[Table of Contents]


[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [ARSCLIST] AM radio...Re: [ARSCLIST] NAB vs. DIN recordings



You're right. EH Scott was what I was trying to say. I work on a lot of HH Scott tube stereo stuff. EH Scott was,and still is, state of the art for radio reception. Phillip

Steven C. Barr(x) wrote:
----- Original Message ----- From: "phillip holmes" <insuranceman@xxxxxxxxxx>
To: <ARSCLIST@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Monday, March 26, 2007 12:16 AM
Subject: [ARSCLIST] AM radio...Re: [ARSCLIST] NAB vs. DIN recordings
Most modern AM radios are horrible. They have way too much roll off and cause listener fatigue (because of the phase anomalies, in my opinion). Those classic tubed consoles from the 30's-50's are SO MUCH better. One of these days I'm going to find a HH Scott to listen to sports and the local R&B/soul station. >
Don't you mean an E.H. Scott? HH was the later manufacturer of hi-fi and
stereo gear.

I have an E.H. Scott 800-B, dated 1946 (when it cost $1,600, which was
about $4-500 more than a new Chevrolet sedan!). 24 tubes, solid mahogany
(veneered with MORE mahogany!) cabinet, both chassis chrome-plated...
25-watt output into a coaxial speaker, with a 15" main driver. It's now
in storage in Milwaukee...but when I had it in Toronto I could bring in
WGN (Chicago) at high noon...!

Mr. Scott left the firm shortly after the 800-B was designed...the company
and "goodwill" were later sold to a maker of ordinary radios, which "died"
in a couple of years as TV pretty well ended the "luxury radio" business
and household radios all became 5 (sometimes 6) tube AC/DC "All American
Specials"...mostly AM-only until stereo FM gave buyers a reason to listen
to that band...!

Steven C. Barr




[Subject index] [Index for current month] [Table of Contents]