a pair of Bozaks Symphonies where you listen at 2 watts most of the time or Klipsch Corn walls where a 1/2 watt is all that is necessary most of the time. And as long as stick with LP's with limited bass response and dynamics you be OK, too. There are few exception like Sheffield and Mobil Fidelity Discs. But you start dabbling with digital and using less than efficient revealing speakers and you will be in a real world of hurt in a hurry. I agree Mac is expensive, no matter the age. Some of my pieces are 47 yeas old. I'm glad I bought them then and have kept them maintained. But they are all SS. I'd be in the poor house buying good KT88' every year or two for the pair of 275's I had.

I would hate to own a Ferrari and only be able to afford recap tires. Thats the way I reel about tube stuff. Using old tubes is like using recapped tires. You never know when the tire is going to fail, and you better hope you aren't going over 45 mph. .

Scott and Fisher tube units were made in the days of efficient speakers so that's what you need to use with them. I have have had quite a few very high end, high current solid state amplifiers in years past. I still have 3 crated up. They could play any speaker thrown at them with ease, and could also double as a welder. The sound was spectacular but I get the same feeling with tubes and efficient speakers. It's better for me as I enjoy working on them. I also like the idea of using late 50's - early 60's technology when HiFi was so popular and tube audio was at it's peak.

I know everyone hears differently and what you like is subjective. Some may not like the 296 at all. My conclusion on the sound of the Scott 296 was not after trying out one or two sets of speakers, but at least 15 pair of efficient speakers over the last couple months. When I find a new amplifier I really like, I have the habit of trying them out to see how they do on more than just a couple different brand of speakers. I did this with an Eico HF-89 not long ago. My last 296 tryout was Friday morning with a very good friend who is hooked on Tannoy's. The highlight of the visit was his spectacular Altec Onken's he bought just last week. His McIntosh 225 was wonderful on the Onken's as well. I'm now in the speaker mode and going to build a pair

I didn't take any photos on Friday but I did a month or so back when I went to visit my Altec/JBL obsessed friend, bringing along the 296 and several of my favorite McIntosh amplifiers so we could compare them. He ended up buying a pair of MC75's shortly after and is looking for a 296.

Scott 296 is on the right in the photo waiting in line. Had a great time and ended up coming back for a second full day of listening to many other amplifiers!

 

[nelsress]

Well I hope you get your Scotts restored! Nice that you have the cabinets too.

I went to visit a good friend today and he gave me two NOS matched pairs of 7581A's for my 296! A couple are the light base versions. He said he got these plus another matched quad as extras with a couple of amplifiers he recently bought. I had mentioned to him last month that I wanted a quad of 7581's that were NOS. Today I swapped the 6L6GC's I had in there and the new tubes are working out great. Nice as the 7581 are what originally came in the amplifier. The NOS vintage Sylvania 6L6GC's I had in the amplifier at first wouldn't fit inside the cabinet. These are "short as they come" and still almost touch the top. Check out the $4.55 price on the boxes

When I rebuilt the 296 I added bias voltage pots to the existing balance pots so it was very easy to bias the new tubes. These should last a while.

View attachment 1292224

View attachment 1292226

FINALLY! Someone who's talking about the tubes that the 296 was designed around, the 7581/KT66! I know, I'm a year late to the party, I just found this link while researching the HH Scott 296. Normally I wouldn't comment in a year old thread, but felt compelled to this time. Most people talk about the 6L6GC as though that's the tube that the Scott 296 came with, it's not, as I'm sure most of you know. I just found it curious most of the 296 owners/experienced users immediately go to the 6L6 for this amplifier as though it's a 6L6 amp. I suppose I could run 6L6GC tubes in my Citation V but I'll stick with the 7581/KT66 tubes that it was designed around. Not to mention that, to me, I'll take KT66/7581 tubes from a SQ standpoint, over any 6L6 variant, but that's just my opinion, I understand completely that some of you might prefer the 6L6 sound, I have no problem with that.

As for McIntosh, to Twiiii who said "nah" to the Scott 296 and then went to the Mac C-22 and a pair of mono blocks as what he'd rather have. NO ****! Twiiii goes on to say, "not everyone can afford Mac gear", then goes on to say that he's got 20 Mac pieces, all tube. Show off! The 296 sells for around $1000 and the Mac C-22 preamps are now going for $4500-$6000 and up, and you don't have an amp or amps yet. I don't know what a pair of MC 3500 amps cost but the last pair I saw on eBay were listed for $59,999!!! I don't think they sold for that much but let's say they're worth 10% of that, that makes them a $6000 pair of mono blocks. Imagine an $10-$12,000 setup consisting of an preamp/mono block amps sounding better than a $1000 amp, who'd have thought!? Really? Does the term "apples to oranges" mean anything to you? Although it's actually more like "Kia to Ferrari", in this case, IMO.

I think the HH Scott 296 is a nice amplifier with some good iron but remains an integrated amplifier from the 60's. How about comparing a Mac integrated to the Scott 296, seems like a more "apples to apples" approach, even though the "McIntosh" emblem is on the Mac piece! Come to think of it though, you just don't see too many people bragging up their vintage Mac integrated amps. I had a Mac MA230 a number of years ago, it was alright but not better than the Scott 299 that I just finished refurbishing.