mobile homeless Posted September 8, 2002 Share Posted September 8, 2002 I agree. Dave, did you actually read this thread or just post at the end with thy blinders on? I think we moved past those comments, even in jest, quite a while back. kh Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dubai2000 Posted September 8, 2002 Share Posted September 8, 2002 Kelly, mhhh, Holland is certainly much closer than the US! Depending on details ($$$$ as usual)and how close it still is to the original sound I wouldn't mind sticking my neck out. Please keep me informed about possibilities. Thanks, Wolfram Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Warren Posted September 8, 2002 Share Posted September 8, 2002 EICO -81 for 6 C-notes?? For that kind of money I would have gone this route. H.H. SCOTT 222C stereo integrated amp. 6BQ5 output tubes, 25 wpc. Aluminum chassis. Tube rectified. Largest output tranformers ever in a 6BQ5 amp. This is quite simply the best integrated tube amp ever made. Nr mint, $595. I've purchased gear form this guy (David Dicks, St. Louis, MI), no games, stuff is clean and works. You can find them cheaper but if he says its mint, it is mint, fully functional and tested. If you don't like it he takes it back, no questions. http://www.oldhifi.com/Gearpage.html This message has been edited by John Warren on 09-08-2002 at 04:30 PM Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BryanJ Posted September 8, 2002 Share Posted September 8, 2002 John, do have one Scott 222A on the way!!! Not 25w/channel but I'm sure enough for the La Scala's to sing. I know the amount I paid for the Eico was hefty but you only live once I think this unit is clean. Have a capacitor tester picked out and already own a VOM. It's time I learn to fix these tubie radio's I have. 13 in all, not counting the Scott and Eico on the way. Bryan Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mobile homeless Posted September 8, 2002 Share Posted September 8, 2002 Yeah, nice 222c. Of course, bigger transformers does not always mean better-but those are some hefty transformers(I have some monster transformers on my A-4 amp with double the watts - the EICO has better low end extension with out trans half the size); in addition, the 222c does not have a fully triode front end. From what I've seen, most people prefer the 299 to the 222. I am waiting to hear a 299 and looking for one to purchase. I heard a nice 222c and personally preferred the HF-81. It is a nice amp, however. You can't go totally wrong with any of these unless poor examples with multiple problems. kh This message has been edited by mobile homeless on 09-08-2002 at 05:45 PM Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BryanJ Posted September 8, 2002 Share Posted September 8, 2002 MH, I was browsing the web via AOL's search engine and came upon your web site I saw how your HF was nicely painted black. Saw the reflection of your red flannel shirt?? Those are some nice looking amps you have. Nice vinyl player! Never have seen one like that?! Bryan Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mobile homeless Posted September 8, 2002 Share Posted September 8, 2002 Shirt? More like shorts, as in BOXERS. I would have thought you had seen that EICO page. MY main system and alternate gear (a portion of it) are linked in my signature at the bottom. That EICO page has some good links and be sure to visit the TWEAKS page with a closeup of the wiring as well as some options outlined by Stevens and myself. http://home.earthlink.net/~eico_hf81/eico_hf81_wiring.htm kh ps- The Linn Sondek LP-12 did more to cement vinyl in the midst of high quality playback than just about any make. Linn is made in Scotland and Ivor Tiefenbrun has done as much for vinyl recognition in the past as anyone. Phono Linn Sondek LP-12 Valhalla / Linn Basic Plus / Sumiko Blue Point CD Player Rega Planet Preamp Cary Audio SLP-70 w/Phono Modified Amplifier Welborne Labs 2A3 Moondog Monoblocks Cable DIYCable Superlative / Twisted Cross Connect Speaker 1977 Klipsch Cornwall I w/Alnico & Type B Crossover Links system one online / alternate components / Asylum Listing f>s> This message has been edited by mobile homeless on 09-08-2002 at 06:02 PM Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mike stehr Posted September 8, 2002 Share Posted September 8, 2002 Had a Email discussion with David Dicks once over Jimi Hendrix and the destruction of Lowthers. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Warren Posted September 8, 2002 Share Posted September 8, 2002 Mobile, you never cease to amuse, again you are vague and inaccurate- Which 299??? A, B, C or D? The 299B ceased production in early 61. The 222C was less expensive, sounded essentially the same and, as a result, alot more where sold (it sort of killed the 299B). To *compete* with the 222C Scott the 299 series was completely redesigned. In the end, put a brass face plate on the 7591 amp (of which I own). The 222C was "upgraded" to a "D" but almost all cosmetic sharing the same chassis and OT as the C. Also some 233s are IDENTICAL to 299Cs. All transformer plates in Scott units made after 63 were fabricated from electric steels (double melted vacuum arc GOSS) all sourced from Allegheny-Ludlum. This is the same material McIntosh and Marantz sourced their transformer steels from. So not a bad pedigree. FWIW- Lee Shuster, perhaps the biggest collector and fanatic of Scott gear in the world considers the 222C the best IA ever made by Scott. So next time mobile, try to be a little clearer in you descriptions. This message has been edited by John Warren on 09-08-2002 at 06:37 PM Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris Robinson Posted September 8, 2002 Share Posted September 8, 2002 Jeez, John, taking a little off the fastball might make the batter swing at it Sometimes less is more, at least it is less revealing ... This message has been edited by Chris Robinson on 09-08-2002 at 06:44 PM Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mobile homeless Posted September 8, 2002 Share Posted September 8, 2002 Yep, that's me. Always inaccurate and vague. Give it a rest, John. Doesnt Hogan's Heroes come on at this time in your area? Guy just spends 600 bux on an EICO. You pop on and say he blew that one and should have gotten this one. Good to see you back, John! A. I heard the 222c. B. The owner of the 222c also owns the EICO HF-81 C. We hooked both up and compared the two. Both of us preferred the sound of the HF-81 as it was more open, had more air, seemed quieter, and generally sounded like a more detailed amp. Although the Scott was good, the EICO sounded better, at least between these two examples (and this wasnt even my EICO). Still, I liked both amps. I am looking for a good Scott 299A or B to try. I was thinking of borrowing my buddy's 222C to hear again on my speakers since we heard them on monitor speakers and not horns. Still, relax, John. Give it a rest. I edited out my jab at your "30Hz or bust" ways. Glad you like your Scotts though. I hope to have one soon as well. I didnt know you owned anything under 100w. kh This message has been edited by mobile homeless on 09-08-2002 at 07:34 PM Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NOSValves Posted September 8, 2002 Share Posted September 8, 2002 Mobile, I find the only thing so frustration about this hobby and all of us on this forum is that no matter what we say or do this is all subjective Opinion we relay. We all live so far apart wouldn't it be great if we were all in one general area where we could all hear each others equipment ! You hearing one Scott 222C next to the HF-81 that are both 40 years old isn't really a fair comparision is it. There is so many variables that could come into play. What tubes were in both Amps ?? Did the 81 have all mullards ?? Did the Scott have all its original Telefunken 12AX7's and Telefunken Phase splitter. Did it have the Amperex Bugle Boys it was Originally equipt with for outputs ? Did either amp have work done to it ?? Was one of the units stored and hardly used while the other had 20,000 hours of use ?? I'm not bashing here just trying to make a point your basing your opinion on one brief encounter with no details. I unlike you refrain from a solid opinion on the HF-81 because I've never heard one in a good situation. If I was like you I could bash the heck out of it after hearing Tim's at the Horn meet in chicago ! Are you you getting my point hear ? Craig This message has been edited by NOS440 on 09-09-2002 at 10:27 AM Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NOSValves Posted September 8, 2002 Share Posted September 8, 2002 Mobile, One more thing I'm not quite clear on. You said the HF-81 was quieter the the 222C . What exactly do you mean ?? Craig Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mobile homeless Posted September 8, 2002 Share Posted September 8, 2002 Scott is good. Eico is good. Scott and Eico are good. We all love Scott and Eico. I want to marry Eico. Have sex with Scott. Better have sex with Scott before I marry Eico. Sex with Scott would be with protection, however. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NOSValves Posted September 8, 2002 Share Posted September 8, 2002 Your such a child !!!!!!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mobile homeless Posted September 8, 2002 Share Posted September 8, 2002 All I have to do is remember you with that damn hat and fish... This message has been edited by mobile homeless on 09-08-2002 at 09:31 PM Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NOSValves Posted September 8, 2002 Share Posted September 8, 2002 Exactly what does that mean. You have never went fishing ?? You really indeed do need a vacation constantly insulting people when they don't agree with you. You are most definitely the most Arrogant a$$ I have ever met on the internet !! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mobile homeless Posted September 9, 2002 Share Posted September 9, 2002 Craig, you are high on the list of people that dont read closely or carefully. Scan two posts up and see who the first to insult is. Yours, as always, is direct. Mine is a bit more subtle and more of a dig in response. "Your(sic) a child!" follows my post, a post that was anything but a direct insult. The post above this current post is a direct insult, like nothing I have said to you above. Add to this the constant inaccuracy within your retorts to me as well as a pale sense of humor and sense of the absurd. Lines are taken literally and responded in a like fashion with no play on words. A casual sly aside is met with a meat and potatoes cement-like rebuttal. Take this paragraph in an above post of mine in this thread as it seems unlikely that you OR Mr. Warren read it as 1. Complements are given your way. 2. A distinction between the various models of 299 is acknowledged. quote: "One of the advantages of getting the Scott 222-299 is the fact that we do have a forum member in Craig that is willing to work on them although I think he is probably through with the freebies. He has helped a few on here with soldering circumspect caps/resistors, something that will have to be done sooner or later, especially with the PS caps, which will eventually need replacing in these units(and any other vintage piece as they are the first to go). The 299 Scott is the model of choice in that line (and it comes in several versions ie B, C etc). To answer your question far above, it should be plain as day concerning the difference between setting up a listening comparison at the owners house (a good friend of mine who I play drums with regularly) between two of his units that had been totally gone over and in his collection (and the Scott was his favorite amp as well)with his main system... and an audio meetting with many pieces of gear set up in a questionable configuration (rarely do these meetings bring out the best in ANY of the gear). Also, as someone that has been messing with the audio side of this hobby for quite some time (since the 70s actively), I dont usually participate in weighted comparisons with one component exhibiting poor performance, and the other top notch. I do it to LEARN, not to knock down. We really were trying to ascertain which component (both working and with comparable tubes) was the better performer. Even then, if YOU READ CAREFULLY, I stated in my post that the results were really just with these TWO examples and that I even wanted more exposure to the Scott at my home for further listening. Some conclusiongs CAN be drawn, however. But all listening comparisons have MANY variables that are often difficult to take into account. Hopefully, experience will come to aid here. I dont spend my time here looking for people to insult, Craig. 99% of my posts are in an effort to help others with equipment choices or discuss issues involving these choices, this just from the experience I have had over the years. Regardless, my retorts are not bludgeoning or heavy handed. The above post is a fine example of BAD solid state over too revealing a pair of horns... kh This message has been edited by mobile homeless on 09-09-2002 at 10:18 AM Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NOSValves Posted September 9, 2002 Share Posted September 9, 2002 Mobile, I think you need to reread some of your posts also. I in no way insulted you until you did the I love this and that bull. I just simply questioned your listening setup of the 2 units and as alway's if someone doesn't take your word as the Audio Gospel you reply with childish retort rather than discussing my questions which was basically all I was doing was questioning your listening setup. What really sparked me is your statement that the HF-81 with its weak filtering and cheap parts in stock form was indeed quieter the the 222C. This is what got me going so I asked what you meant. I should of included this in the first post but what's the big deal. You alway's take someone questioned your opinion as a insult and retort back with your under handed slams. When I slam someone they absolutely know it. Craig Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NOSValves Posted September 9, 2002 Share Posted September 9, 2002 Mobile please show me a insult in this post ??? Mobile, I find the only thing so frustration about this hobby and all of us on this forum is that no matter what we say or do this is all subjective Opinion we relay. We all live so far apart wouldn't it be great if we were all in one general area where we could all hear each others equipment ! You hearing one Scott 222C next to the HF-81 that are both 40 years old isn't really a fair comparision is it. There is so many variables that could come into play. What tubes were in both Amps ?? Did the 81 have all mullards ?? Did the Scott have all its original Telefunken 12AX7's and Telefunken Phase splitter. Did it have the Amperex Bugle Boys it was Originally equipt with for outputs ? Did either amp have work done to it ?? Was one of the units stored and hardly used while the other had 20,000 hours of use ?? I'm not bashing here just trying to make a point your basing your opinion on one brief encounter with no details. I unlike you refrain from a solid opinion on the HF-81 because I've never heard one in a good situation. If I was like you I could bash the heck out of it after hearing Tim's at the Horn meet in chicago ! Are you you getting my point hear ? 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.