Stunning 299B on Ebay

[Deang]

No Jeff, this amp is for the Cornwalls. As soon as my Aragon or Gibson sells, I'm sending you money. I may be able to work something else out as well -- I'm still working it.

I'll be selling the 299A.

I'm going multichannel with Cornwalls, Heresies, and the Hafler box. Impedance will be dropping to 6 ohms, and I think the 299b will do a little better in this regard than the 299a.

Keith, don't be pissed. If you want the 299a Craig just sold me, you can have it for the same price Craig sold it to me for. This was Craigs personal amp, and it's been tweaked to the max. I also went over the chassis myself and addressed some cosmetic issues -- it's VERY clean. Craig can vouch for this.

Craig, I can't send you the amp until I pay Jeff for the Cornwalls. I'll be listening stock for a little while, so I hope it works. I'll send it down as soon as I have my duckies in a row again.

[T2K]

Forgot about the museum piece. I take it dean bought it, huh?

I'm not pissed about anything dean. I did go back yesterday and discover my bid was $251. That's all I was willing to pay. Got to get my 222-C and LK-72 Craigsterized before he burns out.

If you're room is big enough for you to get away from the multiple speakers they'll sound great!

Keith

[Deang]

Room big enough? Hell no! I'll be stacking all that Heritage stuff right around my head.

[T2K]

hmmmmm.. sorta like LARGE headphones huh?

Keith

BTW, why didn't you pick up the museum tuner too? Would've been a handsome combo. They sound good too.

[Deang]

oops, didn't know about the tuner. Oh well, couldn't have afforded it anyway.

My wife's gonna have my head as it is.

[NOSValves]

Dean,

Just send it to me I have all the parts to bring it up to snuff you can just owe me for a while. I would hate to see you smoke something on that beauty using it like it is. The Electrolytic that was put in it is junk !! It still has the selenium bridge rectifier which supplies bias voltage and also heater voltage to the 12AX7's these are always bad and the amp will still work but its burning up the tubes !! What's even worse is if it quits all together it can take out the output iron.

It is just not worth running it in its current state especially if it has some good tubes in it.

Craig

[Deang]

You're a class act Craig. I'll send it down after I get it and take a few moments to drool over it.

I sent you some mail.

[NOSValves]

Dean,

sounds good just let me know when to expect it. Hey and save the cleanup till after I get done on it !

Craig

[AndyKubicki]

I missed something here...did someone on this forum finally get this 299 or no? Seems like for this condition $338.33 is not an outrageous price, even given the future restoration costs.

Yeah Fini, I didn't mean to make too much of a comparison of amp conditions to coins...imagine having to send your amp off to a professional grading agency and getting it back encapsulated!

[Deang]

Yep, you missed something, I got it -- and actually, it's a pretty good deal. After Craig gets done with, I have less than $600 into it, and it'll smoke most of the over-rated stuff out there.

[mobile homeless]

These are starting to become pretty strong words now. So you are saying the 299 is nearing about the best you have heard? What music are you playing through this amp? Along with equipment lists, I think it is becoming just as imperative to list what were are talking about here. Heavy metal ability? Inner detailing with acoustic instruments? Power? Speed?

I am really interested in doing a comparison between the Scott and what I have here as I want to hear what you are hearing. I heard the 222C, a highly rated version and need to hear this amp now. Since we might be needing some pictures of the inside-out of one of these, perhaps it should come this way. Although I will be getting one soon, the need might arise before that time.

kh

[mike stehr]

That was a nice 299B for $338.

I'm officially depressed.

[Deang]

Kelly,

I initially had the 299a hooked up to the RF7's upstairs. Of course, my only source up there is the 9000ES. I thought it sounded much like the SuperAmp DJH, but without the midrange bite. There is clarity, and a very nice open quality -- without being aggressively forward. I also felt it was easier on my ears at higher SPL's than anything I've had in the house so far, including the Apollos.

Yes, of course, I listen to mostly the hard driving stuff -- and this should be taken into account. However, I ran some other things through it as well: Ponty's 'Cosmic Messenger', The Motels, Susan Ashton, etc... Basically took it through the rounds: The pouncing piano stuff, female vocals -- I don't have anything with strings. At any rate, the Scott did good. It doesn't separate out the instruments the way the Apollos do, nor does it push the soundstage out as far. However, it has attributes I prefer over the Apollos, and all in all -- a very musical piece. One Scott, brought up to snuff by Craig, is less than a 1/4 of the money I have into the Apollos. One Scott, brought up to snuff by Craig, is $125 more than one pair of KR300BXLS'. I am still primarily a value driven individual, and these numbers are hard to ignore. I feel the dollar to performance ratio is tremendous.

My son prefers the sound of the Scott on the Heresies over the Apollos and RF7's. My wife says they sound so close to the same that for all intents and purposes it's not worth rendering an opinion on. I haven't talked to either one in three days:)

[mobile homeless]

Well, we all have:

1. Different listening experience

2. Different reference points for comparison

3. Varying ability in ascertaining subtle distinctions

4. Different conditions/tastes for playback

5. Different criteria to look for /varying importance

What we have to be careful of in this forum is the assessment of gear without taking in the multitude of factors. Putting a premium on the ability to reach loud levels with rock out capability is just one factor. I am not accusing you of this at all, however. But I just wanted to point this out in this forum as I believe with a majority of the comparisons going on at the moment, this seems the predominant means of assessing quality besides the less fatiguing nature, both certainly something to take into account, but also just a small part of the whole picture. Comparing at less volume with a perfectly setup system so as to hear the other capabiliteis takes awhile longer accomplish and ascertain findings.

Your wife finding very little distinction between the Apollos and RF-7 vs the Scott 299a and Heresy is another case in point. To most that dont do this often, differences and similarities seem less evident. I find the difference between SET and most vintage amps to be many, but that is not to say that there are not positives with both. But the differences are important. I would imagine that the Heresy/Scott combo has some SERIOUS differences from the Apollo/RF-7, probably a page worth if going through a variety of criteria.

As the majority of members here start to gain more experience listening to various amps and setups, including many different output tubes and topologies, distinctions are easier to make. The Scott 299a is your first vintage piece. The warmth and balance to the vintage presentation is very addictive. But there are a host of vintage designs and circuits that sound very different. Ditto extreme with the SET amps. It's very hard to draw conclusions here. The more you hear, the more you realize how many variables are at play. Also, the better your reference points.

Just some things to think about.

kh

[JCturboT]

Dean,

Glad to hear the Scott compared favorable with the other components that you've tried in your system over the last couple of months, especially the Apollos.

I am like you though,If something is 3-4 times the price then it better perform at that much higher a level.I know thats a tough thing to do but in all actuality,this is a hobby (an expensive one at times too) and with a morgage and a family to support I am constantly watching where the dollar goes.

Jeff

[JCturboT]

...On a side note

My wife is the same way,everytime I try something new or different in my system I ask her opinion and I get "sounds the same to me"

Kelly,

Please tell me I'm hearing something different at that is not in my head-Please!

Jeff

[Deang]

Good post Kelly.

I think most of take these things as "givens", although we don't always clarify the specifics when we're rendering an opinion. I think part of this comes from all of us here being such a tight nit group, and having a pretty good handle regarding the various tastes in music and general listening habits.

I do agree that certain types of music are better able to reveal the subtle differences in systems, and that others, like rock and heavier material in general (which is almost always amplified), by it's very nature -- masks these nuances. I think those who are hooked on Jazz and Classical have quite a challenge before them. Unamplified instruments, recorded in their own acoustic space, are certainly harder to reproduce accurately. I mean, does "accuracy" even apply all that much to a Gibson and Marshall Stack. To a point, but not on the same level as unamplified instruments. I want grip, grind, shimmer on the cymbals, snap on the snare, whack on the bass, vocals that are centered and "live" -- and get it all hanging out in front of me with a little warmth and some air. If a system can do that -- I'm estatic. I do listen to other things, and so expect females to sound natural, and not like they're spitting all over me from the stage, and I like my piano to have the percussive element remain intact.

Something can sound very "musical", and not be all that "accurate", and of course -- the inverse here is true as well.

I think ideally, we'd like to try to straddle the fence here -- and find a sound that delivers a sufficient amount of both. I feel very strongly that the Scott and Heresies meet this criteria (at least for me). I've been very taken with the sound, and am quite embarrassed over my past remarks regarding Heritage, and I repent in dust and ashes.

Some changes are in the wind over here.

I have been given serious thought to selling off the Apollos. They sound wonderful, they really do. If I didn't have so many other things I'd like to try -- I would just keep them. But I really believe, really think, based on what I am hearing -- that this vintage sound -- delivers 90% of what the Apollos give me. I love the extra ambiance and smoothness, but I don't notice it on everything I listen too, and sometimes I do wish they had more gas. Great amps, really -- but when a $500 push-pull has me glued to the basement to the point that I'm not turning the other system on anymore -- then something is seriously wrong (and it ain't the RF-7's!). Maybe I'm just enamored with this "new" sound right now -- and it will pass, as things like this usually do -- but damn, it's been a whole week.

I'm also in a bit of a quandry over here. I want Jeff's Cornwalls, and I'll need additional money to mod the crossovers. I also need a little bit of money to do this next set of DQ's that finally showed up. Lastly -- I will also have to pay Craig to work the Scott 299b. I could swing these things over the next couple of months, but I feel like why bother, when I can unload the Apollos and square everything now. Complicating the issue further is that the Aragon isn't selling, and I was going to use this money to pay Jeff.

So today I started thinking. I got two Scotts, the Apollos, and this Aragon that I really like the sound of. I don't like to admit it, because I'm supposed to hate solid state. It also dawned on me this morning that I really need the damn thing to test the DQ's as I mod the crossovers. I really can't test DQ's out with a 40 year old, 17 watt push pull. These DQ's showed in a condition much better than I expected, and with the exception of the woofers, ALL the drivers are intact this time. So, I began entertaining this thought of keeping the Aragon, selling the Apollos, and running both the RF7's and Cornwalls with the Scotts.

Of course I only have one Scott right now, so what do I use on the RF7's if I sell the Apollos -- until Craig gets done with the other Scott?

I lug the Aragon upstairs for a general ear cleaning session. Why not? I got all this crap -- mind as well have some fun with it.

As I was climbing the stairs, it dawned on me that I had not tried the Aragon with the AE-3 DJH yet. I then remembered that I had done it with the stock AE-3 I had here for a short time. I liked the combo, and thought it sounded very good as long as I threw some watts at the RF-7's. I didn't think it sounded very good compared to the SuperAmp at low to moderate levels. However, today, -- I just wanted to get blown out of my chair.

I'm not going to go overboard here. I'll just say that there is quite a difference between the stock and DJH versions of the AE-3. The combo delivers a smooth, warm (by solid state standards), and ballsy sound. Not bad, just different. It was actually a nice change. Just as before, I thought the Aragon 4004 MKII/AE-3 combo is a MUCH better sounding combo than the Bryston 3B-ST/SF Line 1 I tried. The AE-3 DJH makes this amp more than listenable, and to my surprise -- was fun.

It's always the same with me. If it's clean, relatively grain free, grinds, snaps, and whacks -- I can live with it.

[arfz28]

Deang

Maybe I'm just enamored with this "new" sound right now -- and it will pass, as things like this usually do -- but damn, it's been a whole week.

Deang, good news it wont last a week, it will last your whole life,LOL.I have to say you sure do go through some tube equipment,man are you lucky, my wife would hang me.I think quit a few people, hit the nail on the head, pricewise its hard not to go the vintage route because it is cheeper, and sounds so close to some of the more exspensive tube gear, when money really is an issue, like it is to me, Im happy as hell with the bargan the scott 299a gives me.

[mobile homeless]

To be honest, I dont see any reason to keeping the Apollos for several reasons although I do disagree with your final solution.

I just dont think the Apollos offer all the magic that SET offers.... and WONT, even with all the modifications or work on them. I have actually NEVER heard a high power SET amplifier get the magic of the low watt brothers. So in many ways, and I think I have said this in here a few times, I would opt for various vintage units AND low watt SET options with something like the Khorns or another ultra efficient speaker.

Indeed, if you look back almost a year ago, I was trying to talk you into the vintage option saying to "remember these words." Do you remember this? I just think that the vintage sound CANNOT duplicate the best of low watt SET magic, but it can and DOES better most all of the high watt options. And, like you if I HAD to, I could live with the vintage option very easily.

As for your solution, ever since I have known you we almost have a running joke that you end up doing what we discussed, except about three months or more later. I think this has gone without fail.

And once again, I find myself wondering why you are going this route. What do I see you doing with the ideal solution? I said it last month. There is almost NO reason to get TWO Scott 299 amplifiers, in my opinion. Yes, I have two EICO HF-81 but the second was bought as a backup and to perhaps use the parts to make my first amp. And my TWO EICOs cost less than HALF your ONE Scott 299. So why have two of this amplifier(A and B version) when there are SO many options out there?

IF I had your space and your resources at the moment, I would have gone for the full Klipschorns as my ultra efficient solution. And powering these Khorns, I would chose the best low watt SET I could get my hands on, because there is nothing like it. Nothing in vintage. Nothing in PP. And nothing in PP Triode. If given the room and option, I would find the absolute easiest to drive speaker along with lines of a Khorn, and enter SET nirvana full throttle. Having a 20w SET to play metal just accomplishes NEITHER goal well.

To be honest, I would probably use the RF-7 as my HT speaker where I think it would probably ofer an EXCELLENT force there and do music as well. I would make that my convertable system, running my Scott 299B, Eico HF-81, vintage KT-66, vintage EL-34, and vintage KT-88 amps from all sorts of makes. I would use the relatively CHEAP nature of vintage gear to get some great AMPS. I might have one or two integrateds, and the rest other output tube options besides the EL-84/7189 based. Try the Harmon Kardon Citation II. Try the EICO HF-35 monoblocks. Keep the Scott 299B and use at whim.

This is where you could develop a backbone of different types of systems that would really feature different sounds. And as the mainstay, I would have the low watt SET option for the ultimate in subtle, inner detail, with a "you are there" harmonic envelope that is second to none. Mark my words yet again, if you EVER actually got something like the Klipschorns with a GREAT 2A3 or 45 amp, you would know what I am speaking about. The 811 doesnt do it. The KR300B doenst do it. The 845 doesnt do it. Get down to the 3.5w and under with an excellent circuit and great iron, and you will know.

Loading up on vintage integrateds of one type makes no sense to me, especially for someone that has taken your path.

Will you do this? I doubt it. But rest assured, I think the Heresys are just a stop gap and a taste of what the Heritage line has to offer.

Take a look around. EVERY ONE that has gotten low watt SETs and Khorns doesnt post here that much anymore. Why? They are too busy listening to music and the search by and large, is over (for now). Frankly, I am glad you finally saw the vintage light. Now you just need to explore all the other vintage options and finally REALLY see what Single-ended amplification is all about. I would be hard forces to decide between the two. Luckily, you dont have to make that decision. There's a heap of other options out there waiting.

kh

[Deang]

Well now, It is true that you are usually correct, and I'm not going to deny this.

However:

I remember the email from you when I was taking a hard look at Scalas. You said, "Get the Cornwalls, they sound better than ANY of them." By "them", I assume you meant of all the speakers in Heritage line up. You also told me not to get the Heresies, because you were trying to "save my back and my ears". This, even after I reminded you I would be driving them in conjunction with 500 watts of SVS subwoofing.

You actually tried to warn me off of the Apollos initially, and I ended up liking them very much. Incidentlly, they are only putting out 9 watts for me because I have them on the 4 ohm taps. Also, if you go to the FAQ's at the Welborne site, Ron Welborne himself says the difference in the midrange between the Apollos, Laurels, and Moondogs -- is not a jaw dropping difference. I had read most of this stuff before making the purchase, and am glad I opted for more power over a miniscule amount of finesse -- finesse I might not even have noticed when one considers my musical tastes. BTW -- I did not get high current SET so I could do Metal. I got high current SET so I would have sufficient headroom for all of my music. Turkey:)

$800 for a set of Cornwalls is a good move for me right now. I'm sure I will have no trouble learning the crossover and implementing the appropriate mods. I don't have corners for K-horns, and even if I did -- they are out of reach for now. I'm sure I will eventually do this, but will have to build false corners for them. As far as 2a3 goes -- only with a set of K-horns would I be willing to try it. At any rate, timing is just bad for this right now.

Two Scotts: I'm still thinking on this. I initially posted I would sell the first one. I then changed my mind. I'm not 100% decided on this as of yet. One thing is true. A Scott does not sound the same on the Heresies as it does on the RF-7's. You give me a hard time, but the truth is -- you're as fixated and intriqued by the various signatures of amps and preamps as I am by speakers. The only difference between us here is that I have more back problems from dragging all this stuff up and down the stairs:) The Scott meets my needs, and meets my criteria for good sound. So -- what's wrong with having two? Ultimately, it's the speaker that carries the majority of the system signature -- and that's really where I like play. As I said though; still really undecided here.

What do you think? Maybe yank the Hovland coupling caps out and throw some copper foil Jensons into the Apollos before I give them up? I'm open to suggestions here -- but money is tight. Anything remotely interesting is going to require selling off the Scott, the Heresies, and the Aragon (which I really don't want to do). I'm comitted to the Cornwalls. I told Jeff I would buy them -- and I try very hard to keep my word.

I will think more on this.