|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
97.84.205.208
In Reply to: RE: scott 299A question(s)... posted by gkargreen on November 25, 2014 at 15:34:03
That's what I'm saying.
"
Follow Ups:
that is what I can get at 20 watts, which would you suggest? thanks!
Don't forget that you can use two 330 Ohm 10 watt in parallel to make a 165 ohm 20 watter.Mouser Electronics has a selection of 330 ohm 10 watt.
That's the way Scott did it for a while and the parts list for the 299A calls out two 330 ohm 10 watt. R119-120 or R209-210 depending on the schematic and that's what's in my 299A.I don't know what your skill set is but having done a 299A myself with some basic knowledge, lots of thinking things out and consulting the Internet, it wasn't easy because things like having the B+ voltages be high or vary due to different current draw of the 7189's wasn't second nature to me and that threw me off for a while.
Like it isn't bad enough for the reasonably experienced to see high B+ due to the higher line voltages today compared to the schematic voltages that were taken at 117 volts in.
Edits: 11/26/14
thanks, Dave, luckily local Arcade had 330 10 watts in stock, just put them in and am going to fire this back up and check the rails. I had to replace the terminal strip for those large resistors, it broke as I was removing the wires and resistors, wow, those 10 watters really baked the strip and the connecting wires insulation!
"wow, those 10 watters really baked the strip and
the connecting wires insulation!"
Yes but had one 20 watt 160-165 ohm been in there the same thing would probably have happened because the heat would have been the same.
It would probably be a good idea to leave a bit of air flow space in between the two 10 watters and not have them touching each other along their entire length.
That terminal strip and associated wiring insulation in my 299A isn't all that bad.
I suppose it could depend on the use the unit saw and what kind of current draw conditions that resistor saw.
yes, don't know the history of it, other than there was NO resistor in that space, just a bare wire connecting to the cap and the little 5 watter, amazing what some idiots will do! Luckily, the Scott survived the butcher job, and is singing away today, wonder how long it will take to break in with the new caps and PS rebuild? BTW, how is the phono stage in it? Also, what do you use for cables, those RCA jacks in the back are so close together I can't easily get my cables connected to the inputs!
I'm not the one to ask about cap break in. That's one of those issues of never ending debate that I don't and won't deal with. If a cap doesn't sound good in 5-10 minutes it goes away in favor of a cap that sounds good to me more or less right away.
I have zero patience to wait hours in the hopes that something will sound better, except for speakers that have mechanical components to loosen up. You need to use your own mindset/beliefs and sonic taste.
As for new PS lytics, my own feeling is that they are what they are after 5 minutes.
After recapping a few pieces and not being happy with the results and having to go through a lengthy trial and error process with different caps here and there to restore the sound I liked I'm now in favor of not replacing caps with "better ones" just for the heck of it.
The exception are the PS/bias lytics, cathode bypass lytics and output coupling caps because those could cause some expensive problems if they fail.
Those Sprague Bumblebee caps with the color stripes are suspect due to some manufacturing problems so I might replace those depending on where they are used.
As far as I know the phono section in these Scotts are pretty well regarded and I have no complaints with mine.
My phono cable has Vampire RCA connectors that fit fine and I make other cables with Canare RCA's and a couple of different cable types depending on the use.
I was ready to live with the 299A and sell off the "better stuff" until I got a good deal on a Sherwood S5000 early version and I like that better in a few ways. But had I never heard the Sherwood, the 299A would have been OK.
Dave, the Vampire entry-level RCA connectors will work on the Scott phono inputs? The Vampires look a little big, but they are good, yes? What kind of wire do you use with them to make up the cables? Thanks!
The Vampire 557 entry level male RCA's look like the ones I have. They fit the Scott, Sherwood and Mac C-22 just fine and I've never had a problem with them.
I also use the Canare F9's. They just make it without touching each other in the scott.
For phono with a cartridge that needs to see a low capacitance, like a total of 200pf for the best response curve, I use a 17 pf per ft very flexible coax that I got when I worked for an audio company but you won't find that on the market as it was made for them only.
I also have belden 9259 coax that's 17.3 pf per foot but it's not as felxible and If I remember correctly I had to buy a whole spool.
For a cartridge like some of the Shures that like around 400 pF, I prefer the Vampire wire that is now, as far as I can tell, only sold on E-Bay by a company in Gainsville Florida. It's CCR or CCR OFC and an E-bay search should bring that vendor up. They have premade cables too and I don't see why they wouldn't be good for high level interconnects as well even at around 60-70 pf per foot.
I personally seem to like the bare copper coaxs. Either stranded center conductor or solid wire center conductor.
Some people like the Mogami mic wire but using two center conductors and a braid around them means special attention to what end the braid is grouned at because it's just a shield and not a signal conductor. I believe the grouned end would be at the preamp to dump any hash/RFI the braid picked up.
Kind of funny that I don't go for the "cap breakin" thing but I'm fussy about how different wire sounds. Silver interconnects and litz speaker cable drives me nuts every time.
Having grown up with mono tube equipment then stereo, using lamp zip cord for speaker cable and never hearing about breakin or wondering what caps were in anything was glorious and so was the sound that I'm now used to and like so I'm more a best bang for the buck guy rather than "high end" that I could never listen too for very long.
thanks, Dave, your post is very informative! I too am a "bang for the buck" kinda guy, that is in part because I no longer have a job that is making money, and am back in school to get a job, or start up a new business doing electronics repair, so I am adding to my knowledge base by working on and learning from all the experts out here! I am currently using a Denon DL301 MkII cartridge, a LOMC, not sure that that will work directly into the Scott (or Sherwood when I get that one working...) but having the phono stage is a good option. And it is good to know that there are good quality plugs that will fit on those closely-spaced input jacks, thanks so much!
I think I found the Asylum around 2001 and reading about things people liked and didn't like was interesting and certainly food for thought.
Some of the suggestions I found to be things I liked and others weren't.
Having been around "high end audio" for many of my working years only reinforced my belief that I'm a late 50's to mid 60's tube equipment and speaker person.
If someone asks what I like or use I'll tell them but all that remains an opinion based on the way I like to hear music reproduced and how the combinations react in my system.
There's lots of wrong ways but only one right way. To have a system that draws you into the music and makes your feet tap.
Finding that combo is the hard part that can take you down many dead end paths.
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: