How do the classic Fisher and Scotts compare to modern McIntosh tube amps?

Haven't had a listen between them.

My guess would be the classis ones sound "vintage" and the newer macs more HIFI.
(Not saying one is better then the other but just a "sound" difference)

i prefer the fisher over them all, i have heard them all.....

i prefer the fisher over them all, i have heard them all.....

I find my Fishers have a real natural sound, which I think is the goal. I have not really heard Scott or Mcs.

The Scott I have is a really nice sounding amp. I think it's a 299 running 7189s. The thing that impressed me about it was the fact that they went to the trouble and expense to mount the power TX on a "sub-chassis". I haven't really found the Fisher that does it for me, and have never heard any vintage Mc stuff. I did however get a chance to listen to McIntosh's latest tube offerings.:drool:

Each of the companies have a somewhat different house signature and it realy is just personal preference. Scott typically had a somewhat lighter sound, more air than the other 2 while the Fisher had more authority and was darker sounding. Mc was between them and offered a well balanced compromise. More of what you prefer and speaker synergy than a quality or which is better issue.

Fisher had more authority and was darker sounding. .


Which explains the ever present Mullard drivers. I tried to put some "sparkle/air" into a KX200 once, by swapping in some Teles, but it didn't really work like I had hoped.

i've heard 'em all and prefer fisher for most music and mac for certain music.

between two, fisher has more detailed warmer sound, and the mac's are just too dynamic (if there's such thing:D) and powerfully forward, they almost make me uncomfortable. i'm sure i can get used to it, but for me, fisher is perfect.

I prefer the sound of my Fisher X-1000 to my Scott 299D. Don't have a Mac in the collection to compare.

EICO HF-81...:P
Bill