Music Reference RM9 - user comments please

You should go to AudioCircle and join the Music Reference forum, you'll find lots of answers to your questions, and a possible reply from Roger himself, or Music Reference lunatics that know the equipment well.

http://www.audiocircle.com/index.php?action=circles

When I owned the RM-9 I was using Spendor 1/2e speakers. The RM-9 was the only tube amp I tried in my system that I liked with the Spendor's. Normally I have used solid state with them. At the time I owned the RM-9 I lived just a few miles from Roger. So I took the amp over there and he bench tested it with me. Darn if it didn't operate nearly 100% to spec, and put out more watts than its rating.

The upgrade includes the addition of chokes, and new caps in critical places. I think he makes some other changes as well but forget what they are. Roger also does a thorough inspection of the amp and brings it to full spec in all areas. Upon picking up the amp the bench test indicated it was putting out nearly 125 watts/channel. Up about 20 watts from the previous test. As for the sound, I felt the MkI was a bit tubey in nature and with the MkII you will be getting a more transparent and neutral presentation. I myself liked that. I did end up selling the RM-9 and somewhat regretted it. Now I have both an RM-10 MkII and EM7-12v SET from Roger with much more efficient speakers and these sound wonderful.

Be patient with Roger on emails. He is hard to reach as he is quite busy. I suggest you try to reach him through Sal at Audio Summa. You might get a faster response and more information to help you make a decision on whether or not to upgrade.

"transparent and neutral presentation" seems to be his design goal, with no apologies to SS, but with the bloom you can only get with tubes.

I have had some people tell me they prefer the MkI versions of both the RM-9 and RM-10 because in their opinion they had more tube characteristics to their sound while the MkII versions sounded more like solid state. I think that is the knock on the RM-200 as well. It is pretty obvious that the MkII versions of the RM-9 and RM-10, as well as RM-200 sound characteristics will never be confused with classic CJ or Cary, but all three still sound like tube amps to me, and very good ones.

Clio09 – thx for the impressions. Yes I have read reports in the past about preferences between 1 and 2 versions. It really helps when you are close to the manufacturer for repairs / upgrades.

Pubul57
Well I just completed 3 years of what could easily be defined as analog Lunacy - so heh - why not use that as a lead into some Amp/Preamp Lunacy now.
Thank you for the link.