Paul,
Sorry for the delayed response. I did not feel the RM200 was as good in the mid-range as the RM9. I think the RM200 has better tonal balance and is more neutral than the RM9. Of course my RM9 was the original version not the SE (although Roger upgraded some parts on it for me). That being said I still wouldn't mind having the RM200 in my system.
Roger ran his with the PITB and a non-descript Sony CDP. Zip cord for speaker cables, his RAM ICs, and stock PCs (not much of a cable guy). At the time we were listening to his prototype electrostatic speakers, which are now in full production. A very impressive set-up that was much different than mine at the time so take that into account as we were not doing an A/B comparison.
Sorry for the delayed response. I did not feel the RM200 was as good in the mid-range as the RM9. I think the RM200 has better tonal balance and is more neutral than the RM9. Of course my RM9 was the original version not the SE (although Roger upgraded some parts on it for me). That being said I still wouldn't mind having the RM200 in my system.
Roger ran his with the PITB and a non-descript Sony CDP. Zip cord for speaker cables, his RAM ICs, and stock PCs (not much of a cable guy). At the time we were listening to his prototype electrostatic speakers, which are now in full production. A very impressive set-up that was much different than mine at the time so take that into account as we were not doing an A/B comparison.