powdermnky007 Posted November 2, 2002 Share Posted November 2, 2002 http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=1394144807 http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=1393071194&rd=1 http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=1392712065 http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=1393503537&rd=1 want to see what you guys think about those amps... i want to get one of them... (or maybe if one of you guys have one to sell!) I know the scott 299 are known for a good phono section (a/b better than c/d) BTW, craig how much better are the a/b, ALOT better, or just barely better? Thanks again... and if anyone has something to sell, let me know. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pland Posted November 2, 2002 Share Posted November 2, 2002 Hi, If you review the schematics,you'll notice that the phono sections are virtually the same in all 299 Scotts.The earlier 299 series give more phono EQ choices(RIAA,Euro 78),but if you use the later standard RIAA setting,you'll find no difference. You will however,find a big difference between these amps owing to OPT ,transformer,design ,and parts differences.I actually like them all,although most people prefer the EL84 based sound to the 7591.The classic choice is a late 299a,or a 299b.I just bought a 222c(which appears to be a turbocharged 299b with fixed bias)which is supposed to be a real sleeper.I'll let you know how it stacks up after completion. Best, Pat Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NOSValves Posted November 2, 2002 Share Posted November 2, 2002 Pland, Actually the RIAA curcuit is different in the 222 C/D and the 299 C/D they used Pecs rather than point to point wiring. There is a difference for some reason. The Phono sections on the later Scotts just don't have the Life in the music and also take a bigger hit in overall volume for some reason. The 299 A/B just seem better for LP's to me. Also the 7591 tube just has a different sound seems like the Highs are rolled off and the Mid range is way forward but I like them to there just not a favorite. Craig Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NOSValves Posted November 2, 2002 Share Posted November 2, 2002 powdermnky007 I have no experience with any of the Amps you listed except the 299C sorry !! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pland Posted November 2, 2002 Share Posted November 2, 2002 Hi Craig, I'm looking at the mag high/mag low trace on the 222c,299b,299c,all the way through the phono preamplification scheme and they are identical down to the resistor values.Why do you believe the RIAA curve is different?What am I missing? Pat Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NOSValves Posted November 2, 2002 Share Posted November 2, 2002 Its not that there different on the schematic or the stated values. They use a Pec that intergrates all the parts into one package and for some reason either these values aren't correct or degragate the sound in some way either right from the start or from age. When you look at the Riaa curcuit on the schematic for a 222C go to the amp and try to find these parts... you won't find them. You will instead find a 1 1/4" X 2" device that looks like its made out of the same thing as Ceramic Disc Capacitor. Its the first intergrated curcuit from the early to mid 60s called a PEC. this same device is used in the RIAA curcuit of the EICO's. 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.