[Chizzler]

I just hooked my K1000's to an HH Scott 222 amp that I scored on Ebay. Early impressions tell me that the Scott may win! My Fisher has the Doc's kit and I've stuffed every kind of tube known to man in it. The Scott, with crap Sylvania's sounds as good or better right out of the box. Not bad for $160 bucks. I'm stunned. Any comments? Anyone else ever try this?

I'll post an update later once I hook it into my system. Right now I'm listening with a crap portable CD player.

 

[smokey]

Chizzler,

I'm sure you've already seen this site, but I thought I'd post it anyway, just in case ...

http://www.hhscott.com/photo.htm

Many people think very highly of the Scott 222 series. I've got one coming from Mapleshade that is supposed to be highly modified, but its been awhile since I ordered, so who knows if it'll ever get here.

Good luck, and keep us posted as to how it works out.

 

[daycart1]

That is interesting!

"Better" how? What kind of music are you listening to?

Are you sure those Sylvanias are crummy tubes?

 

[tmarshl]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chizzler I just hooked my K1000's to an HH Scott 222 amp that I scored on Ebay. Early impressions tell me that the Scott may win! My Fisher has the Doc's kit and I've stuffed every kind of tube known to man in it. The Scott, with crap Sylvania's sounds as good or better right out of the box. Not bad for $160 bucks. I'm stunned. Any comments? Anyone else ever try this? I'll post an update later once I hook it into my system. Right now I'm listening with a crap portable CD player.

So what is your opinion a year later? Were you satisfied with the HH Scott 222 amp with your K1000s?

Thanks!
Tom

 

[nblis]

Chizzler: I think the difference might be in the output tubes. A lot of people like the el84 and it's variations. Maybe that is the difference your are hearing.

Noel

 

[joelongwood]

Quote:

Originally Posted by tmarshl So what is your opinion a year later? Were you satisfied with the HH Scott 222 amp with your K1000s? Thanks! Tom

Hi Tom.......welcome to Head-Fi!
I think you may be waiting awhile for chizzler's response, as he hasn't posted here in about 8 months. Maybe he's lurking......or listening to his Scott/K1000 set-up.

 

[Chizzler]

I'm here, I'm here, geez...

Well, I really haven't been listening to headphones. I've moved on to the dark side. Speakers! But here's my thoughts on the different amps for the K1000's.

We're talking about old equipment that could have been through who knows what, so take this for what it's worth.

The Fisher, in my opinion, stinks. It has almost zero high end compared to the Scott amps. I've been using that same 222b with speakers for over a year now and I still LOVE it. It's been gone through by a tech who knows his stuff and worked his magic on it. Unfortunately, neither the 222b or the 400 Fisher where powerful enough to drive the K's to my satisfaction. I know many will swear by their Fisher for the K's but I was less than impressed. Mine was in good shape and the tubes were all new since I know someone will ask. I even called AKG and they said you should run a minimum of 50 watts into those headphones. Yes, 50 watts.

So, I moved on to a Scott LK-72 that puts out quite a bit more poop. That was the right amp in my opinion. It made the K's come alive. The 222 is a better sounding amp to me. The el84 amps are pure magic. But the LK just drives them better. I listen to all sorts of music and I tend to listen a little on the loud side. So, take that into account as well. What was you're idea that you had to drag me back to this god forsaken place to ask me this??

See ya,
Nick

 

[rickcr42]

Quote:

A lot of people like the el84 and it's variations.

raises hand

Running mine (7189's,an EL-84 variant) triode strapped on the breadboard and looks like it is headed to #1 dynamic headphone amp status in my system.

 

[Chizzler]

No doubt, the 222 is an amazing little amp. I bought some good speakers, a decent Music Hall turntable (mmf-7), and good cables. In fact, the only thing I refuse to take out of my system is that amp. I've tried all my other old tube amps (Fisher 400, LK-72, Scott 399, modded Dynaco pre with Luxman SS amps, and a few different SS Marantz') and the 222 blows them all away in my opinion. Most people who listen to my setup can't believe that 13wpc could sound so good. The only other amp I'd like to get my hands on is a Scott 299 and have the same tech that did my 222 cut loose on it and see how that sounds. But, the 399 I have is basicly a 299 with a reciever added on and that comes close to, but doesn't beat out the 222. I don't know if the reciever part of that amp effects the sound of it, but I imagine it has too. It's a lot more complex than a standard 299.

See ya,
Nick

 

[rickcr42]

Quote:

But, the 399 I have is basicly a 299 with a reciever added on and that comes close to, but doesn't beat out the 222. I don't know if the reciever part of that amp effects the sound of it, but I imagine it has too. It's a lot more complex than a standard 299.

I have a 299B that I modified just a bit running a pair of Linaeum twwet/Kevlar woofer LX-4 speakers at the computer.Very civilised and pleasant while still proving good dynamics nearfiled with an 89dB 1W/1M SPL inefficient speaker.I think you will be pleasantly surprised when you get you 399 back.

 

[Chizzler]

I had the 399 done by the same guy who did my 222. I give him all of my old tube stuff to go through even if it's just for safety reasons. I don't want to have to explain to my insurance company that a 50 year old amp burnt my house down. Lol.

Right now that 222 is running a set of Sota time domain 4 speakers. Very efficient great sounding speaker. Sota is known for their turntables but they made some great speakers for a few years. They're solid oak cabinets, no cheesy veener or particle board. They weight like 80 lbs each.

Don't get me wrong, the 399 sounds great. I just prefer the 222 over it. I haven't had a huge array of old tube amps, but from what I have had and heard the HH Scott's are by far my favorite. McIntosh makes some great looking stuff but I think thay are way over priced and overated. The Scott stuff is still within reason. For now anyway.

See ya,
Nick

 

[stevieo]

chizzler,

i agree with you.

i have a rebuilt 400 with good testing tubes & an untouched 222b with untested tubes (lazy me). i prefer the 222b with the k1k. the sound of my fisher is very good & it has good tubes, telefunkens i think. but the h.h. scott is more fun to listen to.

i have to say that i usually listen to my k1k with the dared 300b mono blocks with the newest sophia tubes but would like to eventually get the killer western electric 300b's. it took a very long time for this amp to burn in.

however, the audiovalve rkv mk II might be the best amp i have ever heard with the k1k. but, the 222b is all you need.

i am now motivated to get the tester on the 222b tubes.

 

[tmarshl]

I have ordered an Ultra-Modified Scott 222 from MapleShade Audio. Looking forward to hearing them soon. I will report back.

http://www.mapleshaderecords.com/tweaks/tubeamps.php


Quote:

Originally Posted by Chizzler I'm here, I'm here, geez... Well, I really haven't been listening to headphones. I've moved on to the dark side. Speakers! But here's my thoughts on the different amps for the K1000's. We're talking about old equipment that could have been through who knows what, so take this for what it's worth. The Fisher, in my opinion, stinks. It has almost zero high end compared to the Scott amps. I've been using that same 222b with speakers for over a year now and I still LOVE it. It's been gone through by a tech who knows his stuff and worked his magic on it. Unfortunately, neither the 222b or the 400 Fisher where powerful enough to drive the K's to my satisfaction. I know many will swear by their Fisher for the K's but I was less than impressed. Mine was in good shape and the tubes were all new since I know someone will ask. I even called AKG and they said you should run a minimum of 50 watts into those headphones. Yes, 50 watts. So, I moved on to a Scott LK-72 that puts out quite a bit more poop. That was the right amp in my opinion. It made the K's come alive. The 222 is a better sounding amp to me. The el84 amps are pure magic. But the LK just drives them better. I listen to all sorts of music and I tend to listen a little on the loud side. So, take that into account as well. What was you're idea that you had to drag me back to this god forsaken place to ask me this?? See ya, Nick

 

[Jon L]

The recommendation for 50 watts for K1000 is just silly. What you need is not watts but ability to push high-quality (mili)Amperes instantaneously into K1000 and then stop on a dime. The amp may be 2 watts into 8 ohms, but if it's got a stiff power supply, it will be plenty. Unfortunately, providing current is not something many tube amps do well.

The reason some of these vintage amps sound great is simple: the iron used. They (not even Chinese) don't make iron like those any more, and there's just nothing like big, over-spec'd, brute-force V8 irons these vintage amps have. There's nothing special about the circuits of these amps, but you'd be surprised how great a tried-and-true circuit sounds when coupled with great iron and fresh tubes.

Those old, dying, and outdated caps do need to be changed, as well as possbly the oxidized wiring and old resistors; that's precisely what these restoration companies do.

 

[robster]

Craig Ostby at www.nosvalves.com is a leading vintage scott tech,plus he's a great guy. Craig rebuilt my Scott 233 integrated amp,my Scott 310E tuner and I bought a pair of VRD mono tube amps from him. So I can vouch for Craig's stellar work and knowledge of vintage gear,plus his prices are very fair.
Plus if you need output tubes Doug at www.dougstubes.com can hook you up with matched pairs or quads,plus Doug has H.H. Scott gear too,plus his prices are the best!
I too had a Fisher 400 rebuilt,but it was a Fisher 400 (X) modified to use EL-34 output tubes,by Paul Gryzbek @ www.2baudio.com and it sounded much better than my Scott,Paul no longer builds or sells them but they pop up on Audiogon,that's where I bough mine.
I sold my Scott 233 which was a total updated integrated amp and Fisher 400 (X) to buy the VRD amps,which combined with my Blueberry preamp smokes integrated amps and vinatge receivers. But I do miss my Scott 233 it looked sweet with my Scott 310E tuner. I still have the 310E,they are REAL hard to find,considered by some to sound as good as a Marantz 10B for lots less money.
I just wanted to post info about Craig at www.nosvalves.com in case someone is looking for a vintage gear tech that is REAL GOOD! Craig usually has more work than he can handle. He hangs out at the klipsch 2-channel forum and Audiokharma. Plus Craig will go out of his way to answer the simplest of questions and is always accessible.


Cheers,
Robert