Music Reference RM9 and Preamp Experiences

I have been using an RM200 in conjunction with Wilson WP7s for quite some time and have heard this combination with three different preamps in my own system, and a couple of other preamps in a few other systems.

The first few combinations I heard were in a dealer showroom where I heard the RM200 and WP7s with a Hovland HP100 and a Jadis JPL. The JPL was more more tonally rich but seemed to slow the tempo of music down. The Hovland was more extended at the frequency extremes but images seemed to have less body. Nevertheless, I preferred the music when the Hovland was in the system.

After obtaining a RM200 and WP7s for myself I auditioned a few preamps at home. I had a Spectral DMC10 delta that made the music sound very precise and pure but left me unengaged because it was kind of colorless tonally. I listened to the HP100 again in this system, which I liked a lot more but seemed to present the music as if it was occurring on the other side of a window. It was a bit remote and left me a little disinterested. Finally, I listened to a Wright Sound Laboratory WPL20, which was really inexpensive but highly recommended by a friend. I liked this most of all because it had the extended frequency response of the Hovland but it also let the music flow outward toward me in much the same way it does during a live event. There seemed to be less in the way. I kept it and I am still using it.

A friend of mine has nearly the same system that I have but he uses the HP100 instead. It sounds very good but always seems to leave the music a little distant no matter how loud the system is played. He prefers the Hovland to the Wright which he thinks is a bit less refined and too brash for his taste. I have also heard his system with the latest iteration of the Audible Illusions Modulus 3, which is also very nice but seems to miniaturize everything to the point that it seems like everybody is playing in a box.

Hope this is helpful.

I will certainly look into the Wright; giant killers I like. Seems like they are designed with no nonsense engineering with little hyperbole.

The Music Reference RM-5 Mk III (tube) preamp mated beautifully with my RM9, also has a killer Phono section. I replaced it with an Audio Research LS15 (tube) & PH3(tube) phono preamps. Cost twice as much, sounds better (not twice as good though!), and of course, now I have a remote!;)

I'm not sure that the Wright would kill the giants but it does sound quite different. Before I settled on the RM200 I auditioned a lot of different sets of electronics with the WP7s. Some were very expensive and very impressive. I thought that the big Audio Research stuff was absolutely beautiful, for instance. Ultimately, though I found it, and a lot of the other expensive stuff more refined and precise, they were a bit too relaxed for me. Something important seemed to be missing.

I can offer another observation that may be helpful. If you have heard WP7s and WP8s you know that the 8s are smoother, less noisy and more extended at both extremes. But for some reason I have not been able to identify I find music a lot more engaging through the 7s than the 8s. While the 8s clearly sound better I prefer music through the 7s. I think that my preference for the Wright + RM200 may be kind of similar.

Sorry for rambling. Good luck in your search.

I wonder about a pre since Roger is fairly adamant that no active pre will work better than a passive, like his Pot-in-a-Box - which I admit does work pretty well, especially for #135!! I've used some pretty good preamps (CAT, Lamm, ARC, Joule, Placette Active) but only had the Joule at the same time I had the RM9. I'm willing to pay up to $4,000 -$6,000 for something that matches really well with this amp, though Roger is going to be making a passive with tube buffer stage - and that may be the ticket, as the principle of passive appeals to me, as does the need for buffering the input and output of the volume control.