sherwood s2100 tuner
- Thread starter radioactive
- Start date
radioactive
tube gear fanatic
glad to see thats all it needed to get it up and running properly.
i finally got around to the s2100 today myself and checking all the tubes.it had a bad 6cb6,6ea8 and 6bs8.(at least they tested for shorts on the tube tester)i replaced them and now the stereo tuning indicator is working correctly and coming on with all the stations i tune in .the only draw back as to be expected is the dial is a little bit off now but i can live with that for awhile.
mhardy6647
Lunatic Member
I got motivated last night (with my S-2000 success) and pulled out a very old AM-FM Radio Craftsmen C-810 tuner given to me by a friend from church (its original owner). I was unable to receive stations with it... checked all the tubes and found one with no emission (no air in it, though), and a couple with high grid leakage. Good thing about old radio tubes is they're cheap! Just ordered what I need from Dick Bergeron (Electron Tube Enterprises)... also an EM80 for the Sherwood.
BTW, and not entirely OT... I have heard that Radio Craftsmen was the parent company of Sherwood (or evolved into Sherwood). Do you or does anyone know if that is in fact the case?
BTW, and not entirely OT... I have heard that Radio Craftsmen was the parent company of Sherwood (or evolved into Sherwood). Do you or does anyone know if that is in fact the case?
RadioCraftsmen to sherwood-migration
From my understanding both RC and Sherwood were chicago based outfits. RC was first. Recent review of craftsmen info available on the web has done little more but confirm rumour that when RC went down (or just prior to it) some of the engineers migrated to Sherwood. I do not know if sherwood was open or just opened.
I think the VTV issue covering the radiocraftsmen c500(my current amp of chioice) indicats that sid smith was one of those who left rc to sherwood. sorry if this info does not help much but i have alrready done the web work and wanted to save anyone else the trouble.
FYI as noted on my post above, i recently caught the sherwood bug-but based on design and price issues alone. Im not techniically competeent to restore any of the pieces i got but await restoration to comment on thier sonics. As a product of american industrial design i think they are kinda cool looking. And certainly dont cost the likes of mac.
One interestng thing i noticed (at least to me) on the 5000 integrated series as that the early ones have a headphone jack. Does anyone know how that circuit is designed. Will the jack output have the same sound as the regular out put or is it driven by another section. In nay event i think it could be neat headphone amp.....
mhardy6647 said:
From my understanding both RC and Sherwood were chicago based outfits. RC was first. Recent review of craftsmen info available on the web has done little more but confirm rumour that when RC went down (or just prior to it) some of the engineers migrated to Sherwood. I do not know if sherwood was open or just opened.
I think the VTV issue covering the radiocraftsmen c500(my current amp of chioice) indicats that sid smith was one of those who left rc to sherwood. sorry if this info does not help much but i have alrready done the web work and wanted to save anyone else the trouble.
FYI as noted on my post above, i recently caught the sherwood bug-but based on design and price issues alone. Im not techniically competeent to restore any of the pieces i got but await restoration to comment on thier sonics. As a product of american industrial design i think they are kinda cool looking. And certainly dont cost the likes of mac.
One interestng thing i noticed (at least to me) on the 5000 integrated series as that the early ones have a headphone jack. Does anyone know how that circuit is designed. Will the jack output have the same sound as the regular out put or is it driven by another section. In nay event i think it could be neat headphone amp.....
mhardy6647
Lunatic Member
The audio quality of the Sherwood tube gear I have heard and/or owned to date is very good... especially considering the prices that these units fetch (still relatively modest). I love my S-3000... which is why I bought an S-2000.
However, I'd call the esthetics 'an acquired taste' (at best)!
However, I'd call the esthetics 'an acquired taste' (at best)!
Kegger
R.I.P. 1/12/1966 - 6/1/2017
Just curious if you guy's had a sherwood s3000V or a s2000II with an external fisher
mpx unit which would you use.
At the moment I'm truly ecstatic about the sound and station grabbing ability of my
s3000V but do wonder about the s2000 with the fisher mpx. I'm sure I will try it in
my system anyway then form my own oppinions which I'll list after I do, but just am
interested in what the "in the know" have to say, plus or minus for each unit.
Any and all thoughts much appreciated! This sherwood stuff is very cool I also have a
s8000IV reciever that is very nice, sounds great excelent phono section.
mpx unit which would you use.
At the moment I'm truly ecstatic about the sound and station grabbing ability of my
s3000V but do wonder about the s2000 with the fisher mpx. I'm sure I will try it in
my system anyway then form my own oppinions which I'll list after I do, but just am
interested in what the "in the know" have to say, plus or minus for each unit.
Any and all thoughts much appreciated! This sherwood stuff is very cool I also have a
s8000IV reciever that is very nice, sounds great excelent phono section.
doug s.
Super Member
Kegger said:
i have a sherwood s-3000-III that i have used w/warious mpx's, including the fisher mpx100. the sound *is* fantastic - right up there w/my best vintage s/s tunas. no, it's not as sensitive as the best, but it is still quite respectable, & will likely be satisfactory for all but the most difficult reception conditions.
i have never heard the s-2000, but folk i trust say it is even more sensitive than the 3000-series, but at the expense of sonics... i, too, would like to hear more feedback about this...
doug s.
doug s.
Super Member
Kegger said:
re: mpx, well, it's really hard to know for sure. i have three other mpx's - the most recent acquisition a scott 335. i have only listened to it for a few hours, w/a scott 310d tuna. also great sound. the other mpx's i have also give excellent results - a slightly modded studio-12 decoder & a onething audio decoder. but, neither of these work optimally w/the sherwood - impedance mismatch. i have the same issue w/my fisher fm90-r - it doesn't like the s/s decoders. but, i do know the sherwood sounds better w/the fisher decoder than the fm90-r does. this *still* doesn't tell me a lot, tho - the fm90-r *does* sound good, yust not as detailed as the sherwood. and, i *know* it's seriously in need of adjustment - to listen to 89.3, the dial reeds 88.5. the sherwood may need a service too, but at least its dial is not off.
and, re: different decoders, i have two mono tunas that will work w/all my decoders - a stromberg carlson sr445 & a leak troughline 3. they both sound superb w/any of the decoders. i am not sure - closer scrutiny would be required - but i suspect the lowly sr445 to be the best sounding mono tuna of the bunch. it's also *extremely* insensitive. this leads me to believe that ultimate sensitivity & selectivity comes at the expense of sonics. modern technology has obviously come a long way here, as some s/s tunas i have that are *only* 30 years old or so, sound fantastic *and* have excellent reception. but the sr445, w/any of my decoders, sounds as good as my best, with a strong, uncompressed signal. as do all my old mono tubed tunas, really...
ymmv,
doug s.
Not sure if this is the correct place, but...
While cleaning out a closet upstairs in the office, I uncovered a Sherwood 2100 AM/FM Tuner and a S-5000 II 80W Integrated Amp. These were given to me back in 1993. The covers need to be removed so the insides can be cleaned, but they have not been turned on for ~12 years. Otherwise, they look to be in great shape. I had intended to retube them and get them completely refurbished, but this plan slowly got replaced by other must-do's.
I've seen the 2100's go for anywhere from ~$50 (low price) - $199 (excellent condition) and the S5000-II anywhere from $199 (low price) to $699 (excellent condition). I don't need them as I have Audio Research tube components in my system. Any ideas where to find a good home for these well-cared-for Sherwood components?
Appreciate anyone's help.
While cleaning out a closet upstairs in the office, I uncovered a Sherwood 2100 AM/FM Tuner and a S-5000 II 80W Integrated Amp. These were given to me back in 1993. The covers need to be removed so the insides can be cleaned, but they have not been turned on for ~12 years. Otherwise, they look to be in great shape. I had intended to retube them and get them completely refurbished, but this plan slowly got replaced by other must-do's.
I've seen the 2100's go for anywhere from ~$50 (low price) - $199 (excellent condition) and the S5000-II anywhere from $199 (low price) to $699 (excellent condition). I don't need them as I have Audio Research tube components in my system. Any ideas where to find a good home for these well-cared-for Sherwood components?
Appreciate anyone's help.
radioactive
tube gear fanatic
you could try posting them in the ak classifieds and see who bites.theres alot of sherwood fans here so chances are you might get a nibble or two on them.
spaceman
Registered Lunatic
Hi guys, not many threads about Sherwood tuners, so I thought I'd post here about my S2000II. Just got this today from FedEx, bought it from an AKer in the Barter Town forum. It was well packed, but somehow the EZ80 tube came out of it's socket, bending some pins, so I'll give her a good checking before trying her out. Otherwise, it looks very good, just minor cosmetic blems. I love the leatherette & gold on the case. 
Attachments
Brian
An Old Geezer
I had a pair of ARC D-76a amps when I owned my S5000II and in some way preferred the Sherwood to the AVA SuperPas3X mated to the ARCs. I'd suggest getting the amp refurbed before disposing of it. You may be surprised.
When I decided to downsize my collection, I had less hesitation about disposing of the AVA and ARCs than the Sherwood.
When I decided to downsize my collection, I had less hesitation about disposing of the AVA and ARCs than the Sherwood.
doug s.
Super Member
i have heard that the sherwood tunas prior to the s3000ll are a bit more sensitive, at the expense of a bit of sound quality. but they're still supposed to sound fantastic. i can state w/o hesitation that a properly serviced s3000ll or newer, will sound as good as any tuna out there, regardless of cost. (imo, of course!Hi guys, not many threads about Sherwood tuners, so I thought I'd post here about my S2000II. Just got this today from FedEx, bought it from an AKer in the Barter Town forum. It was well packed, but somehow the EZ80 tube came out of it's socket, bending some pins, so I'll give her a good checking before trying her out. Otherwise, it looks very good, just minor cosmetic blems. I love the leatherette & gold on the case.
) if you have a mono iteration, get a good modern s/s mpx decoder for stereo...doug s.
I have a Sherwood 2100 in my basement system that I always felt sounded pretty good and did a good job of pulling in stations considering I'm only using an amplified Radio Shack indoor antenna which is effectively only about 2 feet above ground level. I recently did a shootout in my main system of tuners that I have acquired. Strictly on sound quality for now, didn’t do any DXing comparisons. My main tuner is a McIntosh MR74. I also have a Scott 310E and a Scott 330C along with a Scott and a Fisher MPX adaptor. To this point none listed here have had alignments since I’ve owned them nor any hotrodding. Only required servicing to assure they are in good working condition.
On the initial tests the Scott 310E left everything else in the dust. It was much more open sounding with better top end extension and the sound stage is incredible. The MR74 had better bottom end than the rest but the soundstage was more closed in and it was a bit veiled sounding compared to the Scott 310E. The Sherwood did well but was less dynamic overall loosing a little on both the top and bottom ends. Stereo separation was less than either the 310 or MR74. The Scott 330C with the Scott MPX adaptor was close to the Sherwood and lost a little through the Fisher adaptor.
I have since done a little work on the McIntosh replacing the output coupling capacitors with Blackgates as well as some of the supply filter caps. The main 4 section cap in the power supply is still original but measures perfectly good. I also replaced the coupling caps from the MPX circuit to the output amp with polypropylene. I burned the tuner in for 100 hours and now the sound quality is very close to the 310E. The McIntosh now has even better tighter bottom end with a greatly improved soundstage. The 310 still has the edge on the top end by just a bit.
My next step is to do alignments on all tuners and see what improvements I can make there. I very recently picked up a mint Sound Technologies 1000A generator to use for the task. I’ll post an update when I have a chance though it may be a while as I only have alignment procedures for the 310 and MR74 so far and have to gather the service manuals for the other pieces not to mention the time to do it all.
On the initial tests the Scott 310E left everything else in the dust. It was much more open sounding with better top end extension and the sound stage is incredible. The MR74 had better bottom end than the rest but the soundstage was more closed in and it was a bit veiled sounding compared to the Scott 310E. The Sherwood did well but was less dynamic overall loosing a little on both the top and bottom ends. Stereo separation was less than either the 310 or MR74. The Scott 330C with the Scott MPX adaptor was close to the Sherwood and lost a little through the Fisher adaptor.
I have since done a little work on the McIntosh replacing the output coupling capacitors with Blackgates as well as some of the supply filter caps. The main 4 section cap in the power supply is still original but measures perfectly good. I also replaced the coupling caps from the MPX circuit to the output amp with polypropylene. I burned the tuner in for 100 hours and now the sound quality is very close to the 310E. The McIntosh now has even better tighter bottom end with a greatly improved soundstage. The 310 still has the edge on the top end by just a bit.
My next step is to do alignments on all tuners and see what improvements I can make there. I very recently picked up a mint Sound Technologies 1000A generator to use for the task. I’ll post an update when I have a chance though it may be a while as I only have alignment procedures for the 310 and MR74 so far and have to gather the service manuals for the other pieces not to mention the time to do it all.
doug s.
Super Member
i find this interesting. i owned a mac mr74. i only got it cuz of the experience i had w/a refurb'd and aligned mr77, done by a mac tech w/35+ years experience, recommended by the factory. of the 100+ tunas i have owned over the past ten years or so, the mr77 easily ranked in the bottom three. this, and the mr74 are supposed to be mac's best sounding s/s tunas. so, at the prodding of the folks over at the yahoo tuna forum, i tried another, on the off chance that, perhaps, even after refurb and alignment, the mr77 i owned was a dud. well, the mint but never serviced mr74 i picked up was better than the mr77, but not by a lot. still ranks near the bottom of the heap of all the tunas i have had thru my system.
i have also owned two sets of scott 310d/335 mpx decoders, which are supposed to be a hair better than the one-box 310e. one set was stock, the other refurb'd and modded by scott guru foster blair. both blew the mr74 into the weeds sonically. in all areas - detail, soundstaging, extension, you name it. (but the 310d's sounded better w/a one thing audio mpx decoder than w/the scott mpx's.)
now to the sherwoods... i have a slightly modded, refurb'd s3000v, a stock never serviced s2100ll, and a stock never serviced mono s3000lll. all sound even better than the scotts, the mono s3000lll w/the above-mentioned one-thing audio mpx decoder... the sherwoods give any tuna extant a run for the money when sonics are considered, imo. including my modded refurb'd sansui tu-x1, modded refurb'd sansui tu9900, and modded refurb'd hk citation 18, modded refurb'd heathkit aj1600, aiwa at9700u, rotel rht10, philips ah6731, accuphase t100, modded refurb'd mitsubishi da-f20. these are about the best s/s tunas i have had the pleasure of owning... i have not had the pleasure of auditioning the accuphase t1000, which some folks say put all other tunas on a lower tier, when it's run thru a dac...
ymmv,
doug s.
""and the mr74 are supposed to be mac's best sounding s/s""
Actually I've always heard the MR78 is supposed to be the best sounding SS. I've as yet not had the privilege to hear a 78 so I can only go with what I have heard. I’m not close to the 100+ tuners you’ve had available. Wish I had time and room for more for more comparisons but barely have time for what I’ve got.
As for the Sherwood 2100 I didn’t compare that to the MR74 before I upgraded the 74’s coupling and filter caps so the 2100 may have bested the 74 in some areas prior to the mods. However as it sits now the 74 sounds better being fuller and more open sounding. Again nothing I have has had an alignment as of yet and aside from what I’ve changed in the 74 nothing has been modified on any of the other tuners or MPX adaptors. It very well may be that the Scott 330 that I used to drive the MPX adaptors may be in big need of an alignment itself thus not allowing the adaptors to reach their full potential. Also part of why the Scott 310 did so well is that it may have had a recent alignment though not by myself. I purchased that one at a radio show from a guy who seemed technically adept and knew the condition and value of what he was selling. It may be that he had done an alignment at some point.
I have not compared the tuners in mono mode as my quest is for stereo reproduction. However I do also have a Heathkit and a Rauland tuner in my collection I have not even checked either of these out as yet. After servicing them it might be interesting comparing them with the Scott 330 and trying them through the MPX adaptors. I also have a Knight MPX adaptor that I picked up cheap but it seems to be in mint condition cosmetically. I don’t expect it to keep up with the Fisher or Scott adaptors but will eventually check it out and see how it does.
As far as other tuners I have had, My first was a Royal (private branded from Electrovoice) which I bought mail order in high school for $55 from Dixi HiFi. Nothing particularly special sound quality wise but fairly sensitive for an inexpensive tuner and has been a workhorse being in continuous use currently serving in my garage stereo. . I had a NAD digital tuner which I thought was junk as the front end had problems overloading from a station that was a bout a mile from me and sonically mediocre. I purchased a late 70s Pioneer for a $100 to replace it that blew the NAD away in every way. I A-B the Pioneer against the MR74 when I first bought that about 10 years ago. The Pioneer had been my main tuner until then and has now gone into my bedroom system. My recollection was that the Pioneer was decent sounding but 74 sounded better sonically in most respects. The Pioneer was close as far as sensitivity when it came to DXing. I have also a handful of other tuners but don’t think they’ll compete here.
Actually I've always heard the MR78 is supposed to be the best sounding SS. I've as yet not had the privilege to hear a 78 so I can only go with what I have heard. I’m not close to the 100+ tuners you’ve had available. Wish I had time and room for more for more comparisons but barely have time for what I’ve got.
As for the Sherwood 2100 I didn’t compare that to the MR74 before I upgraded the 74’s coupling and filter caps so the 2100 may have bested the 74 in some areas prior to the mods. However as it sits now the 74 sounds better being fuller and more open sounding. Again nothing I have has had an alignment as of yet and aside from what I’ve changed in the 74 nothing has been modified on any of the other tuners or MPX adaptors. It very well may be that the Scott 330 that I used to drive the MPX adaptors may be in big need of an alignment itself thus not allowing the adaptors to reach their full potential. Also part of why the Scott 310 did so well is that it may have had a recent alignment though not by myself. I purchased that one at a radio show from a guy who seemed technically adept and knew the condition and value of what he was selling. It may be that he had done an alignment at some point.
I have not compared the tuners in mono mode as my quest is for stereo reproduction. However I do also have a Heathkit and a Rauland tuner in my collection I have not even checked either of these out as yet. After servicing them it might be interesting comparing them with the Scott 330 and trying them through the MPX adaptors. I also have a Knight MPX adaptor that I picked up cheap but it seems to be in mint condition cosmetically. I don’t expect it to keep up with the Fisher or Scott adaptors but will eventually check it out and see how it does.
As far as other tuners I have had, My first was a Royal (private branded from Electrovoice) which I bought mail order in high school for $55 from Dixi HiFi. Nothing particularly special sound quality wise but fairly sensitive for an inexpensive tuner and has been a workhorse being in continuous use currently serving in my garage stereo. . I had a NAD digital tuner which I thought was junk as the front end had problems overloading from a station that was a bout a mile from me and sonically mediocre. I purchased a late 70s Pioneer for a $100 to replace it that blew the NAD away in every way. I A-B the Pioneer against the MR74 when I first bought that about 10 years ago. The Pioneer had been my main tuner until then and has now gone into my bedroom system. My recollection was that the Pioneer was decent sounding but 74 sounded better sonically in most respects. The Pioneer was close as far as sensitivity when it came to DXing. I have also a handful of other tuners but don’t think they’ll compete here.
doug s.
Super Member
one last point about the mac tunas - it is only those who are not into tunas that say the 78 is mac's sounding s/s tuna. the 78 is known to be the sensitivity king, not the sound king. even richard modafferi, the 78's designer, will tell you that a well-sorted 77 will sonically out perform even a modaferri-modded 78.
my experience w/my stock but refurb'd/aligned mr77 and stock never serviced mr74 were that they had a flat 2-d soundstage, and average at best detail/dynamics/extension. reception and quieting on both were wery nice.
of course, as always - ymmv...
doug s.
my experience w/my stock but refurb'd/aligned mr77 and stock never serviced mr74 were that they had a flat 2-d soundstage, and average at best detail/dynamics/extension. reception and quieting on both were wery nice.
of course, as always - ymmv...
doug s.