ARC VT-100 mk1 or BAT VK-60?

I've been considering ARC VT-100 or Bat VK-60. I have never listened sound of both yet. Anyone comment which is better sound to drive my JMlab speakers with 91db, 8ohm, 150w. My room is 20m2. I listen mainly rock and jazz.
Thanks to all in advance.
ARC all the way! If you have enough cash, get a Mk III. Even with the Mk I if you are not satisfied with it, you can sell it a decent price and not lose much on it, assuming, of course, you bought it at the right price yourself.
The ARC MKII unit is much better than the MKI I would like to point out due to the much improved power supply.
Hello Batlua,

I hope this helps. I did compare in my system the ARC VT200 to the BAT VK60 monoblocks and it wasn't even close IMO. The BAT had more resolution of detail that brought out much better texture of tone of all instruments and voice. Had much more air and a wider and deeper soundstage. Also, dynamics were more linear with the BAT although the VT-200 could keep its composure on (ear spliting) peaks do to the extra power on my (at the time) hard to drive Avalon Radians HC. In comparison to the BAT the ARC had a grain structure throughout all the frequencies that was coarse. I would say if power is not an issue for you I would take the BAT any day of the week. I would try to audition both so you can hear and decide for yourself. Good luck with the search.

All the best,
Have had in house comparisons between VK-75Se and VT100 and VT200.
The only thing which the VT series have an clear advantage is muscle and horsepower.
As for musicality detail transparancy staging air palpability the VK-75SE takes on any ARC anytime.
If you need brute tube power the VT200 is an monster.
but i was sort of bored after listening longer time with the VT series.

I have not heard the BAT, but as to ARC, I prefer the VT-130 over the 100 or 200. It is an older design, IMHO sounds better. There are some great upgrades available for it.
If it means anything to anyone, the amp I owned before the BAT VK-120 monoblocks was the ARC VT130. IMHO in my system the BAT was the better amp by far.
I'd go with the BAT.
VK60 Hands down ! My VK60 replaced my Bryston 3BST and 2BLP biamped.. Surprisingly, it is better in all frequency with wider and deeper sound stage plus 3D holographic imaging.
Once up on a time Sonic Frontiers Power 2 ...

I have a VK-60. Before that a VT-100 II. I prefer the VK sound over the VT. I second the comment re "more detail" and "better texture". BAT's auto bias feature eliminates the 20-30 minutes warm-up time required by the ARC and reduces tube replacement costs. OTOH, the BAT runs hotter and needs more space above for cooling.

Speakers are Gallo 3 -- 89 db. The VK drives them with no problem.

Either amp would be an excellent choice. If ARC, I would go with the II for the reason already noted.

Enjoy the journey.
j bailey,

While autobias does make VK tube amps simpler to live with, they still require warm up to sound their best. I don't think autobias extends tube life much, particularly in comparison to the ARC. The 6C33C-B power tubes in the VK-series degrade sonically within 1500 hours. The 6550s in the ARC can last 3000 hours. However it's cheaper to retube a VK than an ARC.

I do agree with your assessment of the sonic virtues of VK-tube amps as compared to ARC VT amps. Moreover, there are some simple coupling cap and internal wiring subsitutions that can take the VK-series to a much higher level than stock.