Johnny dB Posted February 7, 2003 Share Posted February 7, 2003 There are 2 Scott 299s on ebay. Ones an A (I think)and the other a C. If you had the choice which would you prefer? Actually, I've already won the first one, but I'd like to get a second opinion on my selection. The second ends tonight. Here's the first: http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&category=3280&item=3004522869&rd=1 and the second: http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=3005550239&category=3280 sorry, you have to copy and paste, but I don't know how to put it in so you can just click it. Thanks! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hofy Posted February 7, 2003 Share Posted February 7, 2003 That is a nice clean 299a you have won. Telefunken tubes to boot! The 299c is similar but has a higher output and uses the hard to find 7591 output tubes. Be happy with your 299a, I know I am. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Johnny dB Posted February 7, 2003 Author Share Posted February 7, 2003 Thanks Hofy for my daily affirmation! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NOSValves Posted February 7, 2003 Share Posted February 7, 2003 Yea Hofy he did good didn't he !!! It will be extra icing on the cake if the 4 7189 ouput tubes are still good !! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deang Posted February 8, 2003 Share Posted February 8, 2003 Holding out for an Eico HF-81 would have netted you more transparency and midrange BLOOM. This post submitted using Mobile Homeless Proxy Power® software. All Rights Reserved. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rowooo Posted February 8, 2003 Share Posted February 8, 2003 LOL.........nice Deang Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Johnny dB Posted February 8, 2003 Author Share Posted February 8, 2003 It wasn't a matter of holding out. I watched a couple of them sell for less. I just can't get past the way they look. The Scott to me just looks better. I'll sacrifice some sound for aesthetics. DeanG you don't happen to live in Beavercreek do you? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deang Posted February 9, 2003 Share Posted February 9, 2003 Hmmm No. But I live in the greater Dayton area. Who are you? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Johnny dB Posted February 9, 2003 Author Share Posted February 9, 2003 Dean, I'm noone you'd know. I too live in Dayton. I spoke with a gentleman last year who had a pair of Fortes in the paper. He has a several pairs of Klipsch speakers in a huge listening room adjacent to his home. Thought it might've been you. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NOSValves Posted February 9, 2003 Share Posted February 9, 2003 I'll probably get blasted for this but. You aren't loosing a thing with the Scott your gaining. I have heard numorous rebuilt and completely stock HF-81's and listen to mine on my RF-3 II's almost daily !! It is a nice amp. I think the Scott 299A/B matches it in the low volume area and beats it hands down in the upper volume ranges. The Phono sections of the Scott is head and shoulders above the HF-81 in fact the entire preamp circuit is better. I know Kelly will roll over and die when he reads this but tuff !! I think I have plenty of expereince with both of these amps now having rebuilt or worked on 5- HF-81's , 2 -HF-12's and probably 25 299A/B's . When taking the entire package into account the Scott is just a better all around integrated amp. Of coarse I think they look better also. Of coarse this is my Opinion so take it as such ! Craig Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Audio Flynn Posted February 9, 2003 Share Posted February 9, 2003 Craig, In my reading the 222c and 222d are the higher watt versions similar in design to the 299A and 299B. Correct me if I am wrong of course. What is the limitation of the 222A and 222B other than less watts? The features look very similar. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NOSValves Posted February 9, 2003 Share Posted February 9, 2003 Flynn, Other than wattage not much difference at all. Plus you have the adbvantage of using even more readily available 6BQ5 tubes without burning them up. Craig Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deang Posted February 9, 2003 Share Posted February 9, 2003 The only good tube is one running over the limit. 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.