Music Reference RM9 - user comments please

"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.

I owned an RM-9 mk I for 10+ years and had Roger replace the on/off button (most failed) add mk II chokes and move the fuse holders to the top plate. In many respects, I sadly regrets selling that amp. The El34 Seimen tubes in matched Quads from RAM Labs were remarkable and had a midrange magic that was fantastic on several pairs of Merlin speakers I had/have owned. I wish I would have kept amp.

Highly recommend output and V1 V2 tubes from Roger. They sounded the best and not be a little I may add.

"I sadly regret selling that amp." You don't know how many times I have heard former MR owners say that... fortunately it is still easy to get RM10s.