Vintage Asylum Classic gear from yesteryear; vintage audio standing the test of time.

---

[ Follow Ups ] Thread: [ Display  All  Email ] [ Vintage Asylum ]

---

[ Alert Moderator ]

---

Re: Scott 299 or Eico HF 81- which is better?

Posted by Hot Glass Audio on March 8, 2006 at 23:08:56

In Reply to: Scott 299 or Eico HF 81- which is better? posted by PeterI on March 8, 2006 at 21:06:03:

Hi Peter,

Glad to hear you had great success in reviving the EICO. I did a comparsion tonight between two HF-81's; one with the original ceramic capacitors, and one with new Mylar capacitors. Believe it or not, I actually preferred the stock ceramics. I remember you were debating on which type to use for the four 0.025 uF positions. I didn't notice a huge difference when the four 0.1 uF's in the preamp were replaced (but the originals were good). However, replacing those four ceramics all but "killed" the original characteristics that the HF-81 is so well known for. Sometimes, you can't improve a design.

If you wanted to go the Scott route, I would highly recommend the 222-C or LK-48 kit version. I have always found the 299 and 299-B to be "overly bright" (but that's just my opinion). The 222-C is also much simpler to work on (uses less electrolytics, the layout is cleaner). The later version 222-D/LK-48-B is almost equally as good, and has an even cleaner layout than the 222-C.

I run my Scott 222-C with Mission 773e's, and find the Scott to be very adequate. The higher powered Scott models (299-C/D and LK-72/B are also an excellent match, if not more so).

I switch between the HF-81 and 222-C frequently. I highly recommend them both.

Best regards,

Ryan

This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:

Parts Connexion

---

[ Top of Page ] [ Contact Us ] [ Support/Wish List ] [ Copyright © 2025, Audio Asylum, all rights reserved ]

---

[ General ] [ Speakers ] [ Tubes ] [ Vinyl ] [ Digital ] [ Hi-Rez ] [ Video Asylum ] [ Cables ] [ Tweaks/DIY ] [ Music ] [ Films ]

---