This joint needs some more vintage hifi

mhardy6647

Almost all of the vacuum tube era HH Scott stuff was extremely attractive, at least from my perspective.

Dunno about you, but I would love to have a Scott 399 receiver (even though it predates FM MPX stereo, being of the "AM-FM simulcast stereo" era).





(borrowed images, needless to say!)

55LS70

That's an impressive piece of equipment. I've seen one or two matched with the H.H. Scott 335 multiplex, but the multiplex is so much smaller than the receiver it kind of looks out of place. But that's what you have to do to get stereo. Also, there's a lot of tubes to take care of. I had two, a pair of Amperex Orange Globe ECC82's from the same batch, go south at the same time. At the time it took me quite a while to find them as I didn't have a tube checker and I was trying to find a bad one by changing one tube with a known good replacement and turning the tuner/multiplex back on to see if the problem went away. Only when somebody told me that there were a lot of issues with those Amperex's, that I figured out that both were bad. I replaced them with 'funkens and have been listening to the tuner, almost daily, ever since. That's been about five years and I haven't replaced a tube since.

FWIW, I use my H.H. Scott components without cases, but I do have cases that match the one in the bottom photo. I purchased them from a guy, in Michigan if I remember correctly, that makes them. They're very nice, but when I have the tuner/multiplex in them, they become too big for their shelf. Besides, they seem to run a little cooler. I don't know if that would be a factor for a tuner or a multiplex.

I think that receiver would be a good match for those Altec Lansing speakers that you mention from time to time. They're not unobtanium as I see 399's come up for sale every so often. My tuner and multiplex were rebuilt/modified by Mapleshade. I still think they perform the service. Actually I've heard they sent them out for that work, but when I got them back, I found the workmanship/sound quality to be excellent. I have to admit, it wasn't a cheap endeavor, but I do listen to the tuner quite a bit, so for me, I felt the cost was justified. I would love to hear a reworked 399.

audioluvr

How about this H.H Scott

?

Tony M

Fire Hazard?
Radio and room heater all in one.

mhardy6647

^^^ Not HH Scott, that radio is by EH Scott -- sort of the Duesenberg of the AM radio era.

https://www.radiomuseum.org/dsp_hersteller_detail.cfm?company_id=3325

audioluvr

Wasn't E. H. Scott the predecessor of H. H. Scott? Duesenbergs were bad as!

nooshinjohn

audioluvr wrote: »

Duesenbergs were bad as!

They still are... little known fact is that Enzo Ferrari began his racing team with a 1923 Miller race car as part of his stable. From it, he learned much about building engines, such as dual overhead cams and 4 valves per cylinder, dual spark, timing advance, and a host of other bits.... the miller Racing cars were designed and constructed by Fred and August Duesenberg. It could be said that Ferrari as we know them today are descendants of those proud machines.

mhardy6647

audioluvr wrote: »

Wasn't E. H. Scott the predecessor of H. H. Scott? Duesenbergs were bad as!

http://www.hhscott.com/


Nope, HH Scott was Hermon Hosmer Scott and was based in Maynard Massachusetts.
"Hosmer" is a good old New England name, BTW.




EH Scott was the top-end maker of radios from the Golden Age of Radio (starting, I think, in the 1920s) into the (early) postwar era. EH Scott was based in Chicago, and came to sort of a bad end in the 1960s as "Scott Radio Laboratories". The last products of the company were/are often confused with HH Scott equipment, and I believe that HH Scott may have ultimately actually sued (and won) to keep that other Scott company from using the name on their products. I'll have to dig a little more to confirm that, though.

There's actually not much easy-to-find info on EH Scott, despite the near-legendary status of their radios.

There is a book, FWIW:
https://www.amazon.com/H-Scott-History-Classic-Expanded/dp/0972330100
http://www.antiqueradio.com/bkrev1_02-03.html




https://www.otrcat.com/grandpa-walter-s-scott-memories-and-recollections-of-a-classic-1930s-radio-receiver

Here's a not-too-good photo (from www.radiomuseum.org , watermark & all) of a late "Scott Radio Labs" product. Note the logo, with a musical note.

mhardy6647

EH Scott (radio unit only):



An SJ Doozie:



Cord(s):

audioluvr

Wow. That's a Doozie! Hmm wonder where that saying came from...

stuwee

audioluvr wrote: »

Wow. That's a Doozie! Hmm wonder where that saying came from...

Doh! An Hmmm is another one to think about

krazypolk

mhardy6647

^^ Nice Scott integrated amplifier -- don't see many of those!

stuwee wrote: »

audioluvr wrote: »

Wow. That's a Doozie! Hmm wonder where that saying came from...

Doh! An Hmmm is another one to think about

I have read (on the internet ) that the term "doozie"/"doozy" predates the Duesenberg... but, historically, the term and the car brand's name are pretty tightly intertwined.

indyhawg

In a recent audio acquisition, the seller threw in some Electrovoice Wolverine drivers. I have no idea what I will do with them, but thought this might be the appropriate place to share.

mhardy6647

Nice! (but, then again, I literally grew up with a pair of those, so I am sort of an unrepentant fanboy)

It's a pair of LS-12s. There are good things to do with them.
I used to have, I think, five of them here... now I think there are only four.


source: www.alliedcatalogs.com (1961)

They will work pretty well on an open baffle -- or no baffle at all, if you're as lazy as I am.

DSC_7144 (2) by Mark Hardy, on Flickr

The do benefit from a "super" tweeter. Or just a regular tweeter... as long as it can keep up... they're pretty sensitive.

mhardy6647

This one has an owwie on its cone.
Easily remedied, though.

DSC_7165 (2) by Mark Hardy, on Flickr

indyhawg

mhardy6647 wrote: »

This one has an owwie on its cone.
Easily remedied, though.

DSC_7165 (2) by Mark Hardy, on Flickr

How would you suggest to remedy the owwie? I think that is the main reason it was given to me.

indyhawg

mhardy6647 wrote: »

Nice! (but, then again, I literally grew up with a pair of those, so I am sort of an unrepentant fanboy)

It's a pair of LS-12s. There are good things to do with them.
I used to have, I think, five of them here... now I think there are only four.


source: www.alliedcatalogs.com (1961)

They will work pretty well on an open baffle -- or no baffle at all, if you're as lazy as I am.

DSC_7144 (2) by Mark Hardy, on Flickr

The do benefit from a "super" tweeter. Or just a regular tweeter... as long as it can keep up... they're pretty sensitive.

Doc--I set them up in that "lazy" configuration. I am running a small tube amp on them....not nearly as nice as the one you have in the pic. But they sound decent. I may have to hang onto these for an.open baffle project.

mhardy6647

There are many paths. Basically you want a strong, flexible, light 'patch'.
My father used to use one ply of toilet paper saturated with nail polish remover. his patches were very nice esthetically and functionally. Some folks like to use, umm, cigarette rolling papers. Yeah, cigarette. That's the ticket! Model airplane dope or thin flexible adhesives can be used. The brute force approach, which actually also works OK is to just use a thicker but still flexible adhesive. GC (General Cement) still sells a "Service Cement" which lists "speaker repair" right on the label. Rubber cement would probably be OK in a pinch. I suspect Aileen's Tacky Glue (which is what I like to use for replacing foam surrounds) would probably work OK, too.

Several threads at AK on the topic, plus I am sure others here have more professional experience at cone repair than do I!

Tony M

Aileen's Tacky Glue . On the backside maybe.

I love that stuff. They make a lot of different glues. I love the clear tacky version.

mhardy6647

I appreciate tacky stuff in general -- and Aileen's in particular.

audioluvr

I have used shoe goo to repair surrounds and cones in the past but like you said some kind of binder would be required until it was fully set

jdjohn

From my dad's garage, a Panasonic LTD RE-8140:

That's right...a built-in 8-track Maybe mid-fi at best, and certainly no powerhouse, but points for styling IMO. The wood cabinet is in really good shape. PM me with offers

mhardy6647

I do like the aesthetics of those semi-hifi Panasonic combination units. I like the round record level meters on the one pictured above. Truth be told, though, the previous models, overall, were aesthetically preferable (to me) -- de gustibus non est disputandum, of course.


They (Panasonic, i.e., Matsush!ta*) sold versions with no tape, with cassette and with the (above-pictured) 8 track on board.






I dig that groovy bronze color, baby!

They were all a notch more interesting than the usual "all-in-ones", IMO, and even had quasi-hifi quality specifications (and the chutzpah to publish them).

They recommended Panasonic Thusters for use with them, too, of course.



panasign1 by Mark Hardy, on Flickr



Interestingly, the manual for the RA-6600 (earlier, bronze-faced 8 track morph shown above) is available from Hifiengine: https://www.hifiengine.com/manual_library/panasonic/ra-6600.shtml

I get the occasional, perverse urge to buy one of them
(and not that I'm proud of that, mind you...)

____________
* I wrote the old name of Panasonic's parent corporation funny to avoid Vanilla's touchiness

Tony M

My recently fixed by a elec. tech. JVC 5540u receiver. I just got done doing a 1 -1/2hr. jam session. I love this thing! The volume dial is at the 9:00 position. That's pretty much pushing the volume of the speakers to the max. level anybody would want to listen at before hearing damage occurs. 35 watts....come on...it's like it should be 300 watts.

mhardy6647

FWIW, from the manual, here're the published specs for the Panasonic RA-6600

jdjohn

Quite handsome receiver there, and appears to have the same power (or lack thereof) as my example. Actually, that bronze goddess looks more powerful than she is.

My example sports a single one of those trapezoidal output transistors. I suppose these have their place as eye-candy, if nothing else...with the right speakers...in the right room

mhardy6647

I am not 100% sure which model they are. They're not 846A Valencias, nor 846B Valencias. The former have are ported on either side of the 811B treble horn; the latter have more normal ports -- but two of them (one on either side of the woofer). Doesn't look like a Milano or a Flamenco; dunno which model they are... but they've got 416 woofers and 811B horns (maybe 808 or 806 treble drivers; I'm speculatin' here). I don't think they're 511B horns, but I'd need dimensions or to see 'em in person.

846A


846B


Whatever they are -- I would be all over them for ca. $1200 or less the pair (especially since they look pretty good cosmetically).

mhardy6647

Nice.
I don't have any idea which precise model they are I must admit.
Drivers are gorgeous.

I think the 803B is essentially identical to a 416 (which is a very good thing -- superb drivers).




The 804A I have no experience with
It might be essentially the same as an 806(??).

mhardy6647

la2vegas wrote: »

Thanks for your assessment, the price begins with a 2.

Probably easily worth it in that condition -- just wouldn't be worth it to me right now given what's already here.