RM5 Mark lll: a short review

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic. Read 7288 times.

samujohn

  • Jr. Member
  • Posts: 16
RM5 Mark lll: a short review
« on: 22 Feb 2011, 03:40 am »
Re: RM 5 Mk3
Recently purchased from individual on line. No history of unit, but it appears stock.

72 hours on new tube set : Genalex 6922
matched for:
Transconductance
Gain
Plate current
DC balance
AC balance/section balance
Noise/microphonics
Shorts
Grid current ("gas")

Review System:
SOTA Star
AT 150MLX
Quicksilver Audio Silver interconnect cables
Amp. CJ 2500A
Speaker Wire Audioquest Clear 3
Speakers;
Soundlab M3


The stock gain setting put normal listen levels mid control. No hum or noise was noticeable.
Record surface noise is not exaggerated, as it often is with solid state preamps. Only a hint of tube
sound, unlike a Conrad Johnson of similar vintage which also had a new tube set from the same supplier.
By comparison, the CJ sounded downright old fashioned and soft - even a bit indistinct. I recently owned a Quicksilver Full Featured preamp, which sounded a bit darker and generally less neutral than the Music Reference.
To me the RM5 dynamics seem excellent with no hint of slowness or overload, (Perhaps the Genalex is particularly well suited.) however, I would call the character of the sound slightly mellow (not unwelcome). I can see how someone might describe the same perception as lacking resolution, however that was not my conclusion. Have I heard better? Yes, but not from a simple three tube preamp.

parr3n1

  • Jr. Member
  • Posts: 91
Re: RM5 Mark lll: a short review
« Reply #1 on: 22 Feb 2011, 06:25 am »
Hi, what have you heard that was better and how was it better?
thanks

samujohn

  • Jr. Member
  • Posts: 16
Re: RM5 Mark lll: a short review
« Reply #2 on: 22 Feb 2011, 10:18 am »
The Conrad Johnson PFR (a line stage preamp only) is the most transparent analog component that I have lived with in my system. It took me quite sometime to appreciate how little editorializing it did.

samujohn

  • Jr. Member
  • Posts: 16
Re: RM5 Mark lll: a short review
« Reply #3 on: 22 Feb 2011, 12:13 pm »
Postscript:
To state the obvious, the RM1 is the best phono preamp I have used or been exposed to.
I have no idea what the analog -cost is no object- phono preamps of today can do, because I refuse the price of admission, but the digital equalization included with "digital" amplification would seem to me the better approach in every respect, especially for those of us who operate normally in that environment anyway. I have been digitizing my analog for years now, because I can hardly stand to listen to my system without the room correction software, not to mention all the attendant creature comforts i have been spoiled to having. After going to all the effort to wash a phonograph record, I am ready to record the darn thing and put the jacket away.

rbwalt

Re: RM5 Mark lll: a short review
« Reply #4 on: 22 Feb 2011, 03:16 pm »
as i mentioned earlier it was a good pre for the $$. dependable and well made but a earth shatter, no! yes it is melow. it does lack in over clarity, resolution and dynamics compared to others.yea most CJ stuff sounds old fashion even the new. give the tubes a good 100hrs or more to settle in. was never a fan of 6922's when i had my rm5 or rm9. they tend to be on the hard side and did last long before they start to make noise even well tested ones from roger.

anyways enjoy it!

rob.

rbwalt

Re: RM5 Mark lll: a short review
« Reply #5 on: 22 Feb 2011, 03:19 pm »
you might try setting it on some walker valid points and pucks. should open it up a bit and make it also a bit more solid sounding.

rob.

Ericus Rex

Re: RM5 Mark lll: a short review
« Reply #6 on: 22 Feb 2011, 07:33 pm »
To state the obvious, the RM1 is the best phono preamp I have used or been exposed to.

Have you owned an RM-1/2 combo?

samujohn

  • Jr. Member
  • Posts: 16
Re: RM5 Mark lll: a short review
« Reply #7 on: 23 Feb 2011, 01:57 am »
Owned is an interesting concept. I had the use of two. Whether I ever actually owned either is moot. At any rate, I used each of them for a while (months). Neither was glitch free. Noise was always an issue. When they were cooking it was glorious but .... I had other priorities at the time. Now, naturally, I would like to have the opportunity back, but life and decisions move on. I do wonder if anything could now persuade me to replace that many tubes. I suspect not.
Technology moves on too.

Roger A. Modjeski

Re: RM5 Mark lll: a short review
« Reply #8 on: 18 Mar 2011, 03:03 am »
I have a few brand new RM-1 MK II preamps available at $8,500. These were built after Beveridge went out of business. I built these myself with parts I bought from him and improved the design. The MK II is lower noise, more reliable and has 2 phono inputs that can be custom loaded individually. There are only 3 critical tubes in the unit those being the input tubes of the phono stages and line amp. The other tubes need not be low noise though should be of the same type (or of the same filament current).There are 3 tubes that furnish the tape buffer, phase inverter and filter circuits that can be removed if those functions are not desired. Tube life is as good as in my other designs.

I have a few reconditioned MK 1 units that I could sell for $4500 with a 1 year warranty.

With SLN tubes the noise level is within 2 dB of anything I can make today. It is well known that all Music Reference products are very low noise when proper tubes are used.

The RM-1 was way ahead of its time and is hard to beat even at this date.