What's the best EL84 amp?

Marantz 8b.

@dhcod Well you would have had to jump on the 405 so doubt we passed each other. At the time I lived in Santa Barbara 3 miles from Roger :) I have the only remaining pair of ESLs with the direct drive amps. One of these days I’m going to have to hook them up. Roger figured out a way to increase the dispersion of the treble in the panel to create better imaging. Roger mentioned to me it was something Jim Strickland was onto as well but Acoustat went by the wayside before the work could be finished.

@niodari The Russian military EL-84s (Soviet Era) and Yugo EL-84s were Roger’s preferred tubes for the RM-10. Both are excellent choices. I’m very curious about the Manley EL-84 amps and think a set of Mahis may be in my future.

@clio09 the Stingray came with Yugoslavian EL84s which were blown up quite soon. Russian military ones are close to permanent, i replaced i think just one kit (during 20 years) and two or three of them didn't give enough bias and I replaced them. I have a number of these tubes and may ship some to you. 

It was Roger’s electrostatic loudspeaker that I thought was the last product he introduced as a "stock" (at least by Modjeski standards ;-) Music Reference model. And I understood it to be available either with or without the direct-drive OTL amps. Perhaps that too is a myth.

I DO know his ESL included dynamic woofers (for 100Hz down). Roger told me he considered the bass of the Quad ESL to be inadequate, that the bass panels had a resonance which could not be eliminated. As I said, he advised me to use a symmetrical 24dB/octave filter when employing a sub (I’m inclined to consider a driver coming in at 100 Hz for use with a planar as a woofer, not a sub, but that’’s just a matter of semantics I suppose) with the Quad, necessary to make the resonance inaudible. As his own ESL included a "sub", and as he told me he considered the Quad’s bass reproduction to be inadequate, and was adamant that the x/o filter be steep, I guess I just came away with the assumption that he used a dynamic woofer with his Quads. I am in fact surprised he didn’t. For Quad owners looking for a woofer, the Rythmik plate amps include a 24dB/octave settings on their crossovers.

Roger stated in his Music Reference AudioCircle postings that of the MR amps returned to him for repair, it was most often as a consequence of botched modifications, usually for nothing more than the replacement of his stock parts with "magic" parts of the same value (including "magic" fuses ;-). When looking for MR amps I therefore always made sure the ones I bought were unmolested, 100% stock. I got my RM-9 from Sheila Berdan, and as Brooks was a MR dealer the amp may have originally been bought from him. Kismet? ;-)

As to the "lightweight" sound of the RM-10: when mated with a typical high-sensitivity loudspeaker, that may actually make for a synergistic pairing. Many of them have bass I would characterize as "woolly" (not a fan of the bass-reflex design).

Hey again on this topic, directed to owners of the Music Reference RM-10 MKII amplifiers?  Roger Modjeski chose to engrave into the top plate of the amplifier the actual value next to the 2 plastic screw positions "160mA Slow."  In reading the threads above, it appears that some amps came back to Roger due to aftermarket fuses creating damage.  

I've been considering upgrading the fuses in my RM-10, staying, of course, with the "160mA Slow" blow value recommended by Roger.  I would welcome anyone who has had any experience with a fuse upgrade for this amp?  Blowing up aftermarket fuses could be extremely costly, and I certainly don't want to risk damage to the amp.  

Thank you for any feedback, Pin              (bold print for old eyes)