|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
192.171.49.251
There is a lot of discussion revolving around the majors such as Pioneer, Sansui, Marantz while, other very good vintage marques not so much but over time there are a number indicating there is while not the collector interest there is a decent number of owners who use these companies' units.
I have been for some time particularly interested in a few such as Sherwood and the Philip Laboratory Series. More recently, I have been cycling through my units preparing to do a selloff and finding a permanent replacement for the departed McIntosh system sold a couple of years ago and since have not focused on a new smaller main system.
I have had several of the Sherwood tube units, most recently the:
S5000II tube integrated amp
S3000IV tube tuner
These came part and parcel with a Bozak ensemble and after storing them for some years had them gone through and tried. Where I came from, Sherwood was not a widely distribute line so I was not as familiar with the line personally as much as others but did know they were an engineering firm and made bullet proof very good units. I just had what I thought was better. Turned out I was wrong. This pair while not as glitzy or as "feature" laden had it in spades where it counted.
I did eventually decide to sell them after deciding it was time to get out of all of my tube units; just at that stage in life.
I then decided that at some point I wanted to sort of restore the Bozak equipment cabinet but update it without disturbing the period look. Their early SS amps and tuner were less seemingly known than the earliest ss receivers but their later units that are imported seem to get noticed. I eventually bought a S9500c amp, the smallest of their 1st line of ss amps, rated at 20 watts rms agross the board both channels driven. In the same lineup is the 40 watter, S9600 and 60 watter, S9000 that actually was their first ss amp, strangely. The looks are the same as the tube amp but not white painted, a plus as the paint tends to wear off. I also purchased a S3300 tuner, the replacement for the S3000V tube tuner. The S3300 has several variants depending on, as usual Sherwood's practice their retaining a very good initial design and then continually improving it rather than the usual ground up designs for each generation. The 1st is all silicon, the the FET, then the FET/Microcircuit and lastly while it did nclude a model number change, the SEL300. Mine was the FET. I later bought the later FET/Microcircuit variant that also forms the basis for the later SEL300 and SEL200 receiver.
The 3 units were gone through in the US by reputable techs as they were bought there and it made financial sense to have the work done and then shipped to Canada.
While I did not own at the same time the tube Sherwood set and the SS set, the enjoyment and sound seemed so close in listening enjoyment with my speakers they soon became my main amp and tuner coupled with my Bozak Symphonys.
I have been from time to time looking for the S9600 and larger chassis S9000 to pair with the 2nd S3300.
SOme years ago, somewhere and somehow I acquired a S7650CP, the largest of that series. I can not remember the particulars as to the acquisition. It has been hanging around for some years but not used more because of having so much stuff than it was not appreciated. My son had been using a Sony STR6065 that had been part of the Barzilay system I bought in Florida in the early '90s. He had decided on it as his unit of choice in 2000 when we moved into this house and he wanted something for his computer. He paired it with my ADS L300s speakers. A couple of years ago, the Sony finally started to show some sign. Lights were all out, tuning meter was sticky, tuning condenser and controls scratchy but it all worked. I told him to pull it down figuring I would have it gone through as it was my longest owned receiver. I told him to go through my stash and take whatever he wanted as a sub an after several weeks of round robin picked the S7650CP. This was over receivers such as the Sony STR 6120, 6045 and 6060 as well as the TA1055 and ST5055 am and tuner, the H-K 630, all the Philips and a load of other units. He also replaced with ADS L300s with a set of something or other about the same size but a little more "lively" for his tastes and game playing, etc. I was a might surprised by his choice.
Along the way I had picked up a SEL200 receiver. The SEL line was targeted to be their unique, high end, select series targeting the high end market. They had been losing market share to the imports with their US dedicated focus and as good as their line was I guess by trying to kick it up a notch, though I am not sure much of a major kick, tried something. The receiver was about $100 more than the similarly looking S8900 and they introduced the 1st digital readout tuner, a hopped up S3300 FET/Microcircuit tuner. The SEL400 amp was a new design and not from the older line. Probably because they wanted more power and the older design was maxed at 60 watts. Also, The SEL400 does not use the capacitor output that Sherwood used from the 1st ss unit design. It seems at this time the marketing department and engineers were fighting. The receiver line through the S8900 used capacitor output as well as the amps before the SEL400. Event the SEL200 used the capacitor output. With the direct coupled SEL400 Sherwood was moving to the now common but, not necessarily better, direct coupled design. I am not sure whether the S7900A/8900A is the capacitor or direct output design but, it is pretty clear with it marketing was finally getting an upper hand from the old boys.
The SEL line ran parallel with the S line but lasted only a couple of years with fewer sales and only in a small circle got the recognition sought but, it seemed not to be so much better that it really differentiated itself. The exception was the SEL300 tuner, not because it was that much better but, because it had the digital readout. The circuit seems the same as the tuner section of the SEL200. The SEL amp is seemingly exceedingly rare. More so than the SEL200. Seems neither could successfully compete against Marantz, etc. showing its marketing and distribution weakness and not necessarily the others were better.
My SEL200 needed output caps and the one put in after a long time burning in it seemed not to improve the sound. I had sold the receiver and then bought it back. He had let it burn in for something like 100 hours but no success. I stored it but recently pulled it out and let it burn for a couple of days after a quick listen. It needed just that little bit extra time. The difference between it and the S3300 and S9500c is subtle but, noticeable. The tuner, I used my S3300 FET/Microcircuit version to compare and put it through the SEL200, is so negligible that the was not difference with stations I listen to. It did seem a more selective and locked in sharper than the tuner. It did have more pulling power and with distant stations they were slightly quieter. There is one more i.f. stage and filter in the SEL so, it is making a difference for the dx crowd. Likewise it will mean the SEL300 tuner will be better for dx'ing than the S3300 but, not discernibly better than the S3300 otherwise. I had previously ran the 2 S3300s against each other and found no differences. I do not have the 1st version All Silicon so do not know if btween it and the SEL300 if the difference on local channels there would be a difference.
The SEL200 amp measures in at between 65 and 40 watts per channel depending on the sheet you read. It does seem to be FTC 40 watts/channel. The S9600 is likewise 40 watts but the other specs of the SEL200 are in the range of the S9000 and lower than the S9600 so, I suspect it is the S9000 limited by the smaller power supply in the SEL200. If so, it means it is running rather conservatively. After burning it in and some 8 hours of continuous play, the heatsinks and power transformer were only very slightly warm. It is tighter with somewhat better bass control than the S9500c, maybe a function of the power potential difference. phono sections seem to have no subjective difference, I ran the S9500c into the SEL200 for some listening to compare. I did prefer my Koss e'stat phones on the S9500c over them on the SEL200. It seemed they came closer to my KLH Nine sound bias. Not a headphone impedance issue as they hook to the speaker terminals and nominally are 16 ohms. I used them energized as I usually do but did not use the self-energizing option. The AC energizing is more revealing.
On the Heresy IIs, the SEL did as well as the S9500c in every way but improved the bass presentation without makiing it blossom or lose detail, just more of the same quality but better. Mids and highs that really a fantatic with the S9500c neither suffered nor improved.
With the OLA, just recently pulled and cycled in, the result was similar but here, I preferred the S9500c. The OLAs bass tightened and seemingly was stronger but not a result of the 2x power of the SEL200 as my meter showed I was using about 3 watts peak. Suspect that the slighty higher dampening factor made the difference. It sadly, emphasized the weakness of the OLA, its midrange and distance between the tweeter and woofer. It became more obvious as to which driver was producing what sounds and the midrange collapse was more pronounced and to the point that as I am used to feeling about the OLA in the end, just too compromised to find acceptable. The S9500c kept the speaker more together in presentation and the midrange, the dip was still noticeable but, not enough to drawn attention to as a deal killer. I could see living with the combination without reservation but not the SEL200/OLA combo.
With both on The Smaller Advent Loudspeaker it was a draw. It does not have the tweeter as far apart as with the OLA and the midrange dip was illuminated when designed. The OLA may go a bit lower but if your amp can handle well a 4 ohm load The Smaller Advent is the way to go. While designed and marketed for smaller rooms, that is a relative statement. It was designed before the advent of the current mini-monitor stuff so popular. Today, it would not be marketed as such, I am sure. It does as well as any in my 15'x8' room including the OLA. It does better in close field listening, though as with the OLA, when listened to that way just emphasizes the issues.
While I had previously decided the S3300/S9500c were to continue to be my main units going forward, this has changed and the SEL200 now occupies that space. The only reason it may switch back is what happens when I use the Wharfedale W70s. I am almost strong enough to reopen them and pull those polys I installed a few years ago and put in the oil caps I bought. These were designed for and during the tube era and for quite low powered amps. In theory, they may favor the S9500c with its slightly more tube fluency and lower power. Hoping to get this done within the next couple of weeks.
I had always thought from my knowledge, experiences and when I head the SEL line at the CES way back when, it might have a solid winner that could take on the Marantz 18/19, MAC1700 and 1900 and TOTL Sonys that as a group were at the time considered the elite of the receivers regardless of brand for the "true" music lover and listener. At the time a number of companies were marketing a lot of receivers but at best they were 2nd tier from the perspective of the "upper" class. The difference of course in perception was the rationale for paying the premium. Today, while the 1700 and 1900 have a small lover crowd, the other seem to still hit that list. The Sherwood I suspected would also but like its tube siblings always seemed to not quite get the respect though they had the quality and performance. As the SEL200 has sidelined my STR6120 that ultimately after long hours of going back and forth trumped by the narrowest of margins my STR6060 and knowing the Marantz as I used to own them and having experience with the 18 that I liked better than the 19 and having owned the 1700 and 1900, I think the SEL200's competition is the Marantz 18. The original price difference between the SEL's $599 and the 18's $695 justified by the scope that would have at the time justified an even higher price. Marantz lost money on each sold and why the 19 was introduced at $1,000. In system, I am not sure the difference between the 19 and SEL200 was sonically worth the difference. If I were youger, my next step would be to locate the 18 to figure it out. Until then the SEL200 gets my top honors as a receiver, even over the much loved Philips 797 that goes head to head with the STR6120.
Yes, I have obsessed over the Sherwoods as I did over the Philips Lab Series but where there seems to be no or little interest, it drives my interest as to why and if someone has missed something. In both of these, I think it seems users have not missed them while none of the Philips have found the collectors' radar and most of the SS Sherwood likewise other than a few of the lower end imported units.
Who else is using Sherwood SS units and what are the reasons and experiences? Would be interesting to see the reasons and evaluate whether it is quality or cost driven or otherwise.
Don Brian Levy, J.D.
Toronto ON Canada
Follow Ups:
Brian,
First, the S7900A and S8900A had direct coupled outputs. Great sounding receivers in their day, and perfectly happy pushing a pair of AR3a's or Double Advents. They were the last of the US made Sherwoods, and maybe the best sounding of the bigger SS units. They also had Dynaquad circuitry.
I had an S7200 for a while, and eventually gave it to my granddaughter. It has a broken power switch (it's on the back of the volume control) and there is no replacement. I fixed that with a pushbutton switch located in one of the holes in the center of the front panel, replacing a phone jack. A nice sounding amp and also US made. Pretty competitive with the Marantz 2230 and Pioneer SX626 for sound.
Quite a few Sherwood SS amps were sold here in northern Ohio. The S7100A and later S7210 were popular low powered units, and many were sold by a local chain called Tokyo-Shapiro who paired them with EPI 100's and 60's, a Technics TT with an Audio Technica cartridge. Nice sounding systems.
Jerry
What's your relative impression of the (more or less)contemporaneous,early solid state HH Scott tuners, amplifiers, and receivers.
I have a bit more hands- and ears-on experience with those...
all the best,
mrh
Difficult as by the time these came out I was solidly into separates and pretty solid in with Marantz, McIntosh, QUAD and some others.
The early Fisher ss had a multitude of issues out the door with the biggest being the pioneering of wave solder technology. Just a huge headache with cold solder joints for their entire time before selling out. The company had some great engineering and innovation plus when working I think as acceptable as their tube line. I have the most experience with the replacement for the FM-1000, the TFM-1000. They did not make a studio specific version of it as they had with the FM-1000. In my opinion, it was one of the best tuner barring none except for the Scott 4310 tube tuner. But, it was a maintenance headache. The German sourced front end was amazing but unreliable. Scottish replacement for the 4310, the 4612 foretold the direction Scott was going. The company just did not seem to have the talent to compete with Fisher in ss r&d and engineering. Scltt's amps did better and like their tube amps, I preferred them over the Fisher ss amps. My standard back the was the Marantz 7, a pair of 9s running in troode and the KLH Nines and the QUAD IIs with the 22 or Mattes preamp. My tuner was the 10b, natch.
I did have a 500-T and a 342 (I do not remember the version) and torn between them. My speakers for testing was the JansZen Z600, floor stander with a Weather table, Grado arm and Several cartridges I playing with. The speakers and turntable setup were my permanent tester along with the Mattes preamp and Marantz 15 amp. This permanent setup gave a fixed competitive for some time. The Fisher if I were into FM was.The clear winner with the varacto tuner and presets. The amp had punch compared to the Scott that seemed more refined but at times too refined to the point of uninteresting. The Fisher did at time seem too much in the other direction losing the delicacy that strings and triangle deserve. Scott also had less of that early transistor harshness. THD Fisher came closer to the Marantz 19 that at the time defined what a receiver could really do, I did not have a 18 that would have been fairer. The Scott OTOH, sounded closer to the Mcintosh 1700, my perennial keeper where I seemed to routinely turn over every 19 I ever bought which quite a few.
The Fisher went to a cousin who had 1st choice and who had a set of JansZen while the Scott sent to a customer for a second system, He had a McIntosh tune system I had sold him. At the time I had a number of alternative but he liked the Scott best.
I did have for a short time the 312D, 260B, and 299F. A customer wanted to replace his Scott tune system. The 312 was quite good but, not like the 310E it replaced. The 260B I liked a lot but the 299F was a bit more detailed and seemed less colored. The customer had a set of KLH Ones with the JansZen I30 array inserted in the tweeter slot. Yes, in my neck of the woods JansZen was THE only way to fly. He ended up getting a used Scott 399 with the matching Scott multiplex. The Scotts he had needed work and were very easy units. At the time, I totally agreed with his choice. The 399 was too beautiful to pass up; I should never have showed it to him. I had bought the pair for myself and never again had a chance to get another set NIB with the optional cases. Their resale value contrary to all other tube gear back then was increasing and finding any was harder than drilling a hen's tooth.
I do have a 1 still gen ss Fisher pair now, needing work. The TFM300 predated the TFM-1000 tuner and is a hybrid with the tube front end from the 500c and the rest transistor and a TX300, the all transistors matching amp. I also had the received the contained both units, the 600-T. I have since sold the 600-T. I was going to restore the pair but my sickness sunk the project so, they are going up for sale. I did run them for a short time and they reminded me of my recollection of these early Ss Fishers. Interesting from a historical perspective bug little else. I was going to do the restro on them only because 1) I had them and they are a might rare, and 2) their build from the execution perspective I think may be the best for any manufacturer. When we talk about a no cost spared unit, these are it. Under the hood, just totally amazing and as good and K think better than the best from McIntosh and Marantz. The cast 24 carat edged faceplate is a work of art and one of the most beautiful ever produced. If Scott had done the same with their rotary dial units, I think it would have been an untouchable company. The backplate is likewise cast and screw holes machine thread tapped. No self tapping screws. The chassis was front the tune era and shielding, including cabling as good as it got. These units and the 600-T deserve to be restored and saved just for what they represent, what we could could produce when we wanted to build the best. I put it into perspective by suggesting the 3 units are the E.H. Scott of stereo units.
Don Brian Levy, J.D.
Toronto ON Canada
Difficult as by the time these came out I was solidly into separates and pretty solid in with Marantz, McIntosh, QUAD and some others.
The early Fisher ss had a multitude of issues out the door with the biggest being the pioneering of wave solder technology. Just a huge headache with cold solder joints for their entire time before selling out. The company had some great engineering and innovation plus when working I think as acceptable as their tube line. I have the most experience with the replacement for the FM-1000, the TFM-1000. They did not make a studio specific version of it as they had with the FM-1000. In my opinion, it was one of the best tuner barring none except for the Scott 4310 tube tuner. But, it was a maintenance headache. The German sourced front end was amazing but unreliable. Scottish replacement for the 4310, the 4612 foretold the direction Scott was going. The company just did not seem to have the talent to compete with Fisher in ss r&d and engineering. Scltt's amps did better and like their tube amps, I preferred them over the Fisher ss amps. My standard back the was the Marantz 7, a pair of 9s running in troode and the KLH Nines and the QUAD IIs with the 22 or Mattes preamp. My tuner was the 10b, natch.
I did have a 500-T and a 342 (I do not remember the version) and torn between them. My speakers for testing was the JansZen Z600, floor stander with a Weather table, Grado arm and Several cartridges I playing with. The speakers and turntable setup were my permanent tester along with the Mattes preamp and Marantz 15 amp. This permanent setup gave a fixed competitive for some time. The Fisher if I were into FM was.The clear winner with the varacto tuner and presets. The amp had punch compared to the Scott that seemed more refined but at times too refined to the point of uninteresting. The Fisher did at time seem too much in the other direction losing the delicacy that strings and triangle deserve. Scott also had less of that early transistor harshness. THD Fisher came closer to the Marantz 19 that at the time defined what a receiver could really do, I did not have a 18 that would have been fairer. The Scott OTOH, sounded closer to the Mcintosh 1700, my perennial keeper where I seemed to routinely turn over every 19 I ever bought which quite a few.
The Fisher went to a cousin who had 1st choice and who had a set of JansZen while the Scott sent to a customer for a second system, He had a McIntosh tune system I had sold him. At the time I had a number of alternative but he liked the Scott best.
I did have for a short time the 312D, 260B, and 299F. A customer wanted to replace his Scott tune system. The 312 was quite good but, not like the 310E it replaced. The 260B I liked a lot but the 299F was a bit more detailed and seemed less colored. The customer had a set of KLH Ones with the JansZen I30 array inserted in the tweeter slot. Yes, in my neck of the woods JansZen was THE only way to fly. He ended up getting a used Scott 399 with the matching Scott multiplex. The Scotts he had needed work and were very easy units. At the time, I totally agreed with his choice. The 399 was too beautiful to pass up; I should never have showed it to him. I had bought the pair for myself and never again had a chance to get another set NIB with the optional cases. Their resale value contrary to all other tube gear back then was increasing and finding any was harder than drilling a hen's tooth.
I do have a 1 still gen ss Fisher pair now, needing work. The TFM300 predated the TFM-1000 tuner and is a hybrid with the tube front end from the 500c and the rest transistor and a TX300, the all transistors matching amp. I also had the received the contained both units, the 600-T. I have since sold the 600-T. I was going to restore the pair but my sickness sunk the project so, they are going up for sale. I did run them for a short time and they reminded me of my recollection of these early Ss Fishers. Interesting from a historical perspective bug little else. I was going to do the restro on them only because 1) I had them and they are a might rare, and 2) their build from the execution perspective I think may be the best for any manufacturer. When we talk about a no cost spared unit, these are it. Under the hood, just totally amazing and as good and K think better than the best from McIntosh and Marantz. The cast 24 carat edged faceplate is a work of art and one of the most beautiful ever produced. If Scott had done the same with their rotary dial units, I think it would have been an untouchable company. The backplate is likewise cast and screw holes machine thread tapped. No self tapping screws. The chassis was front the tune era and shielding, including cabling as good as it got. These units and the 600-T deserve to be restored and saved just for what they represent, what we could could produce when we wanted to build the best. I put it into perspective by suggesting the 3 units are the E.H. Scott of stereo units.
Don Brian Levy, J.D.
Toronto ON Canada
Kept the S-7200 and have a later (but not half bad) S-702CP amplifier.
I do have an S-2300 tuner but its only marginally functional.
(actually Brian once swapped me one of these for another component, if memory serves... that one I swapped for something else, I think... and subsequently acquired THIS one... should've kept Brian's...)
I once had a dump-find pair of the big (BIG) Sherwood Tanglewood speakers... but I gave those away, as well. They had panache, but even for me they took up a little too much space to justify keeping 'em.
You know about all of the thermionic ones...
all the best,
mrh
I gave my son a Sherwood that looked just like the second one down. That thing really had a great sounding tuner.
I See you have the infamous Crown IC-150 amp and preamp. I had an IC 150A that sounded like fingernails on a blackboard, so I sold it for more than I paid for it. I have read that you can make these things sound great by swapping IC's. I remember the build quality was excellent on the preamp.
Dave
... over the last decade. That 7100A was mated with modded KLH 24s, & recipient is amazed by how that combo can thump out the bass for being only 17 watts-per-channel. Replaced stock thin tone control to amp board wiring on 7010 with Mesa Recto Cab wiring. Recipient finds it hard to believe it's only 10 wpcs, as it rocks KLH 17s intensely. In both cases, amp board to speaker output wiring was replaced with 16 gauge. Both systems perform home theatre duty quite admirably, also. An Air Force brat bud who passed away recently had a tubed all AR system back in the 60s, which he traded for a S-7300, Dual turntable & Rectilinears in the early 70s. 73s para Sactown.
dug up some old photos of these two, FWIW...
all the best,
mrh
Thanks for the great information Brian.
My very first stereo was a small SS Sherwood integrated with small Sherwood speakers from the late 60's. I have no idea what the model was although I've looked at pictures and Ebay wish I could remember.
I owned a stock 5000S II integrated and a matching tuner about 2001 for a short time. Although they worked the sound was lacking needing rebuild I guess.
Edits: 06/22/14 06/22/14
Like them both, although the 5000 is going to need Prof. Samra's magic down the road when he's feeling better.
We're talking ss here. Haven't any Sherwood stuff although Dr. Levy's excellent posts regarding Sherwood ss units have made me very interested in trying various pieces. For the right price I may, although have too much stuff around here now including Sony 6060/6045 and HK 430/730.
'specially the tuners.
Wouldn't mind acquiring an S-7900 or S-8900... someday...
all the best,
mrh
Thanks for the advert showing the S8900 and SEL200. I thought the price difference was $100 between them. Memory has too many websites, I guess. Makes a lot more sense now why the SEL is so scarce. A big premium to get to the SEL from the 8900.
Don Brian Levy, J.D.
Toronto ON Canada
Next up from BOTL in their late 70s early 80s receiver lineup. Mated to 5002 Advents up front,minimus 7ws for the rear. I really like it. Has enough power and a decent tuner. Wish it had a mono function but it is silver faced and in a plain almost yamaha-ish way looks good.
Post a Followup:
FAQ |
Post a Message! |
Forgot Password? |
|
||||||||||||||
|
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors: