jweed Posted January 13, 2004 Share Posted January 13, 2004 I see alot of people in this forum have Scott equipment. I would like to know what people think of the the sound from various Scott amps who have heard more than just one. I own a Scott 340B which I have had Craig update. It is the only peice of tube equipment I have heard so I'm wondering how it compares to other Scott amps and simular amps as well. Thanks. Jeff Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Daddy Dee Posted January 13, 2004 Share Posted January 13, 2004 Hi Jeff, welcome. Yep, when I was first looking at tubes, I'd observed the same thing about this forum that Scott's were well regarded. I've had a Scott 299b and 299c and liked them alot. In addition to the good advisement I received on this forum, I also found alot of helpful info on www.hhscott.com. The guy who runs that site and forum has some "editors picks" on vintage Scott gear. The gyst of the info is pretty complementary to what you'd hear on this forum, too. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Daddy Dee Posted January 13, 2004 Share Posted January 13, 2004 p.s. Jeff, what kind of speakers and source are you running with your Scott? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Anonymous Posted January 13, 2004 Share Posted January 13, 2004 < Hi Jeff, I've heard every Scott amp made! Been working on them my entire life. Here is a list of what I consider the best to the least best: POWER AMPS: 265-A (one of the best made, period) 290 LK-150 240 250 208 (a bare-bones model running 7591's) INTEGRATED AMPS: 233 222C/D LK48/B 299C/D LK72/B 222 222B 299B 299 200 LK30 (economy model, junk, save your money) 200B (same as 200) RECEIVERS: 345 (the best ever made, period) 380 399 340 340-B TUNERS: 4310 (legendary FM boradcast monitor, rare and expensive. Best tuner ever) 310-E 310 (mono) 350 series LT-110 kits 330 series PREAMPS: LC-21 (Scott's kit, actually better than factory wired models) 121-C (mono, need two) 130 -Ryan ---------------- [/blockquote> Hey Ryan, I appreciated your opinion on All the scotts, but I have a scott 272, and you do not list it, does that mean it's no good? I know I do not have your experience or knowledge but in my meager experience and studies, I read that many people have said and feel the 272 is THE BEST sounding integrated scott amp Is this correct? Thanks Smilin Do you feel the 272 is sub par, if so why? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pilferus Posted January 13, 2004 Share Posted January 13, 2004 Hay what about the LK-72..any review on this one?...{hopefully good) because I just bought one and Craig is gonna bring it up to speed:0 regards dana Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3dzapper Posted January 13, 2004 Share Posted January 13, 2004 Smilin, This is what the hhscott web site says about the 290 on Ryan's list: "Basic power amp section design derived from the Type 250; Monobloc Amp and Type 272; Integrated Amp" Put that smile back on your sour puss. Rick Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NOSValves Posted January 13, 2004 Share Posted January 13, 2004 Steve, I was going to say Ryan left it out because of its rarity but he actually listed power amps that are even harder to find. But really I can't make much heads or tales out of his list anyway my opinion is almost completely different at least on the integrateds at least. But really the opinions I believe should be left up to the normal users on something like this they would have a less skewed point of view then Ryan or myself. Heck I think almost all the amps are great and the one best suited for a Jweed has to be carefully chosen based on the music he is going to listen to the most, speakers to be used, room size, SLP desired and so on. What I'm basically saying is there is no best !! Craig Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Anonymous Posted January 14, 2004 Share Posted January 14, 2004 Rick, I was just looking at the site also, and thanks for helping to put a smile on my face, cause I've been so sick the last couple daze, that I needed this I'm just surprised ryan has not listed this before, cause I do read his opinions as I feel he is very knowledgable on scotts, thats why I also have the 233 cause he posted it being for sale. Smilin and need to feel better Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Piranha Posted January 14, 2004 Share Posted January 14, 2004 ---------------- On 1/13/2004 10:01:37 PM Ryan C. Inman wrote: ---------------- On 1/13/2004 9:02:40 PM jweed wrote: I see alot of people in this forum have Scott equipment. I would like to know what people think of the the sound from various Scott amps who have heard more than just one. I own a Scott 340B which I have had Craig update. It is the only peice of tube equipment I have heard so I'm wondering how it compares to other Scott amps and simular amps as well. Thanks. Jeff ---------------- Hi Jeff, I've heard every Scott amp made! Been working on them my entire life. Here is a list of what I consider the best to the least best: POWER AMPS: 265-A (one of the best made, period) 290 LK-150 240 250 208 (a bare-bones model running 7591's) INTEGRATED AMPS: 233 222C/D LK48/B 299C/D LK72/B 222 222B 299B 299 200 LK30 (economy model, junk, save your money) 200B (same as 200) RECEIVERS: 345 (the best ever made, period) 380 399 340 340-B TUNERS: 4310 (legendary FM boradcast monitor, rare and expensive. Best tuner ever) 310-E 310 (mono) 350 series LT-110 kits 330 series PREAMPS: LC-21 (Scott's kit, actually better than factory wired models) 121-C (mono, need two) 130 -Ryan ---------------- Hi Ryan, Just curious, where do the 272 and 296 rank in this mix? Thanks, Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Piranha Posted January 14, 2004 Share Posted January 14, 2004 ---------------- On 1/14/2004 2:18:55 AM Piranha wrote: ---------------- On 1/13/2004 10:01:37 PM Ryan C. Inman wrote: ---------------- On 1/13/2004 9:02:40 PM jweed wrote: I see alot of people in this forum have Scott equipment. I would like to know what people think of the the sound from various Scott amps who have heard more than just one. I own a Scott 340B which I have had Craig update. It is the only peice of tube equipment I have heard so I'm wondering how it compares to other Scott amps and simular amps as well. Thanks. Jeff ---------------- Hi Jeff, I've heard every Scott amp made! Been working on them my entire life. Here is a list of what I consider the best to the least best: POWER AMPS: 265-A (one of the best made, period) 290 LK-150 240 250 208 (a bare-bones model running 7591's) INTEGRATED AMPS: 233 222C/D LK48/B 299C/D LK72/B 222 222B 299B 299 200 LK30 (economy model, junk, save your money) 200B (same as 200) RECEIVERS: 345 (the best ever made, period) 380 399 340 340-B TUNERS: 4310 (legendary FM boradcast monitor, rare and expensive. Best tuner ever) 310-E 310 (mono) 350 series LT-110 kits 330 series PREAMPS: LC-21 (Scott's kit, actually better than factory wired models) 121-C (mono, need two) 130 -Ryan ---------------- Hi Ryan, Just curious, where do the 272 and 296 rank in this mix? Thanks, ---------------- Sorry, I posted before reading the complete thread. Iown a 272 and a 299D and was just wondering where you thought the 272 ranked. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sheltie dave Posted January 14, 2004 Share Posted January 14, 2004 The best Scott amp is the one you have running and are listening to! I like some juice, so I stick to the 299C and LK72 side of their offerings, but knowledgable friends love their lower powered Scotts as well. As long as the unit has been gone over and made reliable, with good tubes, you are in real good shape. Most of the vintage amps that get mentioned on this forum were among the top sellers back in the tube heyday. They were successful because they delivered quality and value back in the '60s, when those two words really meant something. If you are perceptive and have the patience and inclination to glean, Mike Stehr showed me some pretty sharp console stuff to pick up for screaming bargains, as well. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mark1101 Posted January 14, 2004 Share Posted January 14, 2004 You can see what I have below. I love them both more and more as I play each of them. They have different sound characteristics, but I consider that part of their classic nature. The 222 is well balanced throughout with maybe a little more bass. Not nearly as much power as the 299. If it had that kind of power, whoa. I'd like that. The 299, the way Craig has it set up for me, is unbelievable with extreme highs and lows. My cornwalls immediately sounded like I had new speakers when I started using the 299 on them. I still can't believe some of the bass notes that can from from those corns. Skips the CDs at times. Get any Scott amp on Ryan's list. You can't go wrong if it's rebuilt properly. I would not even consider a Scott purchase without expecting to have it rebuilt. That's why everyone says they sound so good. It's after they are rebuilt. Get a Scott. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mace Posted January 14, 2004 Share Posted January 14, 2004 A question for DaddyDee (or anyone else for that matter): What differences did you hear between the 299B and C? Anyone compare the A with the B or C? Just curious, Mace Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
neo33 Posted January 14, 2004 Share Posted January 14, 2004 "I've heard every Scott amp made! Been working on them my entire life." Ryan, you mean you first started listening and fixing Scott amps when you were born 21 years ago? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NOSValves Posted January 14, 2004 Share Posted January 14, 2004 The major difference that I hear is in the higher frequencies. When I listen to a 299 or 299-B, it sounds too bright for my taste, perhaps a bit shrill, even a stock 299-B. When I listen to a 222-C, 222-D, 299-C, 299-D, or 233, this brightness does not exsist. I also prefer the bass of the later models, as well as the loudness circuit and phase inverter. This is just my opinion, everyone has different tastes and hearing response, but quite a few people agree with me that the 299B is excessively bright, maybe a few will reply. I'm not saying the 299-B or 299-A are no good, they are just not for me. I can tell you that outside of this forum, the 299-C is the king. Even back in the 1960's it was the king, must be for a reason! 222-C is second. Best Regards, Ryan ---------------- Just exactly who are these people that think the299A/299B is to bright ! You sure do get different feedback then I do !! Lets quit sliding around this issue I want to hear from these people. If every customer I have is telling me a crock of dung I'd find that hard to believe but you never know. Some people are way to worried about stepping on others toes when in reality there dishonest responses are a detriment. Bring this stuff out in the open once and for all. Craig Heck with it I'm just going to start another thread and ask for everyome respose. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guy Landau Posted January 14, 2004 Share Posted January 14, 2004 I hope that you're not expecting honest replies. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NOSValves Posted January 14, 2004 Share Posted January 14, 2004 Why not ? What people only tell Ryan the truth common Guy ! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guy Landau Posted January 14, 2004 Share Posted January 14, 2004 If I were a customer and wouldn't be happy, I would have not said so and kept the matter quiet, cause you might get offended and I wouldn't want that to happen. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Piranha Posted January 14, 2004 Share Posted January 14, 2004 ---------------- On 1/14/2004 10:02:56 PM Guy Landau wrote: If I were a customer and wouldn't be happy, I would have not said so and kept the matter quiet, cause you might get offended and I wouldn't want that to happen. ---------------- Why is that? After you paid him to do it, wouldn't you want it to be right? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NOSValves Posted January 14, 2004 Share Posted January 14, 2004 Well I would think that people would be just a little more mature then that ! If people do not like the sound they have the option to send it back for adjustment. Also how am I to know if my customers are happy if they lie to me ? Its just that the statements made by Ryan above have no real foundation at least on this forum. I have at least 50 vocal people that have written extensive reviews of the amps he says are to bright and what not. It just seems like a game to me ! 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.