[steve f]

Mikey Fremer just reviewed the  RM-200 Mk II amp in the December issue.

[hoppy08520]

Thanks for the heads up. I read the review and it was complementary, saying the Mk.2. bettered the original version.

[Roger A. Modjeski]

Thanks for the heads up. I read the review and it was complementary, saying the Mk.2. bettered the original version.

I certainly hope its better. I re-designed the output and power transformers and offer a version where I wind them myself. In the standard MK II I supervise the winding in house. The MK 1 transformers were wound to my earlier design by an outside vendor that I shall neither name or go back to.

I also made some small changes to the power supply for the driver tube and put the last remaining fuse on top. Although that fuse would only blow with a shorted screen grid, I decided to make as easy as possible to check or change.

Other than the forming switch all these upgrades can be made to the MK 1. I can turn the main power switch into a power on (play) switch if someone doesn't mind having the forming on all the time.

[poseidonsvoice]

Congrats on the review. FWIW, I didn't read the wordy verbose syrupy comments by M.Fremer except for the conclusions  The most important part of the review in my opinion, were the measurements 

And from that standpoint, it's very well designed as should be expected from Roger. It's also very sanely priced for a product of its caliber.

Kudos!

Anand.

[Roger A. Modjeski]

Congrats on the review. FWIW, I didn't read the wordy verbose syrupy comments by M.Fremer except for the conclusions  The most important part of the review in my opinion, were the measurements 

And from that standpoint, it's very well designed as should be expected from Roger. It's also very sanely priced for a product of its caliber.

Kudos!

Anand.

Thanks, I'm glad to see someone reads the measurements. For those who can't get through Atkinson's measurements section, just read his last paragraph, carefully. Then read his last on the  Conrad Johnson in the same issue.

[Ericus Rex]

'The CJ amp measures well for a traditional tube amp.'      And double the tubes (as well as over double the cost!) for only 25 more watts/channel   

I also very much appreciate all the info you put into your Manufacturer Comment.

Thanks and congrats on the review!

[Roger A. Modjeski]

'The CJ amp measures well for a traditional tube amp.'      And double the tubes (as well as over double the cost!) for only 25 more watts/channel   

I also very much appreciate all the info you put into your Manufacturer Comment.

Thanks and congrats on the review!

Thanks for your comment. I do try to expand on the review rather than the usual "gee, thanks for your nice review"

I was pleased to see the Conrad review in the same issue. The reviewer had a lot of problems from failed tubes and difficult grounding. Upon thinking about it, has CJ ever broken any new ground or do we have just another tube amp here?

[golfugh]

Roger
Ever thought about monos of the same design?
Mark

[Roger A. Modjeski]

Roger
Ever thought about monos of the same design?
Mark

The RM-300 is a mono amp, 300 watts each all hand wired, all tube driver. I usually don't think of monoblocks till the power and weight get to the point where splitting in two chassis makes sense.

[DustyC]

Thanks for your comment. I do try to expand on the review rather than the usual "gee, thanks for your nice review"

I was pleased to see the Conrad review in the same issue. The reviewer had a lot of problems from failed tubes and difficult grounding. Upon thinking about it, has CJ ever broken any new ground or do we have just another tube amp here?

Most of the vintage c-j amps I've heard are traditional circuits with some boutique parts mixed in. Nothing special. I was a little shocked at how much they want for the monoblocks tested in the magazine. RM-200 has pretty much the same power level and looks nicer too! For half the price. 

[Roger A. Modjeski]

Most of the vintage c-j amps I've heard are traditional circuits with some boutique parts mixed in. Nothing special. I was a little shocked at how much they want for the monoblocks tested in the magazine. RM-200 has pretty much the same power level and looks nicer too! For half the price. 

And it doesn't have a balanced input. Don't they know that you will have grounding problems with mono amps if you don't have balanced inputs. The reviewer had to solve the problem by floating the ground on one of the amps which does present a safety issue as he mentioned.

[arthurs]

The RM-300 is a mono amp, 300 watts each all hand wired, all tube driver. I usually don't think of monoblocks till the power and weight get to the point where splitting in two chassis makes sense.

Are there pics of the RM-300 anywhere?  Haven't been able to find any...

[Roger A. Modjeski]

I have not posted any yet. When I can catch a breath I will do so. I would be encouraged by some show of interest from the members along with their reasons for wanting all that power. It does have an interesting power and tube saving function where the listener can use one, two or all three pairs of output tubes as needed. The pairs are individually selected by an independent switch for each as required for the volume level desired. When one is listening quietly at night only one pair is needed thus saving electricity and life of the unlit tubes. As the listening level is raised more pairs can be called into service. Since the pairs are selected individually the listener can rotate between the three for the quiet listening sessions using pair one today, pair two tomorrow etc. I feel this is the best way to give the listener a high powered amp without the associated costs of running such when only a few watts are often all that is needed.

For now I can tell you it is the same size and looks very much like an RM-200 with 6 output tubes and 3 drivers, XLR input and five output posts like the ones on the RM-200. It is all tube and all hand wired. The power supply is bigger and has cap-choke-cap filtering like the RM-9 MKII. The price is $6,500 per mono amp.

[kngale1]

Can you use KT-120 in the RM-300?

[tubegroove]

I just read the review.....great review!
It seems that Mike Fremer advises that light loading is not a universal panacea but depends on many things (he didnt like effect of light loading).  I recall reading on this forum that using the lowest tap possible (so long as there is sufficient power) is the preferred way to go.  Perhaps is there an engineering explanation for his experience?

[Roger A. Modjeski]

Can you use KT-120 in the RM-300?

I will be determining that very soon.

[morgan540]

Also Roger, you've mentioned that you don't like the KT-90 tube with the RM200.  What don't you like about this tube?  I know several people that feel the Ei KT90 was the best of the KT88 family of power tubes. 

[kngale1]

Roger,

Have you ever experimented using 6SN7 for a driver tube instead of 6BQ7 in the RM-300?   If you have, what is the sonic differences from the 6BQ7?

I like the sound of 6SN7s plus it allows more tube rolling options.

Thanks!