michael_brennan Posted May 20, 2005 Share Posted May 20, 2005 Hi -- I'm new here and was hoping for some opinions. I have the ooprtunity to buy either a Scott 222c or a Dyna SCA-35. Both units are in very nice condition. I've owned an SCA-35 before and really liked it. Plus, it seems easier to work on (to me) due to the PCB design whereas the Scott is point-to-point. But, I'm itching to try the Scott too...and those Scotts look so nice to boot.... Any opinions? Thanks, Michael Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3dzapper Posted May 20, 2005 Share Posted May 20, 2005 Unless you are planning to use the SCA-35 as a donor amp for it's trannies, go with the Scott. IMHO. Rick Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Daddy Dee Posted May 20, 2005 Share Posted May 20, 2005 Michael, Welcome to the forum. It's just been within the last few months that I heard the SCA-35 and was terribly impressed. Compared to the Scott gear I've heard, it compared quite favorably to a Scott 222D. It was not a side by side comparison, just my memory of the 222D sound. When I heard the SCA-35, I was thinking, "man, I've got to get me one of these!" (I've been trying to cut back on buying amps) My buddy, who was with me and had also listened to both of these particular amps over several occasions reassured me that the 222D was a match, but not an improvement over the SCA-35, in his opinion. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rplace Posted May 20, 2005 Share Posted May 20, 2005 Go with the Dyna so I can have the Scott Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3dzapper Posted May 20, 2005 Share Posted May 20, 2005 Maybe I should expand on my earlier post. The coupling caps of the Scotts are easy to replace with no worries about overheating a PC board. They show greater improvement when recapped and a few plate resistors are changed out than the Dynaco. The output tubes are easily converted to individual bias adjustment. That way you don't have to replace a set of tubes when just one drifts off a tad. I am comparing the four redone Scotts I own with a recapped SCA-35 and a DIY ST-35 amp I built using SCA-35 iron. The latter two, despite being similiar are not even close sonically. The DIY amp just blows the Dynaco out of the water. I have another SCA-35 donor and DIY board in the back room waiting on a build. Right now I am working on a pair of "Super IIIs" using Mark III power and output iron. Rick Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Colin Posted May 20, 2005 Share Posted May 20, 2005 all other things being equal, I prefer point to point wiring.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
archangele Posted May 20, 2005 Share Posted May 20, 2005 I have owned both the SCA35 and presently own two 222C Scott amps. The 222C is more powerful and has better sound. It also runs cooler. The SCA35 is a nice amp though. There are several changes to the wiring of the SCA35 that will enhance it's sound, and the use of high quality components on the circuit boards is a must. I rebuild Hi-fi amps and Guitar amps for a living and know both these amps quite well. When I did my comparison, I used my fully electronically restored SCA35 against a fully electronically restored 222C. So it was not like I was comparing one amp that was a beater to another that was in better condition. Both were in as new operating condition when tested. The biggest thing I noticed was that the Scott phono stage was brighter on the high end. The Scott power amp section had quite a bit more ommph in the lower frequencies but, both amp's power amp sections had nice extended highs. If using a CD player or DVD player, the Scott will have tighter more powerful bass. Both amps will have smooth mids and highs. If I were to be given the choice between the 222C or an SCA-35 for the same price, I would most certainly choose the Scott. It is just plain a step above the SCA35. Kind of like comparing a PAS and ST70 to a PAS3X and a pair of Mark III's. The Scott is a more expencive and more feature rich amp. Yes it is harder to rebuild then the SCA35. Unless you are good with an amp as complicated as an H.H. Scott, you might want to consider having a person well versed in Scott hi-fi amps do the work for you. Scotts have some quirks that only a tech experienced with Scott amps will do justice to. But the end product will be well worth the price. The 222C is one of the finest EL84 / 7189 type integrated amps out there. I've worked on a lot of them from all manufacturers and I still own my pair of 222C's. Most have the brass colored metal knobs and are very attractive looking too. My one 222C is in an original Scott wood case and looks really sharp. Bill B. Tube HiFi and Guitar amp service, design, and building at: http://home.alltel.net/wbittle1 Hi -- I'm new here and was hoping for some opinions. I have the ooprtunity to buy either a Scott 222c or a Dyna SCA-35. Both units are in very nice condition. I've owned an SCA-35 before and really liked it. Plus, it seems easier to work on (to me) due to the PCB design whereas the Scott is point-to-point. But, I'm itching to try the Scott too...and those Scotts look so nice to boot.... Any opinions? Thanks, Michael ---------------- Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Audio Flynn Posted May 20, 2005 Share Posted May 20, 2005 I have listened to 2 or 3 Dynaco phono sections and more than 7 or 8 Scotts. Never heard any of the Dynacos phono performance come near a Scott in detail and extension. Limited test sampling plan of course. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tigerwoodKhorns Posted May 20, 2005 Share Posted May 20, 2005 I have both amps for sale right now. A completely rebuilt NOS Valves Scott LK-48 (kit version of the 222c) and an original Dyna SCA 35 in mint condition (all original). Chris Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tigerwoodKhorns Posted May 20, 2005 Share Posted May 20, 2005 I have both amps for sale right now. A completely rebuilt NOS Valves Scott LK-48 (kit version of the 222c) and an original Dyna SCA 35 in mint condition (all original). Chris Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scott0527 Posted May 20, 2005 Share Posted May 20, 2005 ---------------- On 5/20/2005 4:49:15 PM archangele wrote: It is just plain a step above the SCA35. Kind of like comparing a PAS and ST70 to a PAS3X and a pair of Mark III's. The Scott is a more expencive and more feature rich amp. Yes it is har Tube HiFi and Guitar amp service, design, and building at: http://home.alltel.net/wbittle1 ---------------- ---------------- It is my understanding that a PAS3X and a PAS are exactly the same other than the 3X's ability to take the tone controls out of the curcuit. Is there some other difference? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NOSValves Posted May 20, 2005 Share Posted May 20, 2005 Scott 222C all the way I work on vintage tube amps! Oh did I tell you I work on vintage tube amps! Just in case you missed it I better say it one more time I WORK ON VINTAGE TUBE AMPS Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
garymd Posted May 20, 2005 Share Posted May 20, 2005 ---------------- On 5/20/2005 8:50:11 PM NOSValves wrote: Scott 222C all the way I work on vintage tube amps! Oh did I tell you I work on vintage tube amps! Just in case you missed it I better say it one more time I WORK ON VINTAGE TUBE AMPS ---------------- Just what are you trying to say? Stop beating around the bush! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
James RD Posted May 20, 2005 Share Posted May 20, 2005 Did I understand that correctly? Does Craig work on vintage tube gear? Really? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scott0527 Posted May 20, 2005 Share Posted May 20, 2005 ---------------- On 5/20/2005 8:50:11 PM NOSValves wrote: Scott 222C all the way I work on vintage tube amps! Oh did I tell you I work on vintage tube amps! Just in case you missed it I better say it one more time I WORK ON VINTAGE TUBE AMPS ---------------- I work on vintage tube amps too. I can take a fine sounding stock vintage piece and rework it into something that doens't work anymore better than anyone. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
michael_brennan Posted May 21, 2005 Author Share Posted May 21, 2005 Hey -- thanks for the replies everyone. It sounds like the Scott is the clear favorite. Does anyone know if there are instructions around anywhere on the web detailing how to replace the selenium rectifier? I've got the general idea but I understand that I have to tinker with the value of a few resistors in order to allow for the increased efficiency of the silicon replacement. Any hints appreciated as it looks like I'm going w/the Scott! They are quite nice to look at, aren't they? Thanks, Michael Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mark1101 Posted May 21, 2005 Share Posted May 21, 2005 The 222 c/d are just about the highest powered HH Scott EL-84 based integrateds. So if you like the sound of the EL-84 tube, then the 222 c or D would be a great integrated. I sold my 222a recently, but I still feel it was my best sounding integrated out of the ones I have (LK-72, 299a), all rebuilt by Craig. The issue was that the 222a just lacked the guts I wanted. The 222c/d platform fixes that issue with slightly more power. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3dzapper Posted May 21, 2005 Share Posted May 21, 2005 There is just one dropping resistor in the bias circuit that needs to be changed out to get the correct voltage. I find that in most cases a 50 Ohm ceramic wirewound works but you may have to go as low as 38 Ohms (a 100 Ohm in parrallel with a 50) Rp=1/{1/R1+1/R2} ( All right it's 37.5 Ohms, close enough!) Go to the forum at HHScott.com there is a world of information and a few nice guys that will walk you through any questions you may have. Rick Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NOSValves Posted May 21, 2005 Share Posted May 21, 2005 ---------------- On 5/21/2005 7:51:05 AM michael_brennan wrote: Hey -- thanks for the replies everyone. It sounds like the Scott is the clear favorite. Does anyone know if there are instructions around anywhere on the web detailing how to replace the selenium rectifier? I've got the general idea but I understand that I have to tinker with the value of a few resistors in order to allow for the increased efficiency of the silicon replacement. Any hints appreciated as it looks like I'm going w/the Scott! They are quite nice to look at, aren't they? Thanks, Michael ---------------- If you interested in soldering on it yourself just let me know there is more then just the selenium rectifier that needs replacing but still its not a horrible task to rebuild these units if your handy with a iron. Newbie's to this should adhere to the remove a part and install a part to limit the chance of error. Do each section of the amp and then test it to make sure you haven't made a mistake. If you just wholesale rebuild it and make a error finding it can be a real bugger without the proper test equipment. Craig Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Marvel Posted May 21, 2005 Share Posted May 21, 2005 I own a rebuilt ST-70, and like it fine, but from all I have read, the SCA-35 was a combinations of all the bad ideas from Dynaco. The OPTs would still be good, but you would be building a different amp then. 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.