|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
65.206.227.27
Hello,I've got a Scott 299D that really sounds great. I'd like to mount some feet on it but the aluminum bottom cover is so flimsy I don't think it would support the weight of the amp. My Fisher amps have pretty solid, flat, bottom covers with tapped holes for mounting rubber feet or attaching the chassis to a cabinet. My Scott bottom cover is thin, it's not flat, and the power transformer actually sticks out a bit through a rectangular hole in the cover. What do you guys do to prop your Scott amps up if you're not using a cabinet? Right now I'm just setting my amp on top of two 10" long 1"x1" boards. Works okay but not ideal. Thanks.
Follow Ups:
I have a 299A with the same aluminum bottom. It is strong enough, but too thin to hold an 8/32" thread for any length of time. I am working on the same problem but wish to retain the wood case. I bought some 1" x 1/8" thick anodized aluminum flat bar and plan to cut 1 1/2" long pieces and rivet then on the inside of the bottom where the feet will screw in. That will give enough "meat" to tap a proper thread.
The chassis is soft aluminum but it sure polishes up nice.
Larry.
To answer your question some had the galvenized and some had the small guage steel..Even the HK citation 2 has a heavy steel guage bottom but later ones have the light guage steel.
You were worried that mounting rubber feet to the bottom would be troublesome in your opinion. Your attaching the feet to the actual chasis rails with the bottom in between acting as a spacer or washer and you wont have any problems.
Another reason they may have gone to the light flimsy steal is probably it acts as a better shield for hum.It probably has to do with the metal content in the way shield reacts.
If it really bothers you, you can always just hit the hardware store, buy an oversized cookie sheet and punch it to fit your Scott. They'll probably even have models that are teflon insulated.....Really! :)
The cover of my 299a is pretty sturdy. I used those 3M press on adhesive feet with it...no problems
Hi, microbe:This was a major difference in the overall build-quality of Scott versus Fisher components.
Best recommendation is to mount the rubber feet through the holes along the edge of the chassis bottom, which attach the flimsy aluminum bottom plate, just run the screws directly through the thin plate into the frame itself. That is what I have done for years.
Or...take the existing plate to a metal fabricator and pay through the nose to have one cut for you out of 1/16 gauge metal!
Lets see, early Scott components with copper chasis VS those Fishers with the plastic knobs...;^)I am not trying to bust your chops, but one needs to be careful here as both companies made some really well buit, in every respect, components, and some that were not quite as nice...
I thought that most Scotts had a steel bottom plate, so it may well be that he had a console pull on which someone put a newly fabtricated bottom plate. I can not recall seeing an aluminum bottom plate on any golden era gear comercial gear. Of course Bud boxes and other DIY would be a different story. I have seen allot of gear that was mounted in consoles, with no bottom plates of covers. And I have seen allot of *lost* bottom plates. Of course there is allot I have not seen, so caveat emptore.
Hello, j rodney:You referred to:
"Lets see, early Scott components with copper chasis VS those Fishers with the plastic knobs...;^)"
Where did you come up with that one? :-) And, what does this have to do with my previous statement, anyway?
Over the past forty years, I have owned quite a few pieces of both Fisher tube gear as well as components by Scott. I can tell you that from my personal experience, I have yet to find a tube-era Fisher set of any kind which did not come in a rather robustly constructed chassis. I found quite a few of the contemporary Scott pieces to be less robustly constructed, however.
And specifically, as concerns SCOTT TUNERS versus FISHER TUNERS, the Scott tube-era units often came equipped with very thin aluminum bottom plates. This happens to be a fact.
Even my Scott 310-D features that sort of construction. Keep in mind that such components were mostly meant to be housed in nice quality wooden cabinets or placed through cut-out openings in custom installations.
Obviously, this does not have anything at all to do with sound quality, mind you, just logistics.
Then, of course, there are Harman-Kardon amps and preamps, which are built like armoured vehicles! Ever lift a Citation I preamp? Get a back-brace!
Anyway, cheers!
Richard Links
Berkeley, CA
On a whole...Scott build quality is below Fisher especially during the stereo era. Post 1955 Scott gear....is pretty damn flimsy. All of the 299 series amps I have worked on had flimsy bottom covers, and equally flimsy face panels..well the "D" series ones are a little better...but if you look at a post 1955 Scott the wrong way it will bend and/or dent.One of my favorite Scott pieces is the 210-D mono integrated. It seems to have been designed by a sadist...it is hands down one of the most difficult pieces of gear I have ever worked on...I guess they though people would upgrade instead of fixing it!!! No nice easy layout like they earlier 210 series amps...
But my real gripe with Scott..is their schematics. They have some of the WORST drawn schematics known to man. They also have a habit of making 20,000 running changes and not telling anybody.
My Scott 222D amp has plastic knobs that are similar to the Fisher ones I have seen, but its construction is not what I would call flimsy. It is in a heavy chassis with a very thick aluminum faceplate and the wiring is point to point. The wood case is very solid and nice. Since I have no experience with other Scotts, and I have no reason to doubt you on them. Give my experience with the 222D; I was surprised to say they were flimsy. I have seen both the outside and the inside of a Fisher 400 receiver. I did think it was well built but it did not seem substantially better than my Scott. I did find the schematic for the 222D very hard to follow. Fortunately, tube circuits are not that complicated.Am I looking at the wrong Scott or the wrong Fisher? Did I miss something on my 222D or the Fisher 400? I am very curious as to how you rate the 222D in the scheme of things!
Same as my 340B receiver and 355 tuner preamp, it is made out of aluminium, suppose to be more costly than normal steel. I don't like it either.
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors: