Review of Scott amp with Mapleshade Upgrades

We only got a dusting in the valley. The surrounding mountains got an inch or two. Higher elevations as found in Floyd and Montgomery counties got a bit more. I think it was more NW of us as WV, PA, and OH got a lot more. The mountains in WV form a break for us and we don't usually get much unless a system settles-in for a full day or more. If one gets trapped in the valley, it can get interesting. I have relatives in W. NY and they got hammered of course.

The noise issue in tube amps can come from just about anywhere. Typically that sort of noise is either tube to tube socket connection or the tubes themselves. It can also commonly be potentiometers, switch contacts, failing resistors or poor / degrading solder joints. The more complex the design, the more crap that can go wrong with it. No easy answers, I'm afraid.
-Bill

 

I'd say your info source is wrong there. Every Scott amp that I have heard, and it's been more than a few, have sounded anything but bright. It likely has to do with the replacement parts used, "upgrade mods' or perhaps you are just overly sensitive and unrealistic about how things should sound. I have met a couple of audiophiles who complained that everything was "bright". I sold one such guy a system that I would have never suggested myself for anyone but he picked it out component by component, with every component being the darkest sounding that we offered. He still thought it was "bright". He then went and bought some seriously bright and thin sounding speakers from another source and seemed happier. The tech at the place where he got those latest speakers came in to my shop and told me that he had bought the speakers, which I had originally sold the guy, and commented "I can't believe that guy traded these in for the ones he bought; these are way better!" So after an experience like that, I just have to chalk some of the out of the blue comments that i get from audiophiles as hysteria. Basically, the guys at Scott knew what they were doing and they made some of the finest amps available at that time. You can get better amps today and you can restore those old amps sometimes to near their former glory, at great expense, but it is not typical to find such bandwidth and dynamically limited vintage equipment to sound bright. Muddy, dark, compressed, distorted, noisy - yes, but bright isn't a typical outcome unless the amp circuit has been changed and some inappropriate parts have been used in it. In that case, an amp could sound thin or bright by comparison to its stock form.
-Bill

 

I can't even remember if I've ever hooked my Scott up with modern speakers. Certainly there's not a brightness issue with 50 year old Bozaks!

Well, there are no pots on the amp, so I can at least try the pre-amp with a solid state to see which is the culprit.

 

I would encourage caution here. Just because you don't think a given component sounds bright does not the person who does think so wrong. Maybe you have a high frequency hearing loss, or maybe your client just has too much sensitivity. Ultimately we all build systems to align with our particular ears. What is right for you does not have to be right for me and vice versa.

 

I'm seriously doubting that our longtime (and trusted) forum member friend, KT88, has any "hearing problems", but I agree that each of us have different hearing, which I believe was what he was trying to point out in his original post. When you own a hi-fi store, I'm sure that you get all kinds of "ears" in there, some of which may believe that those tiny BOSE cube speakers, used for surround, are the best thing that they've ever heard and who are we to deny them the "freedom" to believe that? As you have already admitted to falling prey to Pierre and his Mapleshade "mods", I don't discredit your opinion, but I seriously hope, because you know that I don't believe in him or his "magic tricks", that you don't discredit mine? I have found that most high end audio stores test equipment, running everything flat. I have "4" separate sound systems set-up in my home and not one of them, even my SCOTT/KLIPSCH or McINTOSH/B&W systems, are run completely "flat", as I almost always have to add a "touch" of high and low end, to get the sound that "my" hearing desires.

 

I own Scott, Klipsch, and McIntosh (ML10C speakers and MA230) and I could never stand to turn up high end when using this equipment or any of my other gear. I've had an aversion to tone controls since at least 1979. It stands to reason I've sustained hearing loss over 35 years. I can't take the leap of faith that I should remember what things sounded like 35 years ago. That would confront my understanding of how when I am kicked hard by chronic pain I can't retain full comprehension of what it was like to feel better. The subjective element(s) likely outweigh every process assembling opinion.

 

Well, if that's how you feel, then I highly suggest that you buy into Pierre's "Mapleshade" mods, because that is basically what he is doing by making most of the tone controls useless!

 

I owned and enjoyed a 299c some years ago. I remember being satisfied with the sound of it at the time. As with any tube gear, the type of tubes used and capacitor upgrades can/will substantially alter the sound of the unit. In my humble opinion, Scott made some nice sounding gear back in the day.

 

I have an electrical technology degree. I do my own work.

I'll share my perspective on the "audiophile" story where it intersects my listening. My experience is that I achieve the true goal of "listening to music" once I have cleared the obstacle of achieving suitable sound. One can not listen to the "sound of music" and "listen to the music" at the same. They are not the same thing.

I've never bragged about my gear, because that would just be stupid. Neither would I ever be confronted by a critical opinion about my gear, my hearing, my choice of music, my attention span, etc ad nauseum because that's egoic behavior chasing status, covering insecurity, trying to be more through things. My goal is to listen to music as one of my favorite portals to the present moment. It is my love of music that has motivated me to accumulate what is now a burdensome amount of vintage gear. Unchanged by every first day of ownership of every piece of gear is my appreciation and enjoyment of the characteristic sound unique to each piece, as it opens new facets of emotion when "listening to music". I never fire up a system with a lesser goal of listening to the sound of music. I've had endless possibility to chase that lesser goal, and have never run down that path in over 50 years listening to music. In kind with that success I've never belittled anyone by attacking their ego-misidentification with their gear. That would just be dumb. I find tone controls useless, actually detrimental to achieving my goal of listening to music, but I also have no use for any chip but salted Wise Natural.

 

Well, thanks for that!

 

I've been wrestling with this issue of "brightness" lately. I too, seem to be sensitive to this issue.

I had just a touch of brightness in my system, not terrible, but detectable if we we're being critical.

While waiting for some "new" tubes to arrive for my preamp, I put a Tortuga Audio LDR3x Passive into my system as an experiment.

The Tortuga gave me treble that was much more extended than my active, but doesn't sound "bright".

I'm thinking now that the "brightness" that I heard before was actually distortion in the higher frequencies, and not excessive volume in the higher frequencies.

It's really messing with my head to have these extended highs that sound so sweet. Very different sound than I've experienced in the last few years.

I like it!

 

Many argue passive preamps are superior.

 

Like everything else in this hobby, it's synergy. My amp has a very high Zin, which makes it simpatico with the passive's. I'm still trying to wrap my head around all of it!

 

Update: Well, the brightness I mentioned in my initial post, reasserted itself. I am very touchy on brightness. In another thread I explored solutions. Most, say room treatments or a regeneration device, would be pricy. It so happens that I can get a good price on a set of Quicksilver 88's, rated class A by Stereophile FWIW. It makes more sense to me to go that route economically. I think most people who are not touchy on brightness would like the Mapleshade Scott (not counting Chris). I fiddled with my tubes some, and my Quicksilver 60's now sound better to me than they did in my first post, so there may have been a tube issue in play. The Scott creates a better soundstage and holds images better within the soundstage, but I had the impression the Quicksilvers had more of what is sometimes called three dimensionality. Because it is a pain to hook my speakers to the Scott, I have not rechecked this against the Scott.

 

I hope that you understand, that I'm very happy if you personally find Pierre's Mapleshade mods worthy, I just think that you will find that you will be standing "fairly" alone with that opinion around here. Most of us who have bothered to take the time looking at Pierre's very well executed "catalogs" and then, reading between the lines, have discovered that the guy sells an awful LOT of fluff! I really wish that you could come over and hear my Scott 299b, which was not modified, but rather, given a few items that needed updating, by Craig at NOSValves and I believe that you would end up taking your Mapleshade Scott over to David Letterman, to have him drop it off the side of "The Ed Sullivan Theater"! Again, this is only my opinion!

 

How are you hooking up the sub to the Scott?

 

I'm not answering for member "Diver110", but when I used to hook up a sub to my Scott 299b, it has this great little "Center Channel Output" section, which is perfect for adding a sub, if one so desires? Ever since getting new Bob Crites crossovers in my Klipsch speakers, I have felt no real need anymore for using the sub!

 

I have ports that screw in to the back. Bare wire for my monitors, bananas for the SW.

 

Is the signal to the sub (out of amp) full spectrum or is there a crossover (non-adjustable)?

Have you considered the synergy of bass material warming/masking the brightness of sound reproduction when low bass frequencies are present? If you find occasional satisfaction attributable to synergy of low bass amplitude and strident (brightness), then it may be suggested that the brightness may be a fixed (static) element. The bass enhancement approach however may offer significant opportunity to chase the suitable sound you're after. I've never found success in modifying the brightness character of an amplifier. However, I recognize my bias/opinion that bass guitar material in most recordings is severely sacrificed to chase brightness and midrange clarity. After digesting your own stated opinions and observations of what satisfies or troubles you, perhaps you may recognize that what could be perfection to most is unsuitable. If so then your quest will not be served by homogenous design. That's a good thing.