Deang

Yes, someone will get a great deal. but your'e a turkey cause you won't answer my questions. You sure don't have to worry about being flamed for deciding you didn't like them -- everyone here will certainly respect you right not to like them, and your opinions sure ain't going to change my mind about them. See what you did now...you still have to answer the other questions, and now you have to tell us what direction you are going in as well:)

Gee, I wrote a great post with cool links -- but since you are finished...

http://www.sanus.com/cgi-bin/web_store.cgi?page=Product/Product_Framed.html&cart_id=1447189_6336

I'm getting some Heresies next week. If I hate them, I will sell them. I would then be tempted to look into your RF7's. If I like the Heresies, I might start saving for some Cornwalls or K-horns. At any rate, I'm sure to post an opinion by Friday. It is difficult for me to imagine someone actually wanting to sell those. What's "wrong"? What are you driving them with?

Not that I'm interested in these, because, well -- I have no interest in them. Everyone here knows how much I hate the sound of Heritage. So -- absolutely not interested in them. What State are they in? Does he have the boxes?

Pronunciation: (in-fûr'), v., -ferred, -ferring. v.t. 1. to derive by reasoning; conclude or judge from premises or evidence: They inferred his displeasure from his cool tone of voice. 2. (of facts, circumstances, statements, etc.) to indicate or involve as a conclusion; lead to. 3. to guess; speculate; surmise. 4. to hint; imply; suggest.

Craig, yes, I was being a numbnuts:) Leo, actually -- the SuperAmp's basic configuration is that of a class A, no feedback, 15 wpc push-pull triode -- it can however, be wired in ultralinear. Easyeyes, what do you mean exactly? You need between 5 and 7 channels for HT, and the Scott is two channel integrated. I would have answered, but I honest don't know much about wiring up HT systems. Seems to me that the answer would be "no", since the Scott is an integrated amp. If it was simply an "amp", I suppose you could hook it to a stand alone processor/preamp, and use it to power the front two channels.

Hey, I'm only half as dumb as I look. Even if I was to do something so moronic -- I don't think the Scott accomodates the setup (does it).

"...If naysayers don't believe, they most likely have not listened to every combination of components on the market..." I guess this statement infers that you have? Yeah, right. Even if someone exists that has done this (and I'm sure they don't), it would have completely no bearing on the subject. "...or they are not aurally equipped to hear the difference." If one believes they will hear a difference -- they will. If they do not -- they don't. I'm quite sure the Forum Members have adequate hearing to determine the impact of various changes in their systems. "This may sound snobbish or elitist (I prefer the term discriminating), but people who spend the amount of money on audio like the Klipsch owners on this forum are like that" It doesn't sound 'snobbish', it sounds ignorant. Actually, the great majority of us here are NOT like that at all. Klipsch owners for the most part don't spend near the money that true high-enders do. Klipsch owners are about seeking the highest level of musicality -- without resorting to "non-sense". At any rate, most of what constitutes electricity is already in the conductor. Electrons do not "flow" down a cable. The electrons vibrate, and come in contact with each other -- which then advances an electrical field. I think people who spend more on cables and power conditioning than the components they are attached to -- really need to re-evalutate why they are into this hobby. If we add 4 feet of brand new hose to the end of an 'old', dilapitated garden house -- what "changes" about the water? I agree that some basic conditioning is necessary to filter out noise from other devices on the same circuit -- but anything beyond that is B.S. -- and I'm pretty sure that's what PWK would say.

The Scotts sound like crap. Stay away from them. Also, if you see a link to one for sale, be sure to email me so I can have the offensive ad removed.

I believe Chris had the base version of the SuperAmp -- which did not have PIO coupling caps. I owned the same amp, as well as the DJH version -- which did have the PIO's. There was a marked difference in the signature of the treble. However, there are other, major differences between the two amps, and I'm not really sure if it's fair to attribute this difference, and give full credit to the PIO's for the smoother, warmer treble signature ("warmer" by contrast to the base version) of the DJH version. Complicating things further in my mind, is that my Apollos utilize Hovlands as the coupling caps, and I find the treble closer to what the DJH version had (which had PIO's), than the base version (which used metallized polypropylene). I think the preamp plays a big part here as well, and we don't always talk about the relationship between the preamp and the amp together -- which ultimately decides what you are really going to end up with. BTW Chris, the SuperAmp was not "strident" in my system. "Strident" is shrill, harsh, or grating. "Incisive" is cutting, penetrating, or sharp. I saw the SuperAmp as being extremely clean, clear, and direct. I just think the SuperAmp and Heritage squawker are a bad match -- a matter of too much of a good thing. Leo, here is a link explaining the circuit(s) of the base SuperAmp. http://www.upscaleaudio.com/ae-25tech.htm

I'm to tired to write a full blown review, and besides, I really like a day or two to sort things out -- I've also gathered from the other thread, that some of you want to know what I think. To appease and please, I've decided for now -- it is probably just as good to copy the brief email exchange between me and Kelly tonight. I'll post more thoughts tomorrow. Give me the pre-scoop on your experience. My take will that some things you WILL like about the SET better as in the speed. The Scotts and their ilk do not quite have the speed of something like a really tweaked SET amp. Nor are they as unfettered and open sounding. They do have have a beguiling richness that is addictive however. As I have said many times, I love both depending on which amps are doing the playing . I will more than likely ALWAYS have a SET amp as well as other options including great vintage. A fairly concise synopsis of my findings. I had the RF7's wired to the 4 ohm outputs on the Scott, the same as the Apollos are wired. This put both the Apollos and the Scott at about 10wpc. It is pretty easy for me to tell when an amp runs out of gas -- and doing it this way made it easier for me to do an apples to apples comparison relating to overall output. Both amps did very well opened up, and I found the Apollos having a good deal more high frequency energy and transparency. I can't say the Scott sounded rolled off -- but the cymbals just didn't have the same amount of air and ambience. The midrange, though really having a nice smooth and warm quality -- didn't come out to my chair to meet me like the midrange of the Apollos. The bass on the Scott is rounder, a little fatter than the Apollos -- but the Apollos really grab the drivers and there is a great deal of control. There is not as much control with the Scott, but it still sounds damn good. With some recordings, the Apollos can set my teeth on edge when pushed, and I often find myself backing off on the volume a little. With these same recordings the Scott was much easier to listen to at high volumes. The Scott just seemed to have a had better top to bottom balance at these volume levels (95db). The Apollos seem to sound a bit tipped up at these same SPLs. I found the inverse was also true though -- the Apollos sounded much better at 90db and below. I think the Apollos have more clarity, and after 95db or so -- this clarity turns icey cold. Your use of the word "rich" is ideal. The Scott is warmer, and a little thicker sounding. I also think there is more output in the midbass region than the Apollos. The Apollos however, seem to hang on to the deep stuff better. The Apollos have an incredible midrange. Effortless, air galore, and the word that sums things up here is 'transparency'. It's also very noticeable how the instruments are deliniated in their space -- like someone has traced around the edges. The Scott doesn't do as much of this -- it is there though. It is much like the SuperAmp DJH in this respect. Speaking of the SuperAmp -- I think the Scott sounds 'better'. I think the Apollos are analytical and surgical in their approach to the music, and the Scott is more akin to a paintbrush instead of a scapel -- the Scott certainly seems more lush. I think I now understand why amps like the SuperAmp, and Apollos -- with their solid state rectification and high voltage -- are considered by some to be "solid state sounding" tube amps. I understand this now, but also believe the descripton to be a bit exaggerated. Neither of these amps sound like solid state to me, except in being able to offer similiar slam and treble energy -- as opposed to something like this Scott. I wonder if maybe you, and folks like you, having exposed yourselves to the likes of Eicos, Moondogs, and anything else with a warmer signature -- when exposed to something like the SuperAmp or Apollos -- tend to associate the additional treble energy and attack as "solid state sounding". At any rate, The Scott did sound better than I expected. I was pretty giddy after a few CD's. However, after hooking the Apollos back in and firing them up -- I certainly wasn't ready to jump and put the Scott back in:) One thing to consider here is the speaker cables. Because of the goofy terminal strips and screws on the Scott -- there is simply no way to biwire. The only things I have on hand are my MITs with bananas, Tributaries 10 gauge bare, and Music Metre Silvers with spades. So, I couldn't use copper wire, and used the Silvers (because of the spades), and my Vampire jumpers to the tweeters. When using the Apollos, I have the Silvers on the horns, and MITs on the woofers. You know I'm not big on cables, but I DO believe they make SOME difference. Heresies next week. Should be interesting. Take care, Dean Closing thoughts for now: The Scott sounds better than the $2000 AE-25 SuperAmp DJH. The Scott adds more body and weight to the music, and is warm without losing any detail. Not the space around the instruments like my SET amps, but enough. I sure don't think anyone should be running out and buying Jolidas anymore. Like I told Craig, if the Apollos vanished off the racks tomorrow -- I could easily live with the Scott. I did think the Scott sounded better when going to the edge. It was certainly easier on the ears. I can only say that I'm glad I own both.

Free is good. I'm sure to up by 9 or so. I'll probably do my coffee and slide the Scott in upstairs. Call me anytime after 10am -- I should be good to go (937.299.6324).

Craig, man, I'd love to play tonight but I'm sick as hell. I broke down and went to the doctor, who put me on some antibiotics for the first time since '97. I usually work weekends, but took off tomorrow to rest my sorry rear. What's going on tomorrow? Any chance we can do this then? BTW, if you want me scratch the piss out of your 299b with my magic paper -- send it over! Kelly, actually, I just take everything you said a year ago and regurgitate it. I have learned a bunch over the last year. I still think you are primarily responsible for the complete metamorphasis of the 2-channel forum. Thanks for dragging the whole lot of us kicking and screaming into the world of hot glass. You are a pain in the arse sometimes, but damn -- this forum loses something significant when you sit out.

Very cool. Talk about taking something the nth degree. I've been following that 'other' thread, and based on what I'm seeing here, there can be no question that you can easily duplicate the large scale dynamics, timing cues, and the proper relationship of direct and reflected sound -- necessary to recreate the "live" music experience. I can't help but wonder however, if it isn't just the sheer amount of acoustic space you have provided -- that contributes more to this effect than anything. None-the-less, very impressive. I especially appreciated the commentary, and the math behind some of it. I have several questions, but need some time to digest some of things you've said. I've always enjoyed the near field experience, but I listen to mostly Rock music. My main listening area is the bedroom, which is on the 2nd floor of a cape cod type house. The bedroom covers the entire 2nd floor, and though rather long (about 20 feet) -- the speakers are on the short wall at one of the ends, and I sit about 8 feet back -- with all the wide open space behind me. So, If the room is 20 feet long and 12 feet wide -- what does the math say should be the optimum distance from the rear and side walls? I'm also curious about the bass. If you have the acoustic space necessary to propagate the wave properly -- but you are only sitting 8 feet away -- do you still "hear" it? Thanks,

If those of you having dealt with Craig have not yet pulled the plate off the bottom to examine his art-work -- then I can tell you first hand the man has a gift. It's amazing he's willing to expose himself to the sheer madness that lives under those amps. There's enough wire under those things to string a Christmas tree. The complexity of the circuits, and the amount of contact points involved, makes anything I've owned to date look like a 1st grade science project. As I was telling Craig -- an aspect of going the vintage route that doesn't immediately come to mind, is the fact that these things were for the most part completely hand built. I mean, there just isn't anything going on in there that could have been automated. The extreme range of options provided on the panel, with the addition of a phono section -- to put all of this into the context of current day dollars is hard to imagine. ****** one of these up from ebay, have someone like Craig do his thing -- and not only do you have something that you cannot buy new, but even if you could -- it would easily cost you $3500. I didn't get the Scott until late last night. Fedex came pounding on my door at 6:30. I'm fighting a chest cold and fever, and needed sleep more than anything. I didn't even break open the box. I got up around 9, and pulled her out. I'm a bit anal about asthetics -- and immediately went to work on her. I lost a half an hour because I couldn't pull myself away from Craig's soldering work. To think I whined about doing the DQ's. The only thing I would even remotely consider sticking into this rat's nest is a Q-tip, which I did. Actually, it was probably more like 30 of them. I used Q-tips and IPA, and CAREFULLY went over entire bottom of the chassis plate. Not that it was bad to begin with, but I wanted it all nice and shiney. Only a moron like me would even care about such a thing -- but I knew once I sealed it up, it was going to stay that way for a long time. I wanted a clean slate. I then went to work on the wood case with lemon oil. Next came the top chassis plate. The top of the chassis plate looked like what one would expect it to look like after 45 years. Again, nothing horrible -- but I wanted to give it a fresh look. I started with a 3M scratch pad (equivelant to .000 steel wool), and started rubbing out the imperfections. After this I took some 1500 grit cloth, and started polishing. The trick here is to only go in one direction, and it pretty much takes forever. I finished by taking the scratch pad to it again, so it would have the satin look it originally had. I did the same with the metal tube coverings (what the hell are those things called anyways). Cleanup consisted of taking a vacuum cleaner to every square inch (especially the tube sockets), and then a good wipe down with IPA and Windex. I finished at 2:30 in the morning. I wish I had taken a digital picture of the bottom. I was just tired and felt like general crap -- and didn't even think about it until after it was all back together. I took some pictures of the finished product this morning -- and posted one for your viewing pleasure. I haven't fired her up yet. I will do that later today. Since the Heresys won't be here until next week, I guess I'll just have to strap her to the RF7's and hope to God she doesn't sound as good as the Apollos.

The nice thing about low powered solid state like this HK, is that transistors aren't required to be paired up in order to get high output -- So, little, or no crossover distortion. Congrats Justin -- enjoy the music!

Focus on the Real Estate angle. If you can work out the financial issues to get this going -- you could potentially retire in 10 years. Anything related to Audio will only sap you financially and leave you frustrated. You will have your hands full just maintaining the rentals. At some point, if finances permit -- you could use profit generated from the Rentals to maybe start some Audio retail business.

Nice post. But what the hell is "epistimological viewpoint"?

These numbers only work if you are sitting 3 feet from your speakers. You need to subtract 3db for every additional 3 feet you are away from them.

You will also find a substantial reduction in digital hash, and treble 'spit' when using a decent deck with a tubed front end. The sound of that Sony 555ES will be completely transformed with tubes. I use the 9000ES, and I think these Sony machines are perfect with tubes.

'fun' loud? Or... cover your ears and run for hills loud?

I actually expect the Heresies and the Scott to jel pretty good together. That's really what it's all about -- the sound you end up with after you daisy chain everything together. Shoot, I'm one of those goofballs that still thinks Old Advents and a Dynaco 400 is magic. I thought the DQ's and the Aragon rocked too. It was just that I had to dump 1/2 the amp into them to get the sound I wanted. In spite of Kelly's feelings regarding the SuperAmp, he never heard one with the RF7's, and I'm not even sure he ever heard the DJH version. That 'sound' was as close to what I'd been after my whole life that I ever got. I kind of felt like an idiot when I sold it because I let the channel imbalance problem get under my skin. It really sounded great, and I should have worked through the problem. Then the Apollos showed up, and I figured what the hell. What I have now is everything I had then, along with this character of having every instrument delineated. The SuperAmp was definitely hotter on top, but I can't really say it had any more balls on the bottom. Oh yeah! Got me a whopping 5 on the damping factor scale -- beats the hell out of where the control is coming from. The point here is that the RF7's and the Apollos just mate in that magical kind of way. At any rate, it's all about synergism -- and I'm hoping like all get out that the Heresies and Scott will do the same. If it works out well -- I'll probably start putting some money aside for some LaScala's, K-horns, or some kind of DIY thing from the Tom Brennen School of Old Ugly Horns. Right now, I just want to play and see how the squawker effects me. If I ever sold the Apollos, it would only be because I had to, if like -- it was the only way to get the bigger horns. I would probably then put the Scott on the RF7's, and then try for some Wrights or Paramours -- which would be all I could afford.

Since I'm running two systems, I'm sure the RF7's will always have a place. Personally, I don't think Heritage has a snowballs chance in hell of matching the refinement of the RF7's. Sorry. As far as the Heresies being bass shy, I'm not even remotely concerned about it -- since I'll be strapping them to a SVS 20-39+ along with 500 pro watts.

Hmmm. Thanks for the heads up.