BAT vs. Quicksilver


I am contemplating selling my VK-60 for a different tube amp. The Quicksilver V4 mono's grabbed my eye, I like the 120 watt power rating & really want to run mono's. How do they compare to the BAT? I originally planned on buying another VK-60 & running a pair mono but don't know if I can really afford too. Also does the BAT need to be sent in for the mono conversion?

My system consists of VR4 jr's, MIT & DC Labs cables, Parasound transport & Benchmark DAC for a passive pre-amp. I listen to rock music only. I love the Bat but need MUCH more power.
fishwater
Like Howard, I am also a really big fan of the 6C33B output tube. To me, in most every application I have heard it in has been a most wonderful sounding amplifier. This most certainly includes the BAT amps. For me, I think the BAT would be my heart's choice.

However, the "mind's" choice would probably go along with Albert...

The Quicksilver offers a great range of tubes you can run, which will allow you to tailor the sound a significant amount. And, both the price and long term reliability of the 6C33B put it at a disadvantage compared to what the V4 can run. Also, remember that the Quickies run twice as many output tubes which provide the double edge sword of offering double the power, but also double the cost when you go to retube compared with a two output tube per side amplifier. Though, the BAT does run a whole lot of those 6SN7s, and if you are buying prized ones, that can also get expensive.
If the V4 can run KT90 tubes, then you may be a happier camper with rock music than one might think.
The Quicksilver Triode monoblocks run a 12AX7 and a 12BH7 tube, so it cost me about $150 total for NOS versions of both types. A quad of 6C33C tubes can be had for under $80, so retubing these amps is a pittance when compared to the pricing of the NOS versions of other power tubes, including a nice quad of Golden Lion KT88's, which will set you back a pretty penny. Don't get me wrong. I'm not one to flinch at spending the money on NOS tubes, as we do have a pair of WE300B's, as well as a couple pairs of NOS Svetlana 2A3's from the 50's. But as long as we're talking the cost of re-tubing, along with the expected rate of failure, the Triodes are downright cheap in that regard.

You might want to write to member Jordi about his experience with Quicksilver. I believe he's had only one tube blow--ever--and he's been using Quicksilver since the mid 80's. He has also used them with a variety of speakers. I don't know if he listens to much rock music, but he'll tell you.

The Triodes and the V4's can certainly rock. But if that's all I listened to, I'd opt for the AA hybrid because it captures the heart of tubes, and the kick of SS.
And I am NOT a fan of SS, just to put that recommendation into context.

Everybody have a great weekend, especially you Daddies out there.

Howard
I guess I should chime in here too. I had the Quicksilver Triodes for a while on my Quad 988 system, and I wasn't super jazzed. I thought they were a bit forward in the mids, not very delicate when it came to resolution. That being said, I've heard them sound awesome in Lamm amplifiers (Lammmmm... Yummmmmmm...). I would go with the flexibility.

I'm curious - can the Quicksilvers run in Triode? Can they be modified with a switch to do so?