Which Scott To Get??

[frankxbe]

(Sniff..) The ONLY kind of Scott to have is one that was made by E. H. Scott...

Sandy G you have any E H Scotts ?

 

[tube-a-lou]

I got a Scott 299B, off the bay, will clean up nice just what the turkey ordered,
(got it on Thanksgiving).

Tube

 

[Sound Dragon]

Congrats on a really good integrated.

 

[tube-a-lou]

Thanks, I hope it has better high's than the Fishers, which are awol!

Tube

 

[kvflyer]

I got a Scott 299B, off the bay, will clean up nice just what the turkey ordered,
(got it on Thanksgiving).

Tube

Excellent amplifier. But then you may already know that I am biased (pun intended). I prefer Scott but love the other brands as well. Congratulations...

 

[ferninando]

I got a Scott 299B, off the bay, will clean up nice just what the turkey ordered,
(got it on Thanksgiving).

Tube

let us know if you have a channel imbalance with the volume control.:scratch2:

 

[frankxbe]

found this link has all the Scott integrated amps HH Scottt.com
http://hhscott.com/integrated_amps_stereo.htm
The 296 mentioned earlier looks interesting

 

[tube-a-lou]

let us know if you have a channel imbalance with the volume control.:scratch2:

Hi,
Yes, I'll let you guy's know, when I had the LK48 there was no
inbalance at all, the high's were all there in there glory.

Tube

 

[mibag6]

Congrats on the Scott. What is missing with your Fisher? As you know I have one too and I've been really impressed with the overall sound. Changing to polypropylene for the coupling caps was sufficient to improve the highs on mine.
At least as near as I can hear, any more hfr would probably be grating to me. I go back and forth between the Fisher and a Marantz 2385 and the difference in sound quality is negligible to my aging, deteriorating hearing. I mean, there are obvious differences between the 2, slightly rolled off highs on the Fisher but to me they're only rolled off enough to take some of the sharper edges off the highs. Where I have noticed bigger differences is in the genre of music being played, that is, Metallica does better on the Marantz but any acoustic music seems pretty close on either one with the Fisher getting points for making some things tolerable which are hard to take on the Marantz, Dobro being one example. Anyway, I'm just curious what you feel is missing.

 

[tube-a-lou]

The left channel is fine with nice highs but the right the upper highs are awol.
I thought it was my hearing as well, but I don't think so, but we'll soon fine out
when it arrives and I start tearing into it putting in all new caps and check the
resistors.

Tube

 

[ferninando]

Channel imbalance I refer to is actual difference in amplitude in signal of one channel vs the other channel, 2-4 dB different. When balance is set to equal the balance pot is way off center.

 

[tube-a-lou]

Bump

 

[tube-a-lou]

Hi all,
I got a 299 model 2 and so far it sounds great with the Celestion 100's,
still fixing it up as on the other thread, but really nice, now what to do with
those Fisher??:scratch2:

Tube

 

[mikey99]

Hi all,
I got a 299 model 2 and so far it sounds great with the Celestion 100's,
still fixing it up as on the other thread, but really nice, now what to do with
those Fisher??:scratch2:

Tube

Which Fisher amps do you have and how does the sound compare with
the Scott 299 ?

 

[tube-a-lou]

Which Fisher amps do you have and how does the sound compare with
the Scott 299 ?

I have the X100 with a new power transformer and a X100B, both with all
new caps and electrolytics, and you know the Scott just sounds better with
my Celestion 100's I have, better highs I mean I can hear the highs now
the fisher's just roll them off to much. The fishers mids and lows are nice
but without those high's it just doesn't cut with my system. I was thinking
I was losing my high end hearing on them but thankfully with the scott
it's all there, high's, mids and lows. So I guess I won't be using them
anymore and use the Scott 299 now. maybe on someone else's system
with brighter speakers they would sound great, but not my setup, all well
Live and learn.

Tube

 

[Bigerik]

My vote goes to the 299C. I strongly prefer the 7591 powered ones over the 7189's.

 

[scottfan]

Just got done amp rolling my early 299D and early 299C. The 299D has been recapped with sonicaps, mundorf SIO and auricaps. It's tube set, Telefunken 12ax7 smooth plates, strong Westinghouse outputs, and a Mullard 5AR4. The 299C has only sonicaps, Ei 12ax7s, EH outputs and a JAN 5AR4. Both have same iron. The 299C sounds better(go figure..), with more detail and better highs. The 299D has more soundstage and better mids. Both amps are great, but the old goldface 299C gets the edge.

 

[tube-a-lou]

:yes:

Just got done amp rolling my early 299D and early 299C. The 299D has been recapped with sonicaps, mundorf SIO and auricaps. It's tube set, Telefunken 12ax7 smooth plates, strong Westinghouse outputs, and a Mullard 5AR4. The 299C has only sonicaps, Ei 12ax7s, EH outputs and a JAN 5AR4. Both have same iron. The 299C sounds better(go figure..), with more detail and better highs. The 299D has more soundstage and better mids. Both amps are great, but the old goldface 299C gets the edge.

Wow that's really good stuff, it's amazing I had the Tele 12AX7's in the first
section, Mullard 12AX7's in the second section, Sylvania's 6BL8's and
Russian 6P14P-EV's in the power section and it sounds great in the scott.
I had the same combination in the fisher X100 and it just didn't jell for me.
Only real mod I had to do in the Scott was change the volume pot to a
Alps Blue Velvet the original was shot and that also changed the sound
to the better. :thmbsp: :yes:

Tube