jhawk92 Posted May 20, 2003 Share Posted May 20, 2003 Ok. Now that I have my Klipschorns, I want to try out tubes. I have been doing a bunch of research lately as well as lots of emails back and forth with other forum members and had just about decided to get a Scott 299A or B. But over the weekend, I was doing some more research and found lots of interest/praise for Fisher receivers, namely the 500C/800C or 400. I know the Scott is an integrated amp, whereas the Fisher is a receiver, and the Scott is 7189-based vs. 7591 for the Fisher. Lots of people here on the forum have various Scott models, but I don't hear about Fisher much. My research has told me that Fisher was a higher price point that Scott, so I would assume that the build quality could be better on the Fisher. So, if anyone has done any comparisons between the two, or has experience with only one of them, I'd love to hear your opinions. I have not decided on how I will get into tubes, but want it to be relatively easy and not too hard on the wallet. My only desire is to keep the sweet sound of my Klipschorns intact. I don't think you could go wrong with either one, but if one stands above the other, then I would like to know. Thanks for any feedback. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dougdrake Posted May 20, 2003 Share Posted May 20, 2003 Rob - Cool! Fisher also made integrated amps, as you probably know. I have one. A 1959 X-101 ST. About 25wpc. Uses 4 6BQ5/EL84 on the output, tube rectification, 12AX7 pre-amp tubes. My first and only tube amp and I like it alot. I've told you about all I know about it, though (LOL)! Craig (NOS valves) has the schematics on it. Doug Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NOSValves Posted May 20, 2003 Share Posted May 20, 2003 Fisher 400 , 500 and 800 were higher priced then a 299 but they were Receivers ! The Fisher integrated amps of comparable design were neck and neck price for price with Scott. They were direct competitors both striving after the same customers in the upper Mid Fi range. Both made great products ! Scott also made receivers just like Fisher many models available and will sound just as good as any Fisher. The reason you don't hear much about receivers here is most of us don't want the headaches and cost involved in rebuilding them ! They are jammed full of components whether were talking Fisher or Scott. All of these extra devices to run the FM/AM section are run off the same Power supply. The more you stuff into a component the more trade offs are made. Look at it like this most people believe that the best combo is preamp with a pair of mono blocks for the best and purest sound with no channel cross talk and each amp has a dedicated Power supply. Then you have preamp and stereo amp the channels share a common Power supply and chassis. Next step is integrated amp and finally a receiver ! Pretty low on the chain. Now lets look at your end cost ! You will no longer be able to send your new purchase to me and almost all the other techs I know of ! it takes specialized gear and knowledge to align and tune a FM section so I do not work on Receivers. This does take a specialist ! The best Fisher Tech I know is Paul from Bizzy Bee in Chicago Area. Great guy but you will soon have $800 to $1000 tied up in your new Fisher or Scott ! Scott makes 7591 based amps also ! In fact almost all of there Receivers use 7591 tubes. Also the 299C/D and LK-72A/B use 7591 tubes. Craig Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eq_shadimar Posted May 20, 2003 Share Posted May 20, 2003 I have a Fisher 500B and I love it for sure!! I have never heard a Scott before so I can't compare the two. The Fisher sounds great on my Cornwalls and people who come over seem to really enjoy themselves. I think that NOS is right bottom line is that they are both great products. One reason that the Fishers tend to go for more is the cabinet and looks. No offense but I think that this looks better than any Scott I have seen. Please don't get upset I am just saying that this could be why they go for more money. Plus there is that cool tuning eye!!! There are a bunch of Fisher owners here but we like keeping quite about all the goodness so the price doesn't get driven up Laters, Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jhawk92 Posted May 20, 2003 Author Share Posted May 20, 2003 Craig- You have certainly made some good points here, and ones I appreciate hearing. As a tube newbie, I am trying to get my brain wrapped around as much as possible to make an educated decision. Probably the best point you made is in the cost factor. Since I just laid out money for the K-horns, I don't know that I am ready to plunk down another $800-1000 for tube amplification. By starting out at a lower price point, I can get a taste of tubes and then see if the upgrade bug gets me. I have checked out Paul's website and it looks like he does some fine work, but it is expensive, even for a refurb on a 500C/800C. Maybe I look at something like that as a future purchase. I am not hung up on the 7591 tubes, I was just making the point that the 299A/B are 7189-based rather than the 299C/D which have the 7591s and the Fisher is also uses the 7591. In our earlier conversations, you said the 299A/B would be a bit better a match for me since I am starting out in tubes and that even the 20WPC of the 299A MkII would hold up quite well to rock music through the K-horns, making the extra power in the 299C/D unnecessary. You had mentioned that the 7591s are harder to find and more expensive, so that is something I am keeping in mind. Realistically, I don't listen to that much radio, so having a built-in tuner is really a minor thing, and certainly I could be on the lookout for a Scott 350 if I ever needed one. One thing I am a bit interested in is how hot Scotts run vs. Fisher. I have read that the Fishers run much cooler than Scott, but I see lots of Scotts with the cabinets, so I can't think they run so hot as to be dangerous to a wood cabinet. EQ- That is a pretty sharp looking unit, one that would certainly look nice in a 2-ch system. It's good to hear that there are a few Fisher owners lurking about here, though I can understand wanting to keep the prices down. Maybe I'll think that in a couple years! But I think you are probably correct that either unit will serve quite well for what I want it to do. It all comes down to $$$. Any more input out there?? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NOSValves Posted May 21, 2003 Share Posted May 21, 2003 Fishers run cooler than Scott ? I believe your hearing a bunch a bunk ! What are these guys doing putting thermo meters on them side by side and measuring ? All tube amps run hot !! This is normal and doesn't hurt a thing with or without a case. Fisher makes some nice integrated amp also I like there earlier model with tube rectification rather then SS . I like the Scott integrated look way better then anything fisher ever put out I also think any amp Scott, Fisher or whatever with a tuner looks like a radio !! Craig Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Triode Pete Posted May 21, 2003 Share Posted May 21, 2003 I have a Fisher 500C with a pair of Heresy's at my folk's house. Beautiful sound -- you get a nice bass kick with the push-pull 7591A's. The output transformers used are very high quality. The FM tuner section is highly regarded, especially since it's in a receiver. I would rate the sound of the 500C amplifier section just as good or maybe better than the McIntosh 225, IMHO, the sweetest sounding Mac ever made. If you need a phenomenal tech/engineer with fair & reasonable prices, I could hook you up with my friend John who built most of my equipment (& serviced my stuff that was commercially made). Have fun & enjoy, Pete Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gregorius Posted May 21, 2003 Share Posted May 21, 2003 ---------------- On 5/20/2003 3:15:59 PM NOSValves wrote: "All of these extra devices to run the FM/AM section are run off the same Power supply. The more you stuff into a component the more trade offs are made." Yes but the power and output transformers are much larger and the circuit is designed to handle it. The Fisher 800C tuner is better than my Sherwood S-2200 AM/FM tube stereo tuner in reception and sound quality. "Look at it like this most people believe that the best combo is preamp with a pair of mono blocks for the best and purest sound with no channel cross talk and each amp has a dedicated Power supply. Then you have preamp and stereo amp the channels share a common Power supply and chassis. Next step is integrated amp and finally a receiver ! Pretty low on the chain." All things considered I believe that the sound of the component is soley dependant on the circuit design and implementation "Now lets look at your end cost ! You will no longer be able to send your new purchase to me and almost all the other techs I know of ! it takes specialized gear and knowledge to align and tune a FM section so I do not work on Receivers. This does take a specialist ! The best Fisher Tech I know is Paul from Bizzy Bee in Chicago Area. Great guy but you will soon have $800 to $1000 tied up in your new Fisher or Scott !" I paid $200 for my Fisher 800C and put another $50 in caps and resistors, did the cosmetics myself. As far as tuner alignment my Fisher has probably not had the the tuner aligned in it's life! 101.3 FM comes in at 101.5, after 40 years i'd say that was pretty good. ---------------- Regards, Greg Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gregorius Posted May 21, 2003 Share Posted May 21, 2003 ---------------- On 5/21/2003 6:20:30 AM NOSValves wrote: "Fishers run cooler than Scott ? I believe your hearing a bunch a bunk ! What are these guys doing putting thermo meters on them side by side and measuring ? All tube amps run hot !! This is normal and doesn't hurt a thing with or without a case." My Fisher can run for hours and the output transformers are cool enough that you can hold your hand on them indefinitely, the power transformer can be touched for 5-10 seconds before you have to remove your hand, and that is in an case. You cannot do that with a Scott 299B. "Fisher makes some nice integrated amp also I like there earlier model with tube rectification rather then SS." My Fisher has a more tube-like sound, and better bass than my Scott, and it is SS rectified. The Scott is smooth and accurate, much like a good SS, but the Fisher is warmer, less fatigueing, dead quiet when there is no source, and has more gain in the phono stage than the Scott. If there is any crosstalk etc, because of everything being integrated, it is not apparent on my Khorns. "I like the Scott integrated look way better then anything fisher ever put out I also think any amp Scott, Fisher or whatever with a tuner looks like a radio !!" Cosmetics are a personal preference, much like audio and music. ---------------- Regards, Greg Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ssh Posted May 21, 2003 Share Posted May 21, 2003 jhawk92, Whether or not one Fisher is as pleasing as another Scott,I cannot say.I do,however,recommend the combination of Khorns and the Scott 299A.If you wanted to change amplification in the future,the Scott should be easy to sell(I bought mine from Craig within two hours of his posting it on this Forum.)In the meantime,you would enjoy a very satisfying sound for what I think is a nominal cost.Talk to Craig. SSH Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mike82 Posted May 21, 2003 Share Posted May 21, 2003 I have a Fisher 400 in my second system. It was my dad's old receiver he used along with Wharfdale W60 and a Garrard t-table. I had it refurbished at a local shop in town. The owner is a real tube lover- even makes/sell his own pre-amps. The 400 is very good-- about the only flaw compared to my main rig is a lack of resolution in the upper frequencies. Craig's right though, there'a huge friggin amount of parts under the chassis. I can't imagine trying to assemble one! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vacs2000 Posted May 22, 2003 Share Posted May 22, 2003 Hi a year ago I did some extensive listing tests (and as it is the case with all these tests pretty personal results) with the following amps ( believe it or not ) Scott : 299A, 299B, 299C, 296 Fisher : 400C, 500C, 800 B,C, 100 monoblock, X-100, X-101, X-100-B Dyna : Stereo 70, Mark IV Sherwood : S-5000 (or similar) HK Citation II The speakers were a pair of each ( Bozaks, Mission, Klipsch ). Generally speaker nothing can beat a power amp against any reciever. From all the Fisher receivers the best sound (to our ears I insist) were the simpler one, 800B (1st incarnation), 400C. For power/intergrated amp the Fisher monoblocks 100 and Dyna ST-70 were clearly winners, while the 296 from Scott was laso a very nice amp. The HK Citation II is amazing but way more expensive than the lot. We separete the hearings regarding the power output of the amps since it plays a role also. The Scott 299A or B (1rev) are indeed very nice amps. These are the lower power output Scotts ( the 299B, 2nd rev and higher goes beyond 20W/ch and donnot sound so sweet). So with my Cornwalls I stick to my Fisher 400-CX pre and pair of 100 monoblocks since to my opinion nothing can bit power output. Otherwise I keep in a Scott 299 and a Fisher 800 B( with serial <10000) as backup. cheers george Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jhawk92 Posted May 22, 2003 Author Share Posted May 22, 2003 Pete- Thanks for the info on the 500C. I think I'd probably go that route for the first entry into the Fisher line, unless an 800C came up for a good price. BTW, you've got mail. SSH- Glad you are happy with your Scott/Khorn combo. Yeah, Craig and I have been back and forth with emails for a while, so he may be sick of my questions, but he is a great resource. And grabbing an eBay deal with final work by Craig won't break the bank, which is nice. George- Wow, bet that was a marathon listening session. But I figure you learned quite a bit running through all the different variations. Certainly good information for future use. Craig- As I said above, I do appreciate all the emails we have exchanged. I opened this thread to learn more about Fisher, so I hope that doesn't rub you the wrong way. I just want to learn as much as I can so I can make an informed decision about a first tube experience. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TBrennan Posted May 22, 2003 Share Posted May 22, 2003 Fisher stuff was, and still is, better than Scott. Best way to use Fisher is to use basic amps which have input level controls, then you can plug your CD player or a phono preamp stage directly into the amp for a very simple setup with less circuitry between the source and the amplification; use the input level controls to set the volume. I've done this with several Fisher power amps like SA-100s and 80-AZs. The SA-100 is one sweet sounding amp and very good for driving horn speakers. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NOSValves Posted May 22, 2003 Share Posted May 22, 2003 jhawk92, Heck no it doesn't rub me wrong at all. I think Fisher makes some great gear. I personally would never own a Receiver from Scott or Fisher I just don't like Receivers at all. I like Scott integrated amps better than Fisher but that is just my personal preference. I have 2 Fisher integrated amps and a 400 in my shop for rebuilds and repairs now. If you decide to get a Fisher receiver all I can say is send it to someone that can do it justice and the only person I can vouch for is Bizzy Bee in Chicago. Craig Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fini Posted May 22, 2003 Share Posted May 22, 2003 Mike Zuccarro in San Diego is getting my 500c, as soon as I can get off my rear and send it. He's supposed to be great at tuner allignment, and specializes in Marantz gear. fini Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NOSValves Posted May 22, 2003 Share Posted May 22, 2003 Fini, I knew there was someone out the west cost doing the FM sections !! 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.