Jump to content

Which tap are the Scott guys using?


mark1101

Recommended Posts

----------------

On 12/11/2003 9:03:52 AM mark1101 wrote:

Which impedance tap are the Scott powered folks using and what difference do you notice?

I have both of my Scotts on 8 ohms and everything is fine. I read that some are using the 4 ohm tap. What does that buy you?

4 Extra ohms? All kidding aside, I use my 299B with the 4 ohm tap and feel it *might* give a bit fuller sound. Try both and see if you notice a difference. It's often the cheapest tweaks that are the most rewarding...

Regards,

Dave

----------------

Link to comment
Share on other sites

While this seems like good advice on the surface, I have found that some amps actually do better via certain taps, not always going with the matching speaker impedance, especially since most speaker ratings are mere approximations with some having DIPS that will challenge. This is why I suggest to experiment here.

Almost all the Jolida amps sound better via their 4 ohm taps no matter WHAT speaker (within reason). It pays to break the rules and use your ears every once in awhile. You might be surprised.

kh

Link to comment
Share on other sites

OK, thanks guys.

Ryan, in school I always learned the version of this that you present.

However, to the rest of the guys with Scott's, specifically what tap are you using with corns, LaScalas, and Heresys to get best sound?

I'm just tyring to see what everyone is doing out there to get the best sound. In other words so I don't have to screw around as much.

I think Ryan is technically correct however.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't know about the Scott, but I tried the 4 ohm taps on my Marantz and I got a more transparent (i.e. more three dimensional) soundstage, likewise with the Wrights (though I din't A-B it, relied on memory). Haven't tried the MC-30 at 8 ohm yet, but Win preferred the 4 ohm tap (which sounds very fine indeed 9.gif ).

Wolfram

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Anonymous

----------------

On 12/11/2003 3:16:15 PM Guy Landau wrote:

but you're not using any Klipsch speakers........
----------------

Ryan,

Don't cha think you should get some KLIPSCH speaker so we can get advise on the relationship between the scott amps, and LIKE TYPE speakers, comparing apples to apples instead of KLIPSH to BLOSE, excuse me JBL. "this is a Klipsch forum, and Klipsch minds would like to have Klipsch feedback"2.gif6.gif3.gif

Smilin for awhile

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ryan, your comments really surprise me. It REALLY is speaker dependent and you of all people should know that the ratings given on the speaker specs are loose approximations at best, many times FAR more liberal than in reality. I have seen speakers with rating given as an average of 8ohms with major dips thus acutally doing better with a 4ohm tap. Also, some amplifiers really do handle this differently.

On top of that, you are giving your impressions based on YOUR SPEAKERS and their rating, meanwhile neglecting the idea that other speakers differ here. When it comes right down to it, this is SPEAKER -AMP dependent...all assuming the stated ratings are accurate.

The advice to TRY IT OUT makes sense here. I am surprised here. Over the years with the many amps I have tried I have seen as many surprises here with pairings. On the whole, you do take the recs in light, but trying this out someimes yields much better dividends.

kh

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Smilin,

Even though he doesn't have Klipsch's we'll have to let Ryan keep posting. He has a great deal of technical knowledge and tries to keep Craig honest. That's a tough job you know. :) I don't know if you've been over to the HH Scott site yet, Ryan is one of, if not, the most helpfull poster (or is it imposter) in there. He knows his Scotch. I mean he knows his Scotts.

Rick

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Rick-

My experience was pretty much the same. I would not have characterized the 4 ohm setting so negatively, but I felt the 8 ohm offered a bit better dynamics from the bass horn. This was opposite my expectations, as the impedance in that area is closer to 4 ohms than 8 (I think). The 4 ohm (why doesn't my keybord have an omega on it?) setting was tighter, but I would call it constricted, when compared to the 8 ohm tap. This was especially noticable to me on well-recorded acoustic bass.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree here. I think Ryan is a good asset and have appreciated his attempting to keep the war down with more professional posts. The result is less rancor. From what I have heard, he does good work as well. IT's rare when you have this many people on one forum helping restore vintage gear. Although I dont always agree with Ryan, I think he has helped quite a few and has been messing with Scott amps for a LOOONG time.

kh

As an aside here, I prefer my EICO HF-81 on the 8 ohm taps with my CW.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Anonymous

----------------

On 12/11/2003 4:27:40 PM mobile homeless wrote:

I agree here. I think Ryan is a good asset and have appreciated his attempting to keep the war down with more professional posts. The result is less rancor. From what I have heard, he does good work as well. IT's rare when you have this many people on one forum helping restore vintage gear. Although I dont always agree with Ryan, I think he has helped quite a few and has been messing with Scott amps for a LOOONG time.

kh

As an aside here, I prefer my EICO HF-81 on the 8 ohm taps with my CW.
----------------

Kelly,

Are you saying the scotts suck and the eico is the way to go?11.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"Are you saying the scotts suck and the eico is the way to go?"

Ummmmm... This would be hard to do since I have never HEARD the Scott 299 in any guise, at least not in a LOOOONG time. My last experience with a Scott was the 222C. Who cares what I preferred at this stage. I have given up the vintage integrated debate. They all have good traits.

That being said, all that post was saying was that I run my EICOs via the 8ohm tap with my CW. Be careful of what you say around here, even jokingly. Huge monster debates have started from MUCH LESS.

kh

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Anonymous

----------------

On 12/11/2003 5:25:43 PM mobile homeless wrote:

"
Are you saying the scotts suck and the eico is the way to go?
"

Ummmmm... This would be hard to do since I have never HEARD the Scott 299 in any guise, at least not in a LOOOONG time. My last experience with a Scott was the 222C. Who cares what I preferred at this stage. I have given up the vintage integrated debate. They all have good traits.

That being said, all that post was saying was that I run my EICOs on via the 8ohm tap with my CW. Be careful of what you say around here, even jokingly. Huge monster debates have started from MUCH LESS.

kh
----------------

Kelly,

can't a guy have a little FUN11.gif for the holidays! heh heh heh

Smilin forthe moment

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Anonymous

----------------

On 12/11/2003 5:32:24 PM T2K wrote:

I've never run across so many nit $hit individuals in one place in my life.

Keith
----------------

And is mwa on the top of the list?

16.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...