|
Vintage Asylum Classic gear from yesteryear; vintage audio standing the test of time. |
|
|
|
Vintage Asylum Classic gear from yesteryear; vintage audio standing the test of time. |
|
In Reply to: so -- to asked the un-asked question,Brian posted by mhardy6647 on June 23, 2014 at 12:03:48:
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
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:
Follow Ups
- RE: so -- to asked the un-asked question,Brian - Brian Levy 18:53:32 06/23/14 (0)
Top of Page ]
[ Contact Us ]
[ Support/Wish List ]
[ Copyright © 2024, Audio Asylum, all rights reserved ]