Mike Lindsey Posted July 8, 2002 Share Posted July 8, 2002 I saw a local ad for a Scott 299 this weekend and was wondering what everyone thought of this integrated. I spoke with the gentleman who owns it (ironically, we were both stationed at the same air base in Germany at the same time) and he said he has replaced all the tubes... 12AX7, 7189's and GZ37, as well as the coupling caps with Orange Drops, and new resistors (carbon film). All tubes have been tested and match he said (no NOS, mostly GE and RCA). He wants $150 but would probably take $100. Is it worth $100? I haven't checked eBay or the Scott site but thought I'd check with you guys first. Thanks a bunch, Mike PS. He said he also had a pair of Freed Eiselmann (sic) 10w push-pull monoblocks. Anybody heard of 'em? ------------------ My Music Systems Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mallette Posted July 8, 2002 Share Posted July 8, 2002 I've spent no quality time with the 299, but a friend of mine just picked one up at an estate sale for 5.00. I checked Ebay and one was going for 260.00. From examining it and listening to the one good channel, I'd certainly pay 150.00 for one with the upgrades and care that one has had. I was blown away with the support available through the Heathkit web site. Forgot the URL, but they had every detail on these amps available in a database. No nothing of the monoblocks you mentioned, but if they are cheap and even LOOK good and well-made, I'd grab em. Unless they were for PA or something, nobody builds really crappy monoblocks...who would buy them? All opinion... Dave ------------------ David A. Mallett Average system component age: 30 years. Performance: Timeless Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Allan Songer Posted July 8, 2002 Share Posted July 8, 2002 Dirt Cheap. And unless the guy who did the work was a real butcher and/or the cosmetics are for **** , then you can always DOUBLE your money if you decide do dump it on ebay. The is the best of the vintage integrateds (blows the Eico stuff being touted here into the weeds--ESPECIALLY if you listen to LPs--the phono section of the Scott 299 is really exceptional). Just buy it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Allan Songer Posted July 8, 2002 Share Posted July 8, 2002 The only Freed-Eismann stuff I've ever come across are 1920's and 1930's radios. I guess they survived into the 50's and made some amps, but I'll bet these amps are from console units that had "preamp-tuners" and amps as well as turntables. Probably late 1940's and I'll bet they are nothing special. But they might have some killer tubes in them! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
edster00 Posted July 8, 2002 Share Posted July 8, 2002 Mike, I have a 299A that Craig (NOS440) rebuilt for me. It is a great little integrated! I paid more that $100 re-tubing it with tubes (not NOS either...couldn't afford them). I say it is a no brainer at $100 still a very good deal at $150. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mobile homeless Posted July 8, 2002 Share Posted July 8, 2002 Allan, I sincerely doubt you have heard the EICO HF-81 now. So you have had a good working one in your system? Tell me about it. That comment is positively absurd. Do a search in the tube asylum for people that have heard both the Scott and the EICO. The Scott name, just like McIntosh, is well known. Scott makes some damn fine amps, but if really in a good system, there is a magic that the Scotts (although I have not heard the 299) miss that the HF-81 has over any vintage amp of that class I have heard. I personally think EICO transformers are better than the Scotts. If I remember correctly, Scott is not even fully triode in the front end, nor does it employ dual tube rectification. But, you obviously cant go wrong with the Scott... but to make such claims is off the mark (although many phono sections of EICOS need work). Also, the EICO is a kit amp so the builder established some parameters. kh This message has been edited by mobile homeless on 07-08-2002 at 05:37 PM Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mike Lindsey Posted July 8, 2002 Author Share Posted July 8, 2002 I just bought it for $120 sight unseen. I won't be able to pick it up until next Monday as I'm leaving for Pittsburgh tomorrow. He said it's in pretty good shape but is missing the tube cage and there is some slight rust on one of the transformers. He said he would try and clean it up. Thanks for the replies guys... Mike ------------------ My Music Systems Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mallette Posted July 8, 2002 Share Posted July 8, 2002 Of course, I meant Scott about the web site. Think you are going to like it!! Dave ------------------ David A. Mallett Average system component age: 30 years. Performance: Timeless Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Allan Songer Posted July 8, 2002 Share Posted July 8, 2002 No, I do not have a good HF-81 in my system now. Nor do I have a cherry-pie 299 or 299B. But I have owned both. Between 1973 and about 1990 I bought, sold, traded, restored and (ahem!) GUTTED just about every piece of vintage tube hi-fi gear you can name. Bogen, Pilot, Scott, Sherwood, McIntosh, Marantz, H-K, Fisher, etc. I had limited expereince with Leak (one mono amp) and Quad (a pair with a pre) as well. I never said that Eico was crap. I had a pair of HF-22s in one system for at least a year, maybe longer. But it is OBVIOUS to me that the Scott 299 front end, espeically the phono sounds BETTER than the HF-81. You don't agree. Let's leave it at that. No need to get all defensive and nasty about it. Here's some more heresy for you: I owned a pair of Marantz 9's for several years and I am CONVINCED they sound much better in pentode mode. I'm probably one in a hundred who feels that way, but I do. We have different ears, you and I. I like beam tubes and you like triodes. I like SPUs and rim drive tables--you probably have never heard them nor would you care to. (I think stereo is over-rated too!) Anyway, if you get a chance listen to a 299 and tell me it's not a KILLER for the money (as is the HF-81). Cheers, AS Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mobile homeless Posted July 8, 2002 Share Posted July 8, 2002 I have now heard other EICOS, as well as listened to just the amplifier section of the HF-81... to me, it is the sum of the parts. I think the amplifier section of the 81 run from quality preamps (even units FAR FAR more expensive) does not beat the unit as a whole. This piece is total synergy. And I am not referring to the HF-86, HF-22, HF-12 etc. I am talking of the HF-81 as a whole. I just have been reading the Asylum for years and have never heard you mention owning an HF-81, that is all. I have heard you mention all the others, including your beloved old Marantz 9 monos that you wish you hadnt sold. I just have seen many people like and dislike things for names. But as a surprise to you, I generally dont like pentode amps wired in triode either. I like true TRIODE tubes done correctly, such as the 300b/2A3 in a good circuit etc. But to be honest, I have also not particularly liked pentode amps done in triode unless designed that way from scatch, an even then, I seem to prefer them in pentode. On the other hand, a proper triode tube done well really cam overtake a pentode amp in purity and life-like reproduction. You mentioned the sonic splendor of the Cary 300se Monos, and amp that, by the way, is not too expensive used coming in around 1500-1800. It was not too bad new some years back as well. This was the first SET I ever heard back in 90-91, and this with the extra bank of power caps. What I take unbridge with is your stagement concerning the Scott walking all over the Eico HF-81, when for the life of me, I dont ever remember you mentioning having this model. But you are right, I have not actually heard the 299 but have heard other models. My buddy has a 222c which is not its equal. I will be interested to hear one; perhaps I can bribe Edster00 to send me his for some favor...heh. As for the turntable, I have not heard an old rim drive table since my days at the radio station nor have I heard your Thorens model. That does not mean I would not be interested, nor open minded, in hearing the beast. And if it was more musical than my Linn Valhalla (improved over the original Linn and more natural to me, than the later Lingo), I would not hesitate in acquiring one. I have a Progressive-Engineering table here now I am getting ready to hear, and with the same open mind even though it is a totally different design ( http://www.progressive-engineering.com/ ). But I have backed off from making completely definitive statements concerning tube amps; although I admit to not being particularly fond of the MAC sound but have, once again, never heard the MC-30, another example of something I want to listen to. I went in the "Audiophile door" and out the other side seeing the light back in the early 90s. I dont write a $100 amp off anymore than I do a 90k amp, just because the price is insane. I thought the same of your but was surprised of your comments about the HF-81. kh Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NOSValves Posted July 8, 2002 Share Posted July 8, 2002 The Scott/EICO battle rages on LOL !!!! I'm still waiting for a honest listen of a HF-81 to make a real judgement. I heard Tim's a few months ago at a Chicago Horn club. The setup wasn't right so a refrained from passing judgement. Although I hooked my Scott amps up to the same setup and the Scott's sounded way better to my ears. I'll also add that some tweaking was done between these setups. I'll tell you one thing every time Mobile mentioned the some of the parts I just bust out laughing because the quality of the parts in a Scott amp are at the very least worth double of the EICO. Lets keep this Civil Craig PS mobile .. why is it you think twin rectifiers are a better option. I truely believe the EZ-81 was used at the time because it was so cheap. The 5AR4 that all the Scott Amps use is a much better rectifier is it not ?? ------------------ HH Scott 299 Amp HH Scott LT-110B Tuner HH Scott P-87 Turn Table JVC JL-F50 Turn Table Sony CDP-CA7ES CD Drive 1985 Walnut Heresey I W/Layne Audio Woofers KSW-15 Subs>c> This message has been edited by NOS440 on 07-08-2002 at 10:54 PM Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NOSValves Posted July 8, 2002 Share Posted July 8, 2002 Mike, Almost forgot to say. $120 is a steal for a 299 be glad you grabbed it !!!! Is it a 299 A-B-C-D ?? Craig Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mike Lindsey Posted July 9, 2002 Author Share Posted July 9, 2002 Craig, To be honest with you I'm not sure. Will it say A-B-C-D somewhere on the faceplate? Is there a difference between the letters? If so, what are they? I figured for $120 it was worth getting based on Allan's recommendation and I am still gonna get an HF-81 as well. BTW, he is holding it for me until I get back from Pittsburgh and he will be unavailable today. He also mentioned he has some kind of Sansui integrated tube amp from the 60's if anyone is interested... Mike Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mobile homeless Posted July 9, 2002 Share Posted July 9, 2002 Craig, by "sum of the parts" I am referring to the synergy of the whole unit vs it divided up. See connotations. Listen, I think you know that I value the quality of "parts" in an amp; indeed, I took hell from this from all sides as I tried to make the point that certain parts really do make a difference, especially when you are dealing with extremely simple circuits like a well designed SET. My other amps easily FAR FAR outclass the poor EICO parts wise. And my 2A3 Monos make the parts in the Scott and the EICO look like a RAdio Shack kit. But the little EICO has DAMN GOOD output transformers and a great circuit. The EICO was the first amp that really made me question the value of modern tube components. And to my ears, the dual rectified 6CA4 option sounds better than an average 5AR4 rectified amp, unless done well and with the best Mullard. I happen to prefer the GZ-37 Mullard over the 5AR4, even with a Mullard. But face it, finding a Mullard 5AR4 these days for anything reasonable is getting near impossible. The 6CA4 is actually an EXCELLENT rectifier when used in this paired configuration. kh This message has been edited by mobile homeless on 07-09-2002 at 07:24 AM Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Allan Songer Posted July 9, 2002 Share Posted July 9, 2002 Now I have to go out and buy an HF-81!!! Why not? It's been a long time since I've heard one and even then I admit I didn't pay THAT close attention to it! It was wrong for me to reject an amp that I never took all that seriousoly when I had one some 25 years ago. And I haven't owned a 299 Scott in about ten years either! Maybe I'll start messing around with this stuff again as I approach 50! My workbench is clean and just waiting for company. Plus I have a stereo in the garage: A Fisher 500C and a pair of old Altec Monterry Jr.s! I did like the HF-22's a LOT--are they similar in any way to the HF-81? I remember the HF-22s sounding a lot like the old Quads I had around the same time, but then I've got an irrational love for the KT-66 and EL37!! But my second fave has always been the EL84/7189 family of amps with the revered EL34 and forgotten 7591/7868 right behind. Again, this is a general rule for me, not hard and fast, that's for SURE. I have never designed an amp--I am not an engineer. I have jokingly called myself a "hack with a soldering iron" and that's not far from the truth. I can read a schematic and do basic diagnostics and repairs, very slowly and VERY carefully! But most of all I love listening to my LPs late in the evening. Last night I went through all of my Red Garland LPs with Coltrane (Soul Juction, All Morning Long, High Pressure, Traneing In)one right after the other and the whole debate about which amps make these guys sound "right" became totally unimportant. I'll go over to ebay now and try to dig up an HF-81 and when I find one and go through it, I'll try it out and then offer an INFORMED opinion! Thanks for the inspiration. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mobile homeless Posted July 9, 2002 Share Posted July 9, 2002 Actually, your post really rings true in a number of ways on various levels. I am refering to the mention of sitting back late at night listening to the Coltrane/ Red Garland LPs, something that does indeed make this petty debate about the subtle distinctions between these variouus tube amps superfluous at best. To be honest, you can receive amazing enjoyment out of most of these tube amps mentioned, even the lowest on the totem pole. With a good setup and attention to detail, all of them can bring music to life, some better than others, some exhibiting certain traits better than others, but many sounding damn good. I do want to bring up the serious differences in the way people listen to gear/music. Some look for room shaking bass...others prefer crystal clear, extended highs, and base this love on the solid state version... other like the visuals such as sound staging and or imaging. Most have a mixture. Some are completely unaware of what a fine audio system can do. Listening preferences and tastes must be noted when analyzing gear and giving opinions. When someone opines, "That amp sounded dull" he might be used to overly etched solid state, which to my ears, can sound forward and strident compared to real life. There are just so many variables. But all the above is meaningless if you cant get into the music, or start to listen to the equipment over the music. To me, even more mundane tube amps combined with a good source and speakers bring the music closer to a life like experience than most of the solid state spectrum. And when comparing Scotts and EICOS and other vintage makes, these amps seem to bring a basic synergy with horns that surpasses so much of the audio available today. But reading that paragraph about the Red Garland reminds me of what you do it for. I was listening to some Patricia Barber the other day trying to analyze these two CD players. It was a fine recording as far as digital goes (Cafe Blue)... I then suddenly said, "What the hell am I listening too?" I would NEVER listen to this! I stopped the Rega and walked to the record closet and came out with Cannonball Adderley's "Something Else" with Miles, Hank Jones, Sam Jones, and Art Blakey on drums. I sat back and started to actually LISTEN to the music, forgetting the equipment.... And man...did it sound good. I then threw on a great pressing of Miles and Coltrane in Stockholm 1960... and just remembered what made this whole thing so important in the first place. Sadly, the audiophile road to bliss has seemingly left the music far behind as the "sound" has usurped the reason why it exists in the first place. The equipment becomes the focus. Indeed, I dont know of any group of people that have a more shoddy collection of music than the average die hard audiophile. Most have the musical awareness of plankton...and dont even realize it. kh Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mallette Posted July 9, 2002 Share Posted July 9, 2002 Seems Allan and MH have had visitations from St. Cecelia. ;-> While I harp "music, music, music" all the time, I am acutely aware of the need for folks who can switch of its charms and render useful opinions on the repro chain. Only those who state absolutes are suspect, just as in religion, politics, or science. I have little more in common with the audiophile equipment freak than I do with a duffer. I am not suggesting that one is any better than the other, just that about all we have in common is hanging around the same bar (this one) from time to time, and that I occasionally wander over to their end of the bar for an informed opinion. Dave ------------------ David A. Mallett Average system component age: 30 years. Performance: Timeless Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NOSValves Posted July 9, 2002 Share Posted July 9, 2002 Mike , There are differences in all the 299's when I say A its really just a 299 it will not have a letter behind it but the B/C/D will have a letter behind them. The Original 299 had its Output trannies along the left side of the Amp looking at it from the front and uses 7189 output tubes there was a update mid production that moved the Trannies to the rear of the Amp and these version of the 299A is almost Identical to a 299B. The 299C/D are entirely different beasts and use 7591 output tubes. All the 299's are Scott's Premier Amps of there day. Like I said for $120 you can't go wrong . Mobile , I wasn't trying to piss you off or nothing. It just makes me laugh when you say that. I know what you mean by it really !! I have a Heathkit Amp that suprises the heck out of me and you would never guess by the some of its parts either. Craig Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.