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.
Steven C. Barr(x) wrote:
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "phillip holmes" <[log in to unmask]>
> To: <[log in to unmask]>
> 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