Music Reference RM-200


Was the original RM-200 rated class A or just the MK.2? I remember both of them being, but I want some validation, someone has questioned me rudely about it. Also, can you sub a ECC180 for the 6BQ7 driver tube in the amp? 

Thanks
enobenetto

Showing 3 responses by bdp24

Me too, @pdreher. I bought my original for $2,000, and sold it for same when I found a Mk.2. Another balanced (via transformers) tube pre-amp that plays well with the amp is the EAR-Yoshino 868L (line only) or 868PL (take a wild guess ;-), or if you’re really flush the 912. I think ARC pre’s should be avoided, as they don’t like the amp’s low input impedance. The EAR’s will drive a 600 ohm load!

Ah, okay. I'm pretty sure the original went into Class A after it's review by Fremer, as did the MK.2 of course. I owned one of the originals, and asked Roger Modjeski about the improvements made in the Mk.2 version. Beside the capacitor forming circuit (suggested to him by Richard Vandersteen), Roger told me he reduced the amp's distortion at high frequencies in about half (!), made the circuit more linear in general, and improved the amp's power supply and output transformers. The original can be sent in and brought up to Mk.2 status in every way except for the capacitor forming capability.

You may be asking because of the new listing here on Audiogon of an original for $1500, a real good price. Even the original version puts to shame a number of higher-priced tube amps, those better known, better distributed, better advertised, and with more reviews. Brooks Berdan loved (RIP) Roger's stuff, but made a lot more money selling his customers Jadis and VTL. Brooks liked the RM-9 or RM-200 mated with Vandersteens, which made for a great moderately-priced system.

Actually, neither was Class-A, at least in stock form. Roger Modjeski offered the Mk.2 in Class-A as an option (there is currently one such listed on USAM), but I don't know if the same was true of the Mk.1.