Guy Landau Posted August 12, 2003 Share Posted August 12, 2003 Hi every one, Just wandering where all the Eico hf-81 fans disappeared? Eicos are among the best sounding integrated amps out there. Any toughts? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mobile homeless Posted August 12, 2003 Share Posted August 12, 2003 I was just starting to be amused at the average sale price on ebay, now hovering at a sane level after the ranting about them had subsided. Seems they are a GREAT deal again, though dont tell anyone. Most of the guys with first love EICO HF-81 et al have moved on to Single Ended Triode solutions, after the 14w showed what could be done with so little. Jeff and I still laugh about what an amazing beast the little EICO is, both having them as their secondary option(it's actually my amp of choice at times). Ole Jeffus got a few of his Quebec freaks to buy them and had to start a little mod business on the side, much to his chagrin. I think he has two to fix in his back room, including his own after fiddling with it, although the new 5'10 female next door that likes to hang about the window in the nude has encouraged more use of the Mr. Fix-it side... It's nice that the ole amp is secondary now, as the Scott takes front and center as the vintage of choice. I still have a line of loons wanting to buy my second unit which should be heading out the door for various reasons. I listen to my HF-81 every day, STILL. I just threw some of Dave Mallet's CDs on it to review and was once more amazed at just how great this little amp is, no matter what is driving it, horns or not in partnership. It is one of the all time classics, just now a bit less on the radar. kh Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guy Landau Posted August 12, 2003 Author Share Posted August 12, 2003 I really think that they are great amps and have noticed the priced drop as well (as opposed to the much inferior Scotts). The prices are quite sane now and I really recommend anyone that's in the market for a new or first tube amp to try and find one. I still remember how it sounded with my Khorns and the JBL L300's and it makes me . Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris Robinson Posted August 12, 2003 Share Posted August 12, 2003 I think the "recession" of the Eico on this 2-channel is due only to the fact that the amp bar is being raised so high ... I loved my Eico and sold it only because I couldn't see how it could wiggle its way into the queue ahead of the Horus'. It needed a happy home and found one, I believe. For the next few years, I'm set, but should I need a good 2-ch office system, I'll know where to go! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kjohnsonhp Posted August 12, 2003 Share Posted August 12, 2003 I was asking that question about a month ago after noting a return to sanity in price. See this link for some Scott vs EICO comparisons http://forums.klipsch.com/idealbb/view.asp?topicID=35524&forumID=68&catID=19&search=1&searchstring=&sessionID={D62D326C-500A-4A5F-AE11-0A182433DF63} Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NOSValves Posted August 12, 2003 Share Posted August 12, 2003 I really think that they are great amps and have noticed the priced drop as well (as opposed to the much inferior Scotts). I sure hope your joking !! I have a few customers now with both Scott 299's and HF-81 not to mention that I have had numerous HF-81 through here. Not one of them prefer the HF-81 to the Scott 299 including me. I'm not going to say that HF-81 are horrible but they can not hold a candle to a Scott in anyway shape or form if the Scott is working up to snuff. Which in fact I bet you have never heard !! The Scott amplifier are not the simple little circuit of the HF-81 and require more care and precision to work properly. Not long ago we had a member sell a Scott he had to another member by coincidence on eBay he stated he didn't think it sounded all that good after the fact. When I received it the heater and bias voltage was 40% under spec the main filter can was completely dead and not allowing the amp to make any bottom end ...unfiltered rectified B+ is a ugly thing going to the center tap of the OT transformers oh and do add insult to injury some of the tubes were near dead. This person based his opinion on a amp that was in horible working order. This just goes to show you that these 40 year old amps need work and should not be run in there factory condition and this includes McIntosh 40 your old coupling caps sound like hell also !! Will they work........YES.......Will they work up to there potential ABSOLUTELY NOT. Even the HF-81 in the best shape improves by leaps and bounds when rebuilt and freshened up. Do they have that SET quality in a way yes..... Is SET the end all ..... no its not to most people. Craig Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guy Landau Posted August 12, 2003 Author Share Posted August 12, 2003 ---------------- On 8/12/2003 9:52:16 PM NOSValves wrote: I really think that they are great amps and have noticed the priced drop as well (as opposed to the much inferior Scotts). I sure hope your joking !! I have a few customers now with both Scott 299's and HF-81 not to mention that I have had numerous HF-81 through here. Not one of them prefer the HF-81 to the Scott 299 including me. I'm not going to say that HF-81 are horrible but they can not hold a candle to a Scott in anyway shape or form if the Scott is working up to snuff. Which in fact I bet you have never heard !! ---------------- Owned them both and to me the Eico sounds much better. Put your bet elswhere, bet your clients are probably deaf. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deang Posted August 12, 2003 Share Posted August 12, 2003 Pretty funny. Kelly comes back for a visit, and Babb shows up for the first time in an eon. Now we have this Eico thread, and there hasn't been a peep about the things since Kelly took a breather from this place (except for the 'Eico HF-81 for Sale' threads). Just an observation. Chris is right, most everyone has moved on, and as Kelly points out -- most to low powered SET. Of course this makes sense, as everyone who had the Eicos, then moving to SET, did so because of Kelly's recommendations. This is not a bad thing -- it's just how it went. The best thing about the Eico is that it has 14 watts! Craig and myself, tackling the concept of 'low power and pure sound' from different angles -- came to the same conclusion: It plain just doesn't make any sense. When Craig had the use of Tom's Paramours, they were metered almost constantly. Craig noted that the meter movement was much like an under-inflated bouncing ball as it tracked the wattage. With the MK III's, the meter was jumping all over the place. The killer here is realizing that an analogue watt meter doesn't even begin to accurately translate true dynamic peaks -- which happen in ms. While I had the Quicksilvers in the system I for the most part always used Leo's resistor tweak on them. I started with the 8 ohm resistor in parallel with the 4 ohm taps, moved to a 10 ohm, and then finally the 15 ohm on DJK's recommendation. All of these resistors were of the Mills 12 watt variety. With the RF-7's kicking out peaks of 100db -- the resistors would get so hot you did not want to touch them -- could not touch them. It would take less than a minute for them to heat up. I had a pair of 12 ohm, 5 watt resistors left over from the one of the DQ rebuilds, and put those in. 90db was it, and I was sure they were going to completely melt down from the heat. Believe you me -- I thought quite a bit about this 3.5 watt thing while all this was going on. I have problems with the "1 watt = xxxdb" thing. Carpet, curtains, couches, hallways, etc. -- cut heavily into this formula. Then there is another 3db of loss associated with every additional 3 feet away from the baffle. I would be AMAZED if a Klipschorn could generate even 90db, 12 feet away in an average room, with 1 watt. Then there is still the issue of unbridled dynamics. Since dynamic peaks are typically on the order of 10 to 20x higher -- what is left to deal with that? 95 to 100db sounds extremely good in my listening room. It simply does not seem that loud. There is absolutely no sense of strain, and nothing even remotely resembling distortion. My ears are nowhere near uncomfortable, and I'm loving every minute of it. Now, grab your SPL meter, put on something besides elevator music, turn on your SET amps and Klipschorns and take them to 100db and tell me -- are you comfortable, and are you loving every minute of it? Bring on the Horus' -- I'll eat crow if I have too. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jazman Posted August 12, 2003 Share Posted August 12, 2003 Welcome back Mobile Homeless, Some things never change. Craig, I'll bet YOU still have not heard a great SET amp for any length of time. But then again, it probably wouldn't matter. All rectifiers are the same and sound the same, ..yeah, ..., right! As PWK said, BS! Some people like Pepsi, some prefer Coke. Scotts don't rule the PP world, and there are many who prefer the HF81 to Scott anything. Learn to live with it. Klipsch out. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deang Posted August 12, 2003 Share Posted August 12, 2003 "Owned them both and to me the Eico sounds much better. Put your bet elswhere, bet your clients are probably deaf." I'm sorry Guy, and no offense intended -- but as of late you have begun to resemble a troll. You know Scott amps rule on this forum (as they do elsewhere), and yet you start this silly "Eico Fans" thread. What happened to the Eicos? They were sold off, and some were sold off to buy Scotts. What is the point in insulting everyone who enjoys a Scott amplifier? No one here is deaf. It's simply a matter of people listening to, and listening for different things. Some music works better with this, some works better with that. I strongly feel, and sense -- that you deliberately started this thread with a desire to goad Craig, and possibly manipulate Craig and Kelly into yet another tiresome debate regarding the Eicos and Scotts. If it wasn't so painfully obvious I would let it pass. La-dee-da-whoop-dee-doo -- you like the Eicos better than the Scotts. Who cares. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guy Landau Posted August 12, 2003 Author Share Posted August 12, 2003 Jazman, What can you expect of someone who says "I have put the dreaded Sovtek 5AR4 thru some brutal testing and its held up like a good soldier ! Same can be said for the Russian 7189's 100's in the field without a single failure that could be attributed to the tubes ! Svetlana and EH KT88's & EL34's do a admirable job also." He is just a technician and as long that it measures good it's good. for him, There's probably no difference between tubes and what matters is solely reliablity and not sound reproduction. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deang Posted August 12, 2003 Share Posted August 12, 2003 Some things never change because people don't change. At one time, us push-pull clowns were deluded because we never heard SET. Then it was because we never heard the 2A3. Now it's because we haven't heard great SET. Craig living with Tom's Paramours, and my many months with the Welborne Apollos should freaking count for SOMETHING. I mean for Pete's sake, is the SET 'magic' in the simple circuit or not? All SET amps have the important things in common: Class A, no feedback, directly heated triode. Hearing a decent SET amp gives one the general idea, just like hearing a decent push-pull -- at least to the point of knowing whether one likes that kind of thing or not. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dubai2000 Posted August 13, 2003 Share Posted August 13, 2003 Yes, I have moved on to SET amps, but the Eico is one of the amps that's going to stay -just a pitty I didn't wait buying until the prices came down again . Wolfram Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AnalOg Posted August 13, 2003 Share Posted August 13, 2003 Dean, The formula is simple, SET + light instrumental + vocal + 80db. = PP + whatever you can throw at it + 100db. = JMHO! Tom Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mobile homeless Posted August 13, 2003 Share Posted August 13, 2003 Good lord, lets not start this up again; it's the last thing I wanted to see. People have different listening experiences, tastes, abilities, systems, rooms, music, etc. Trying to make these blanket statements regarding SET or PP is really missing the point, and off the mark. Both have their positives and one's quality is not always the other's domain. Dean, you at one time were so enamored with SET and amps with far less power. Hell, you must have posted over a hundred posts stating this point. Ultimately, I dont think your music nor taste is best served by SET amps, and I think I said this to you over a year ago, this when trying to talk you into buying a pair of Quicksilver 90s. I still have the pics and post on my computer. Look, if I dont see a SET vs PP debate again for the rest of my life, it would not be a moment too soon. There are just too many variables to make these assumptions; I would have thought you would have come to this same conclusion after seeing this much. The music you listen nor the listening goals are just not best suited for the SET path. I dont think Craig's are either. I have both types of amplification and love them both for different reasons. There is nothing that approaches the intimacy of SET in the right setup. Nothing. On the other hand, I love the soul and guts of a GREAT PP amp too. I also can get off on my brother's 200w HT system at times. I have found a place for both topologies and you dont see me making a case for the either/OR these days, something I started talking to you about months and months ago. I think it's depressing that you are back on the either/or approach. Ultimately, I dont happen to like the high power SET amps. IF you ARE going to go SET, the lower watt varieties seem to bring that to its best fruition, this with a good circuit and good iron. Neither the WL Apollos nor the Bottlehead Paramours are my idea of the paramount of the SET brigade, but both fill a niche, the Paramour being an excellent product designed to meet a price point and a fun kit to boot; the Apollo being the WL foray into buidling a SET that might be suited for a wider range of loads. I have heard great SET amps and great PP amps that set me to jumping about, with all sorts of music. Regardless, the EICO and Scott are both valued vintage PP amps with no need for an either/or standpoint. I have heard Fishers, Scotts, EICOs, Dynaco, and others and many have floated my boat for different reasons. The EICO sounded the most pure to me but I could be happy forgetting this audio game with quite a list of amps, this when focusing on the music. The low watt solution definitely has its place and fills a need that is not touched by the PP amps. I also think the PP amps have a place and still love mine as well. I tend to gravitate toward the PP that best mimics that open quality of SET although most dont equal the see-through quality to that extent. I spent the last 10 days only listening to PP amps in both the digital and vintage domain and enjoyed them for different reasons. AGain, this either/or thing is missing the point. I dont think Craig and I will ever enter that debate of EICO vs Scott again, at least not from this end. I think the SET vs PP debate is passe as well and when I hear one side or the other, I usually see faults in either of the arguments. Making blanket statements about audio will bring a contradiction down the line; sometimes the wait is longer, sometimes shorter. It will come, just like DEATH. kh Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deang Posted August 13, 2003 Share Posted August 13, 2003 I know all this, but Guy pissed me off, and so it put me in the mood for a good fight. Yeesh, you stop in for a visit and everyone loses a chromosome. Hell, me -- I'm the same as I ever was: Well medicated but still about as stable as a crate of nitro teetering on the edge of a truck bed. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NOSValves Posted August 13, 2003 Share Posted August 13, 2003 Kelly, I agree with your post its just not worth the trouble and I think are relationship is way beyond that. The fact of the matter here is Guy and I have been emailing back and forth in a unfriendly manner since he accused me of being here for simply monetary gain openly on the forum and now he thinks its fitting to come in here and try purposely to start trouble. While in fact supporting Erik's new endeavors which I have absolutely no problem with mind you and support him also. Of coarse old Jazzman grabs a opportunity to jab at me and shows up after months of not posting after he made himself look like a ridicules vengeful child. My statements about the rectifiers pertained to the amps the poster was asking about not a simple SET amp that any chage in tubes caps or whatever can have a profound effect on the amp. I would love to know the last time Guy or Jazzman have used a sovtek 5AR4 ?? I have no problem with anyone that likes SET or HF-81 I'm sure to there taste its great just not to me and many others on this site. I do have problem with people like Guy who think his 45 year old McIntosh is working up to snuff just because it still makes sound and then expects me to sit back while he insults the amps I rebuild and very many people on this forum absolute love which in turn is a insult to them. Like his opinion is the end all. Give me a break ! Guy grow up !! Craig Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Allan Songer Posted August 13, 2003 Share Posted August 13, 2003 My favorite audio curmudgeon Joe Rosen once wrote THIS about Scott amplifiers: "The midrange sounds like it's coming out of the bottom of an empty 45-gallon drum, and there is zero dynamics to match. I can imagine this stuff being the preference of zoned-out heroin addicts everywhere...zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz. I guess if my name was Scott, I'd want to like components that were named after me, too! But perfectionist? Naw, bean counter! Scott used flimsy aluminum chassis, Von Recklinghausen, his designer, was too clever by half and mostly deaf, their transformers were all uniformly cheap & miserable (didn't need to be good, what with those lousy highs & lows), passive parts quality was rather indifferent and Scott was preoccupied with flexibility of his gimmickry, replete with a redolence of winkie-blinkie lights in the centre of his faceplates." Now THAT's saying something. I love Joe Rosen--he seems to have faded away from the Asylum and that's a shame. We once went ROUND AND ROUND about the 6L6 familyu of tubes and the MAC MC-30 in particular (he says it's the only McIntosh amp that doesn't hurt his ears, but that it's still a crappy sounding amplifier). I was the person who STARTED this forum on the Scott 299 a couple of years ago when people were asking for good cheap vintage tube integrated amps. For $200 or $300 you can't beat them, but they ARE NOT world class amplifiers or even world class VINTAGE amplifiers. Anyone who claims otherwise hasn't listened to a lot of REALLY good stuff . . . Enjoy them for what they are. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NOSValves Posted August 13, 2003 Share Posted August 13, 2003 Allan, I was the person who STARTED this forum on the Scott 299 a couple of years ago when people were asking for good cheap vintage tube integrated amps. For $200 or $300 you can't beat them, but they ARE NOT world class amplifiers or even world class VINTAGE amplifiers. Anyone who claims otherwise hasn't listened to a lot of REALLY good stuff . . . absolutely correct !! The same can easily be said for EICO, Dynaco, Heathkit , Fisher and on and on from the vintage ranks. Vintage whatever can easy = Value Vintage amps with the right rebuild and upgrades can = be very close to those so called world class amplifiers that cost thousands !! I still say and have always said what sound good to the person that owns the equipment is good !! Who else is owner using the equipment to please ? Craig PS. I personally have never posted with Ole Joe. I myself find his post over the top and bordering insanity !! He maybe fun to read but bases his posts way to much on his own arrogant opinion rather then fact or fair evaluation. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guy Landau Posted August 13, 2003 Author Share Posted August 13, 2003 Craig, It's a 45 year old Marantz model 2 and not a Mcintosh. It still plays music 5 hours a day. 3 months ago, I was thinking that it must have been time for a rebuild and sent it to my tech. He had checked it and confirmed that everything was whithin original specs. I don't insult the amps that you rebuild ( they probably work just fine ). Every thing I say is based on my experience. I was the first one to claim that the ALK networks don't sound good to my ears (I repeat - to my ears) and that the type A were much better - That didn't put Al K. out of business (and I didn't intend to do so) and he still sells them . Since then, Many people started experimenting with them and a lot of people have chosen them as their preffered networks. Al K. is still kind enough to answer any network question and offer guidence as well. I do think that the Eico amps are better than the Scott and Leak, Pilot,etc are better too. I can use this place for sharing information that I'm convinced to be true. You don't like like - your problem, and nothing is personal. So time for you to grow up because this place doesn't belong to you and dean. You're pissed? take a cold shower and relax. Guy P.S Please don't email me ever again. 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.