HF-81 vs. 222C, first impressions

[Tom Mobley]

OK, first warning, I do not have educated listening skills, just regular 49 year old ears that have been worn some by years of exposure to high noise levels. I currently have two (2) 222C's (don't ask) and one HF-81.

The latest 222C is courtesy of our member Pland, who described it recently in a thread titled something like "Uncrated a pristine Scott 222-C". He wasn't exaggerating. This Scott has might also be described as "all Telefunken, all the time" it's loaded with Tele's, everything but the rectifier which is a original Scott USA made. It also has a set of Jensen copper foil coupling caps, which have very low hours. The rest of it looks untouched.

The HF-81 is currently pretty well duded up also. It still has a little PS buzz, along with a set of NOS RCA 6BQ5's, NOS Sylvania EZ-81, NOS Mullard 12AU7, Tele smooth plate 12AX7 in the line stage and ribbed in the phono, Sprague Atom 40uf PS caps, new 40-40-20 can cap, 716P couplers. The balance pot is bypassed, has a new volume pot. Tone controls are currently active again until I figure out to bypass them properly.

Both of are driving a set of 77 Heresy's, the DIY LS's are in the garage being refinished.

Immediately apparent is that the the Scott has a much stronger bottom end, this thing really leaves the Eico behind here. I have a CD where a guy gives a double bass a real workout on a couple tracks, the difference here is not subtle at all, especially at high volumes. The Eico just runs out of gas. But Heresy's are not Khorns, Corns or LS's. The Eico will drive my Heresy's into the 105dB range no problem, the 222 goes into the 110-112 area. After about 105 the Eico starts "breaking up". Eico is nominally 14W/side, 222 is nominally 20W/side, so I guess this can be expected.

At more normal volumes the Eico is brighter, more forward than the Scott. I've been listening to the Eico quite a bit lately, have gotten used to it's sound. When I first hooked up the Scott I realized (about halfway through the first CD) that I was sitting there wanting to get up and adjust the tone controls, finally did, turned up the treble about a notch or so, sounded better to me. Whether this is actually better, or just more like the Eico, I don't know, this is what I mean about uneducated ears. I've seen some comments about Tele's being "dark", maybe this is it. My other 222C has a mishmash of tubes in it, all good on a tester, but no sets of anything, just run of the mill USA and British tubes. I hooked it up, it's brighter than the Tele-equipped one, strangely, also noticeably louder at the same volume knob setting. It has 6BQ5s rather than the the correct 7189s like in the pristine model, might have something to do with it.

highs: the wife has some classical CD that starts out with a bunch of piccolos and flutes, I can't tell any difference between the amps on the this passage.

Detail, both are good but I felt that was hearing little things in the music with the Scott that I hadn't noticed on the Eico. I thought it was me listening harder, but when I put the Eico back in those little things were really hard to hear.

Soundstage: my speaker placement options are really limited in my current room, so neither really creates a soundstage worth getting excited about. A new factor has crept into the requirements for my next house, though.

Pomp and Pipes: the Scott owns this all the way, the low freq energy is just better.

I'd guess it's the substantially larger trannies and available capacitance that carry the day here.

Overall, the Tele-Scott is the best amp I've ever heard, but I've never been near a SET deal or big-buck stuff. Uneducated ears and auditory memory being what they are, I wouldn't be surprised if somebody swapped out the amps while I wasn't looking I wouldn't notice it unless I played some bass-heavy stuff at high volumes. The Scott really shines here. Bigger balls, so to speak.

Obviously, just my opinion, other may differ and are welcome to. I still like the Eico just fine. I paid half as much for it for but spent a bundle on nice tubes and hours working on it. It was really rough to begin with, the Scott while not a museum piece due to minor wear to the numbers around the volume knob is really, really, nice as in flawless and always has been. The Eico looks to have been rode hard and put away wet all it's life.

Tom

[mobile homeless]

Tom, thanks for the comparison notes.

I had the exact opposite reaction to the HF-81 vs Scott 222c. The 222c has the game on the watts per say, but I found all the opposite conclusions in the important areas between the two besides ultimate output. I have to wonder if your 81 is up to snuff totally. I actually thought the bass in the 81 had better tone and was more realistic.

To me, the 81 also won out on soundstaging and quickness as well as detail. The 81 has an extremely open midband that mimics SET. I now wonder if system setup really needs to be optimized to hear these type of differences. Speaker placement/setup is really important.

Perhaps Wolfram will post his views on this here as he just did the same comparison. Both his EICO and Scott were gone over by his tech and brought to full spec.

kh

ps- Tom, did you carry out the comparison with the treble turned up on the Scott?

[dubai2000]

Having read Toms post this morning, I decided to compare those two amps again.

My 222C has Russian EL84s, the ECC 83 are new JJs, and as a rectifier I used a NOS Valvo.

The HF-81 has NOS GE EL84s, the rest are all Mullards (whereby one EZ81 is labelled Amperex-made in GB, so that might be a Mullard too (?)).

Internally the Scott has been done by Craig (so he might add which parts he used), the Eico contains some Wima and Siemens parts inside (details escape my non-tech brain).

But what about sound? I decided to restrict my comparison to two CDs (both recorded by ECM which provides very clean recordings).

1) Jan Garbarek: All these born with wings (especially the first two tracks)

2) Paul Bley: Not two, not one (also basically the first two tracks)

Findings: The Garbarek starts with some sound of leaves being crushed, then some kind of string instrument (strings are hit, not played with a bow) enters, later the saxophone.

With the Scott you get all those sounds, but the weird halo added to the sound (I guess some artificial reverberation) is much clearer with the Eico.

The second piece has some sound which seem to imitate birdcalls to which the sax (sometimes sounding like he is playing two overdubbing?) is added later. Again the Scott plays this passage quite nicely, but with the Eico its simply cleaner.

On the second CD you get some strange sounding piano, shimmering cymbals and some really nice acoustic bass. Again the Scott is good, but with the Eico there is simply more of everything: timbre, space around each instrument and a deeper bass.

Conclusion: I am glad that I have discovered both vintage amps the Scott is certainly a good performer which will leave a lot of modern gear behind. When looking for an adjective Id call it seductive. The Eico on the other hand is really something special. It strikes me as very clean and open. To my ears its the more neutral of the two and at the moment my personal yardstick.

Postscript: At the weekend a friend of mine came over with his Dynaco ST-70 (plus Dynaco preamp). Both are in pristine condition with first rate NOS tubes. We listened to the same CDs (and some vinyl) and again I found the Eico more to my taste. I have to add that he didnt agree, but as his combo was playing a few rows more forward, I think it is easy to believe that such a combo is the better (i.e. revealing more detail) one. The most marked difference to me was the halo at first Garbarek track. With the Dynacos it was bigger/larger, almost overpowering the music. With the Eico at was less pronounced, letting you concentrate more on the sounds. Which is correct? I dont know. An interesting experiment was adding the C29 to the ST-70. Suddenly the sound was much more open than with the Dynaco preamp (using Telefunken tubes) and there was clearly more (lower, more powerful bass). The only snag: I found the sound too tiring, too steely. If only one could get this kind of transparency without ss side effects!!!

Wolfram

[Pland]

Hi Kelly,

Several observations about Tom's new 222c:

1.I wish I hadn't sold it.

2.It's the best sounding Scott amp I've heard to date.I've always suspected that part of the differences between a Scott and the 81 are subtle voicing issues,mainly less treble presentation in the Scott.One click up(treble) on this amp makes it sound so close to the 81,it's eerie.The caps may also be contributing to the sense of space(air) this amp is generating,as they're obviously way more transparent than the stock ones .Good call on the Jensens,but boy are they a tight fit.Craig and I decided that a 299 is probably too congested to use them.

The other issue is the tube compliment.You and I can compare Mullard/Tele subtleties,but a full jacked up compliment of either will smoke a set of modern Commie tubes in a heartbeat.That coupled with the condition of this amp indicates that it's a 10/10 example of the type.I can promise you that you'd be waaaay impressed.

You're spot on about system synergy at this level.Impedence differences with interconnects and speaker wire could change the sound way more than the intrinsic sonic differences between the amps.Either amp is so good that you'd soon forget the equipment and start loving the music.

Best,

Pat

[T2K]

WOW! Great reviews, all of which appeared to lack a sense of favoritism! Enjoyed the read.

Keith

[Tom Mobley]

Here's a reply I wrote last night but went to bed before posting:

****************************************************

Kelly,

Yeah, I ended up leaving it there. Funny deal, the "other" Scott, the one with the mish-mash of tubes sounds more like the Eico than it does the good Scott.

I'd be the first to admit that my systems are not optimized much, especially the room stuff. I'm going to look around for a good CD player, but cash (ducats) are tight now and I don't want to give up anything I've got. It may have to wait some.

After I get another coat of finish on the LS cabinets I'm going to build some interconnects, I've got miles of Cat5 and I see a spool of that magnet wire at the local electronics store.

Aside, I'll be at AES in Tempe tomorrow, I'll pick up a chassis for the Super HF-81 project, I think this thing is going to look sort of like an HF-86. The 86 uses the same trannies as the 81, is really very similar. Eico used the 7247 tube to simplify this circuit, it's half 12AU7, half 12AX7, solves the problem of what to do with the extra half of the 12AU7 left over after dumpimg the tone controls. I'm still working detail on this deal, I really don't want to change the basic circuit that much. I haven't yet taken time to run down the hum issue created by bypassing the first half of the 12AU7, I may just need to tie down the unused section of the AU to ground via a resistor or RC ckt. If that works the HF-86 type deal is out.

Tom

*******************************************************

ALso, as far as my comparo, see the caveats and disclaimers I posted re: my ears and listening skills. One thing I can tell for sure though, this deal is really enjoyable to listen to now. I just went out and bought a dozen CD's.

Tom

[NOSValves]

Wolfram,

If I was you I would give the Scott some time to break in. Those vintage russian caps are brand new and I find they take many hours of use to come in to there own. Then give it another comparision. But anyway you look at it there is no such thing as a Bias review different people like different sounding amps. I persoanlly would choose a Scot over a HF-81 any day hence why a HF-81 sits unused. But again that is my taste in the sound of the amps.

Craig

[Deang]

Eicos are ugly, and so violate the commandment: Thou shalt not buy ugly equipment.

[mobile homeless]

Go easy on the hairspray, Jim! It's not only taste in the amps, it's really a whole different set of listening criteria from where I sit. Different connotations, use, environment, system, and what to look for not to mention the kind of listening.

What's interesting is there is no particular right or wrong here, especially when you figure in the use criteria.

On the other hand, there are certain aspects that I have found need careful scrutiny to distinguish. And in some situations and setups, all of these differences can be masked. I think uncovering the differences in components is a constant learning experience. The first thing that is readily available is which seems to go louder and deeper. Unfortunately, these criteria can play tricks on your and wipe some of the less apparent distinctions from revealing themselves almost like meat and potatoes can wipe the subtle tastes of more delicate seasonings.

A lot of what I might be talking about are these seasonings and flavors that aren't apparent.

Tastes and perceptions do change with more experience, however. I used to like Adcom amplifiers a lot in the mid 80s. Later, I couldn't bear to listen to them. So things do change. Some like subwoofers and surround sound. I cant stand that for music but dig it for home theatre.

At least we have less of a separation with these two makes although there are distinctive differences to me.

I currently have a nice 299a Mk II from Pat sitting at ole Craig's garage waiting for some help. Look forward to hearing it.

kh

[mobile homeless]

Tom, missed your reply. Yeah, that is the win-win here. What we are all talking about is some damn good gear that can be far more pleasing than a host of more expensive options. I do believe the 86 uses almost the exact same outputs. I now think these outs are also made by the Chicago Standard company, the same that made the bigger potted options for the larger amps like the HF-20, HF-22, HF-35 etc. I find it really curious that in the years I have not found ONE person to ever REALLY identify who makes these outputs for EICO. Usually you see something somewhere, but the EICO remains a mystery. I'd be interested in seeing some pics of what you come up with.

As for the appearance, when the 81 is cleaned up, it has an old world charm that I find appealing. but it take a bit of work to get it looking like that.

Craig, you never wrote how Pat's 299 looked!

kh

[NOSValves]

Hmmmmmmmm

Tastes and perceptions do change with more experience, however. I used to like Adcom amplifiers a lot in the mid 80s. Later, I couldn't bear to listen to them. So things do change. Some like subwoofers and surround sound. I cant stand that for music but dig it for home theatre.

At least we have less of a separation with these two makes although there are distinctive differences to me.

Would this be about the time you started listening to the likes of GUV'NER :)

Sorry kelly I just couldn't resist LOL !!

[NOSValves]

Kelly,

I've been out of town and haven't had time to look it over closely yet. Cosmetically its in good shape. Electrically its a mess from Pats buddy trying to find the problem by hit and miss approach rather than with a scope. Nothing I'm sure that can't be fixed though. Tube wise all it needs is a set of 12AX7's which I bet you already have some spares.

Craig

[dubai2000]

Craig,

I'll bear those caps in mind -thanks for the info. Anyway, I don't plan giving up on the Scott. It's just a different flavour - and I don't like to drink the same red wine every time I open a bottle....

Wolfram

BTW: how long do you think those caps will need - I used the amp for about a week before trying the Eico again -would it still need more time?

[mobile homeless]

Well, to be fair, both those amps have new coupling caps with the WIMA and Russian oils coming in respectively. But I find that caps can need a few hundred hours to open up. Same with resistors to a lessor extent. Many on here disagree with full force. Fine, but just what I have found. I also note that almost ALL tube amps sound a hell of a lot better after being on for at least an hour. Critical listening before that is just not hearing what it can do.

On another note, my Moondogs have now been on for seven weeks without a turn off cycle.

kh

[mobile homeless]

Craig, I know this seems hard to believe, but in a strange way, you can only like bands like Guv'ner, Guided by Voices, Helium, Butterglory etc after going through the whole older rock gamut and coming out the other side. It's a bit like someone listening to Charlie Parker for the first time and thinking it sounds like raw, discordant noise, with no melody (except the criteria is completely different - not exactly a fair comparison per say either). Listening to more discordant and challenging music takes awhile and you must drop all preconceived notions and also want to manipulated musically, pushing and pulling like tough drama or ART (and not entertainment just to make you forget your troubles). Some of Hendrix at top volume used to get my Dad asking me WHY. To this day, he is one of the ONLY (and I mean ONLY literally) rock guitarists to ever REALLY play the guitar as if it was connected to every bit of his being; it's all relative.

Music to me has to excite the imagination and drive the soul. It has to have creative life and not be by the numbers. In the same way I cant look at landscape artwork, I have serious trouble with mainstream music on the whole. But disliking all popular music is just as wrong as that is not the best point of judgement either. But there is just some things I cant bear to listen to as it sounds like a sonic coloring book and bad sugary melodrama ....as in Jimmy Buffett, a host of the Grateful Dead, The Eagles, Bob Seger, STING over the last 10 years, The Backstreet Boys, Britney Spears, any religious rock, the average white man blues band you see on every corner, Kenny G, Watered down modern jazz, Eric Clapton afer he kicked the Heroin habit, Journey, bad Peter Frampton, modern Aerosmith, Jimmy Page solo, etc etc.

Yeah, I know I am stepping on some toes here, but hell, it's New YEars Eve! What fun would it be without an online brawl! heh.....

kh

[NOSValves]

Kelly,

Your hour warm up is exactly what I recommend to everyone I rebuild a amp for especially for there first listen although I think few do this for me. The excitement of a new toy to play with gets the best of them

Wolfram,

A week could mean 10 hours of on time or 60 ! So who knows ! I myself at moderate levels find little if any difference between my 299B and the HF-81 sound wise. So between the looks and the 299B extra Humph and clarity in the higher DB region make it a easy choice for me.

Craig

[mobile homeless]

Craig, can you shoot a few clear shots of the 299 and fire it my way? Really appreciate it. Thanks!

kh

[NOSValves]

Kelly,

7 photos are on there way !!

[dubai2000]

This thread has the advantage of going over one's gear again with greater attention. I noticed before that with the Eico polarity is an issue, if wrongly plugged in, one can feel some current on the chassis. With the Scott I didn't notice that. Just out of curiosity I turned the plug -and a sonic difference was/is noticeable. The gain is transparancy and three-dimensionality. What remains different is the tonal balance of both amps. The Scott (being more midrange oriented) sounding warmer, fuller. So some gain here - and that's the fun of it - some day pasta, some day a rice dish.

Wolfram

BTW: Happy New Year to all - the last twelve month have been quite an amp discovery year - let's see where this will lead to in 2003 (LOL)

But the Eico is still more transparent.

[NOSValves]

Wolfram,

I have a idea for you. Pull the GE EL84's and Mullard 12AX7's out of the EICO and put them in the Scott. Take the same tubes out of the Scott and put them in the EICO. Now compare the 2 amps just curious what you will find. This I bet it will net different results. The Scott has all newer production tubes and the HF-81 has all NOS tubes this may not be a fair comparison as they sit now.Also wish you had some telefunkens to put in the Scott throughout seems like you being in germany would be able to find some somewhere expecially a set of Telefunken 6U8s would help the Scott out big time. The Scott amps were voiced with Telefunkens throughout when designed.

Craig