Deang Posted December 7, 2002 Share Posted December 7, 2002 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
T2K Posted December 7, 2002 Share Posted December 7, 2002 Enjoyed the review deang. Sounds like the Scott may be ideal for use with those Heresy's. Can't wait for you and I to find out. Keith Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NOSValves Posted December 8, 2002 Share Posted December 8, 2002 Dean, Great mini review I thought you would never get it posted !! I think there are more experiments you should try before a final opinion. Try the Scott at 8 ohm taps you may find that it handle those RF-7 differently than the apollos or the super amp. Might be worse or may be better. Craig Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
arfz28 Posted December 8, 2002 Share Posted December 8, 2002 Great review Deang, sounds like the Scott did very well. I like the way you cleaned up that old scott it looks wonderfull.What kind of chrome polish did you use, or what did you use? I used some never dull on mine, but still doesnt look near as good as yours.On the front face plate I just used a soft damp cloth, and some q-tips. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deang Posted December 8, 2002 Author Share Posted December 8, 2002 I think I'm going to have alot more to say after I strap it to the Heresies. The Scott isn't going to sitting with the RF7's, and I mainly did it just so I could get a good baseline by comparing it to the Apollos, and to what I remembered about the SuperAmp DJH. I heard what I was desperately hoping for -- warm and rich, cause them Heresies are going to need it. I'm building a "system" -- and that's what I really want to write about. Most here are Heritage owners -- and I have a feeling that this thing is perfectly suited for the obnoxious, shrill, overbearing squawker 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.