[Shhhh!!!! I'm Listening to Reason!]

On Jul 15, 1:44*am, Clyde Slick wrote:
On Jul 15, 2:12*am, "Shhhh!!!! I'm Listening to Reason!"





wrote:
On Jul 15, 12:52*am, Clyde Slick wrote:

On Jul 14, 2:26*pm, "Shhhh!!!! I'm Listening to Reason!"

wrote:
On Jul 14, 7:15*am, Clyde Slick wrote:

On Jul 14, 3:19*am, "Shhhh!!!! I'm Listening to Reason!"
That's a 7591 amp? I don't remember.

yes

Have you used any of the recent reissues? I picked up a Pilot receiver
that uses 7591. They're still good but I always like to have a spare
set and I'd rather not pay $100+ for a quad.

Electro Harmonex, in my 299D, sounds great, a little taller and fatter
tube, can't put the thing in its
case, which is no big deal to me because, to me, they sound better
when out of' the case.
See, they are too large to use in Fishers, which space the tubes
closer together.
Not being familiar wiht the Pilot, I can't advise.

I think there would be space as far as socket spacing. This one was
out of a console so there wasn't a case with it so the height doesn't
matter. I'll check them out.

Does your Scott honk at 30 Hz?7

kind of of fat under 40, but not one note bass nor an overpowering
resonance, the 7591 amps tend to be more fat on the bottom than the
6BQ5 amps. this also gives the 6Bq5 ampsw an increased aura of
imaging. there are people who like the 6bQ5 sCOTTS OVER THE 7591
Scotts.
Pierre Sprey (of Mapleshade cd;s) *used to do mods to the 6BQ5 Scott
amps, but wouldn't bother with the 7591 Scott amps

I use Reflektor military 6p14p-ER in my Scott. They're a well-built,
good-sounding tube. They claim 10,000 hours life. I noticed a
significant improvement in bass with them over the Mullards and
Brimars I'd been using. The highs are crisp and the midrange, while
not as sweet as the Mullards, is quite acceptable.

The Russian tubes have come a long, long way.