[KLH007]

V4s would power the D38s, as well as conrad-johnson Premier 11.

[2bigears]

  ok, thanks. Ill call NJ .... 

[Ericus Rex]

.  Question for you amp guys ,,  would the quicksilver V4's power my D38's ?  Some for sale down in
            NY area.  I have heard rumours these are good pieces ? 
       Reading the add again,, they are mono's of course ,, and 'unbalanced'  which I don't know
           what that even means ?   

Unbalanced means RCA inputs only. No XLR inputs.

[mick wolfe]

.  Question for you amp guys ,,  would the quicksilver V4's power my D38's ?  Some for sale down in
            NY area.  I have heard rumours these are good pieces ? 
       Reading the add again,, they are mono's of course ,, and 'unbalanced'  which I don't know
           what that even means ?   

The V4's would power the D38's with ease / headroom to spare. They now ship with KT 150's and are rated at 170 watts per channel. I don't know if this is a drop in for the older V4's or not. Regardless, it's rated at 120 per channel with KT 88's. Still all the power you'd ever need.

[JackD201]

If you love the pre, I say stick with Kevin's stuff. I say go for a 300.1.

[2bigears]

 . Well darn.  The V4's are cheap to buy, sub 5k.  A 300.1 is ten.  Ahhhhh , I was trying to save loot in these lean times and crazy times to come. I guess you can't fool the pipper. Buck up. Dam this hobby. 
    I was trying to go for a modern design that's easy on tubes and cheaper to buy because of techno
       advances. Maybe I'm chasing a ghost.   

[arthurs]

I say go for a 300.1 !!!!   

[2bigears]

 .  Art,, are we a little biased ?  Ha. I hear you brother !  I hear you ! 

[TomS]

I say go for a 300.1 !!!!   

What Art said 

[nnck]

The Music Reference RM200 is probably the better amp but it more expensive at $4,900+:

http://www.ramlabs-musicreference.com/music_reference_rm-200_hybrid_power_tube_amplifer.html

I recently got hold of an RM-200II-T and it has been working great in my system: Daedalus DA1-1 speakers and Modwright LS-100 preamp. The Daedalus speakers are pretty efficient at 94-95dB but have plenty of large drivers to move. The RM-200II is delivering 100wpc with only 4 output tubes and 2 drivers. It is probably overkill for my needs but I appreciate the extra power.

Make sure you do a lot of research and reading opinions of owners for all of these amps, whether it be Music Reference, Decware, Rogue, etc.

[FullRangeMan]

Gulp! $900 just for a bal connection woow.
Unbalanced input refer to the input connection, RCA connector which is the usual and recommended in a tube amp.
XLR 3 pins balanced input (with a proper mini transformer) are rare and unusual, I would dint take it.

I never listen this amp, but it seems good reading the spec on the manufacturer site cause:
- Good weight 51 lbs if it is for each mono amp, if both amps weight 51lbs dont buy it.
- Point to point wiring.]
Except for the astonishing price $6500 due the TAS magazine bliss.
Surely must be a better value on the market.
Other item call my attention is sheer power, this amp is too powerful.
Maybe with EL34 tubes it can delivery a few of small details, of course not as a SET.

[bajaed]

I wonder if the KT150 will be approved for use in any of the Rogue amps?

[JakeJ]

2bigears,

Just gotta throw another .02 in the pot.

You have a VAC preamp that you say is the preamp until you pass from this world.  I can damn near guarantee you won't get a better pairing for it than Art's VAC Phi 300.1, if you can swing the dosh.  I will also pretty much guarantee it will be the last amp you buy.  That's the opinion of another happy VAC owner who also has no plans to sell his VAC gear.  Unless I win the lotto and decide to go up the VAC line.  Also I agree Kevin designs excellent phono sections and I am a big fan of built-in phono stages in my preamps.

Also Art is a stand up person to deal with, again speaking from experience.

Jake

[rpf]

I wonder if the KT150 will be approved for use in any of the Rogue amps?

According to Mark O'Brien, the KT150 can not be used in the Cronus Magnum where there are issues with the tubes being too close to some capacitors and insufficiency of the transformers. IIRC there are similar issues with at least some of the other Rogue amps.

He is having transformers made to experiment with the KT150s however, and may have some thoughts to share at the end of this year.

[rpf]

ARC amps have always sounded greyish to me but I haven't heard their new KT120 versions. VTL, I'm not really familiar with.

I wasn't impressed with the old Rogue 120s but I liked their Stereo 90, love my Cronus Magnum (slightly modified by Rogue with Mundorf Evo Silver/Gold/Oil coupling caps replacing the stock and bypass caps) and was blown away by the Apollo mono-blocks (with the Hera pre) running KT120s.

As much as I have always really liked Conrad Johnson amps, I don't think they are great for rock. (I've owned a MV60, later upgraded to the SE, had in my system an LP66S for an extended period, and listened extensively to LP140Ms.) They leaned a touch to the mid-range and highs and lacked a little bit of propulsiveness (though I'd love to hear their new KT120 based amps). Due, at least in part, I think, to the use of 6550s: KT88s (and now KT120s) just seem to have more bass.

But most KT88s based amps I've heard seemed to have too much bass emphasis for music other than rock (including a pair of Quicksilver Mono 100s I owned - the V4s I heard at a show did not seem to exhibit this issue however). The one consistent exception to this rule has been VAC: the several amps of theirs I've heard have been the most linear, harmonically accurate and beautiful tube amps I've ever heard.

As has been mentioned, however good an amp may be, synergy with the whole system - particularly the pre-amp - is crucial. Obviously with your VAC pre, this would not be a concern with a VAC amp. And as glorious as the 300.1 rooted for above would be, there are the less expensive options of a Phi 200 or an older Phi 110/110. There is also the option of going for a VAC integrated such as the Sigma 160 or the older Phi Beta 110 (may take a while to find any VAC used though).

Alright, I better stop: I'm    now.

[Roger A. Modjeski]

I have not seen it mentioned in this thread that the KT-150 is not a drop in replacement for KT-88 and KT-120 amps. Besides the filament current being as high as 2 amps, it appears at first glance to have higher transconductance than the typical KT-88 which may cause some amps to be unstable. It also appears to want a lower negative grid voltage which may be out of the range of some bias pots.

Here is the data sheet. http://www.tubeampdoctor.com/images/File/data%20sheet%20KT150%20Tung-Sol.pdf

Also, keep in mind that the power of most tube amps is not limited by the tube but by the parameters of the circuit. These will not change therefore dont expect any significant increase in power. It will provide more power in a circuit designed to take advantage of its higher dissipation and plate current.  However, those circuits may not be backwards compatible with the KT-88 and KT-120 especially if they are designed with the high screen voltage (650 V) that is part of the draw for this tube in ultralinear circuits.

A question to the member who started this thread. How much power do you really think you need for a 91.5 db/watt speaker? I would be using about 1 watt.

[JerryM]

How much power do you really think you need for a 91.5 db/watt speaker? I would be using about 1 watt.

Since the OP asked for amp suggestions, please elaborate on the 1 watt amp you'd prefer. 

[bladesmith]

.  Question for you amp guys ,,  would the quicksilver V4's power my D38's ?  Some for sale down in
            NY area.  I have heard rumours these are good pieces ? 
       Reading the add again,, they are mono's of course ,, and 'unbalanced'  which I don't know
           what that even means ?   

I would stay away from Quicksilver amps, from my own experience,  he cannot maintain/repair his older units.  Once his amps get in need of repair, it's over.  Been down that road and not going back. FWIW.

[rpf]

I would stay away from Quicksilver amps, from my own experience,  he cannot maintain/repair his older units.  Once his amps get in need of repair, it's over.  Been down that road and not going back. FWIW.

Can you elaborate? I thought all Quicksilver amps were point to point wired, which should make them easy to repair.

[rpf]

I have not seen it mentioned in this thread that the KT-150 is not a drop in replacement for KT-88 and KT-120 amps. Besides the filament current being as high as 2 amps, it appears at first glance to have higher transconductance than the typical KT-88 which may cause some amps to be unstable. It also appears to want a lower negative grid voltage which may be out of the range of some bias pots.

Here is the data sheet. http://www.tubeampdoctor.com/images/File/data%20sheet%20KT150%20Tung-Sol.pdf

Also, keep in mind that the power of most tube amps is not limited by the tube but by the parameters of the circuit. These will not change therefore dont expect any significant increase in power. It will provide more power in a circuit designed to take advantage of its higher dissipation and plate current.  However, those circuits may not be backwards compatible with the KT-88 and KT-120 especially if they are designed with the high screen voltage (650 V) that is part of the draw for this tube in ultralinear circuits.

Yes, this jogs my memory. Mark O'Brien also did mention there are major circuitry differences.