McCormack or Quicksilver for Vandersteen 2ci?


To tube or not to tube...
Anybody heard/compared Vandersteen 2ci's driven by McCormack DNA .5 deluxe (or Rev A mod) vs. Quicksilver m-60's vs. Audio Research Classic 60? Audible Illusions preamp, long MIT 330 interconnects, large 20x20 carpeted room with vaulted ceilings. Previous systems with Spica TC-50/Quad ESL 57 driven by GSI mod Dyna ST 70. Prefer luscious mids. Listen to pop female vocals, jazz, classical, some orchestral...
Thanks!
bibasset
If you're itchin' for an upgrade and love the Vandersteens then I would recommend moving up to the 2CEs or CE Signatures. The tweeter on the CE is much better and the overall presentation is more coherent. Given the market for used Vandersteens, it would probably only cost you a couple hundred $$ for the UG. Money well spent.

From there, I'd start experimenting with amps. Of those you mention, I'd recommend the ARC Classic 60, but given your room dimensions, that might not be enough. Perhaps an ARC D-115MK2 (of which the Classic 60 is a direct descendant) would be a better match. They can be found for about the same price as the Classic 60 and have almost double the power with ALL of the MAGIC.

Good luck.
Thanks for all the feedback . As somewhat of an experiment I seized an opportunity to purchase a McCormack DNA .5 deluxe.
Yesterday, (the morning after almost having to sleep on the sofa! the wife wasn't too happy about the purchase..) I unpacked it , hooked it up and let it warm up prior to a listen. Initial reaction: way more detail and way more dynamic than my GSI modded Dynaco(starving artist quicksilvers w/ EH EL34's and Gold Aero 6DJ8's). Very exciting and involving. However, there's definitely a hardness, perhaps brittleness to the upper mids/high frequency...female vocals, massed strings etc. Also perhaps as the late great Harvey Rosenberg (the Tube God himself..) would have said, there is a certain "organic , juicy wholosity" to the sound stage (3D tubelike palpability?) that seems to be missing.
Note this is a "deluxe" version of the DNA .5, as opposed to a SMC( I met Steve years ago...) modded version which I'm sure would help, albeit at a price. Perhaps my Pioneer PD65, aural symphonics & MIT 330 IC's, or AI modulus 1 Pre w/ Gold Aero tubes are culprits too?! Help!!! Thanks, Jon
I've recommended the McCormack, but, I've gotta tell you that the McCormack's can be a bit forward. I don't think I would describe tham as brittle though, as despite the afore mentioned forwardness I think they are still rather liquid on top. There are no perfect products, especially at these price points. I'm not sure whether or not more power or upgrades will help, but, they might. I don't think the rest of your gear is at fault. Perhaps your sensitivities/priorities are different than mine and you would prefer the Quicksilver's.
If it's 3-D palpability that you want, then you'll need to stick with a tube amp. Based on your reaction to the "hardness" of the McCormack, I'm beginning to think that maybe you'd better stay with the 2ci with their soft domes and maybe try an Audio Research amp. The Quicksilver might be a little too euphonic.

I'd say that a happy medium would be found with either your current 2Cis and an ARC tube amp (which tend to be more neutral than most tube amps) or switching to 2Ces with the Quicksilver monos.

It's my understanding that the earlier Vandersteen models (maybe even current?) were voiced using Quicksilver amplification.

One final recommendation - There is an ARC D-125 (110wpc $4500 amp) currently listed for $1,000 INCLUDING shipping. That's a hell of a deal and would be a GREAT companion for the Vandersteens. I'd buy it in a heartbeat. As a matter of fact....maybe sleeping on the couch for a few nights doesn't sound too bad.... :)