Your feelings on vintage audio.


Harkening back to the days of my youth.....my neighbor owned a console with a Scott fm tuner, Fisher amp and a TT. I loved playing with and listening to music through it.

And with the resurgence of interest in older equipment in the market, its' impression of quality sound reproduction and build, perhaps nostalgic feelings and wanting to dabble in tubes on my part, I've gone ahead and purchased a Scott 350B tuner.

I'm also looking at another 350 and Scott intergrated.
I know they'll need some work. But for the price it seems like a fun way to step into tubes, satisfy this urge and you gotta admit some of that gear is absolutely stunning looking!

So...What do you guys and gals think? Worth the admission price plus repairs? Waste of time and cash? Could do better DIY or newer used equipment?

Sound Quality? From reading sounds like I might be getting mids but poor highs and poor bass!
Build Quality?

How does CD sound through the gear? Are there difficulties using CD with this older gear?

Maybe some speaker recommendations. Sat/Sub (problems with subs?), monitor, full range or single driver? The integrateds I'm looking at run anywhere from 15 to 30 watts RMS.

Thought this might be a fun pastime; I look forward to your input.

Best
corazon

Showing 2 responses by almarg

Go for it!

Although keep in mind that condition is a huge and unpredictable variable. Obviously patience may be required to find units that are in top condition, and/or significant expense may be required in some cases for professional restoration. But those investments will be rewarded with both gorgeous sound quality, and in the case of many tube tuners, with outstanding sensitivity and station-getting ability.

I would suggest that instead of seeking a second 350B, or other stereo tuner, you be on the lookout for a Scott 335 or LM35 multiplex adapter, or the similar Fisher model, the MPX-100. Finding one in good condition will require some patience, and perhaps a few hundred dollars, but having one will allow you to receive stereo on the many tuners from the late 1950's and early 1960's which are mono in themselves but provide a multiplex output jack. Those tuners sell for far less than the 1960's stereo tuners, allowing you to economically purchase several tuners if need be to find one that performs really well.

Among tuners that are mono with multiplex out, and that sell for reasonable prices, I would very strongly recommend the Scott 310D. Its sound quality, although not its sensitivity (which is very good nevertheless), approaches that of my multi-kilobuck REL Precedent (the best sounding tuner I've ever heard, and that includes two different Marantz 10B's). I have also had good results with a Fisher FM90X, a Scott 311D, and a Scott 310C, among others.

Also, should you encounter a Radiocraftsmen 10 or RC10 in good condition, grab it! They are from 1952, and mono only. Consequently they sell for very low prices. But if in good condition, and if fed a good signal, their sound quality is so beguiling you won't miss the stereo.

My experience with integrated amps of that period is limited to a Scott 299C, which I have been pleased with in a second system, but I haven't assessed it in my main system. Pilot gear, especially separate preamps and power amps, is also well worth looking out for.

FWIW though, I'll add that my limited experience with speakers of that period (mainly two different pairs of large Tannoys, that were apparently in excellent condition) has not been positive. My suspicion is that their very disappointing sound quality was due more to the cabinet design and technology of that time than to the drivers.

Good luck!

-- Al
Hi Dave,

Your findings are mostly correct. The 7189 and EL84M output tubes are rated to handle significantly higher plate and screen voltages than the 6BQ5 and EL84, and the Scott 299A and 299B designs run them at voltages that are above the limits for the 6BQ5/EL84.

The 6LN8 is listed in my old Sams Tube Substitution Handbook as being a substitute for the 6BL8/ECF80. I compared the technical specs of the 6LN8 and the 6BL8 in an old GE Tube Manual I have. The only difference was that the filament voltages that were listed were 6.0V for the 6LN8 and 6.3V for the 6BL8. I would not expect that 5% difference to be significant, especially considering that all of the other specs are the same, and the Sams listing.

(For the record, though, I'll mention that the Sams handbook indicates that the converse substitution, 6BL8 for 6LN8, would not be suitable in circuits having series wired filaments requiring controlled warmup times. That has no relevance to the Scott application, though).

Continued good luck!

Best regards,
-- Al