BAT vs. Quicksilver


I am contemplating selling my VK-60 for a different tube amp. The Quicksilver V4 mono's grabbed my eye, I like the 120 watt power rating & really want to run mono's. How do they compare to the BAT? I originally planned on buying another VK-60 & running a pair mono but don't know if I can really afford too. Also does the BAT need to be sent in for the mono conversion?

My system consists of VR4 jr's, MIT & DC Labs cables, Parasound transport & Benchmark DAC for a passive pre-amp. I listen to rock music only. I love the Bat but need MUCH more power.
fishwater

Showing 2 responses by tubes108

Hey Marco. On paper you are correct about doubling power results in a 3 db increase in sound. But there are no standards in rating power in amps; and keep in mind that this non-standardized spec is derived under laboratory conditions.

Other factors such as headroom and power supplies factor into the amount of juice an amp can provide in the real world setting of our audio systems, whose requirements (complex impedances) change by the microsecond. And thus, it is possible that a little under 20 watt Viva SET amp can drive the hell out of power hungry Sound Lab M1s, which typically is an amp killer.

In my view, most specs in audio components should be ignored, at least ignored in the sense that they cannot be used to compare one component to another. It is much better to plug something into your system and verify performance 1st hand.
I have never used the Bat amps, but have owned Quicksilver gear and can speak a little bit about the company. My amplifier experience was with Quicksilver' first amp, the MX-190. This amp was in the 160 watt range, big chassis, had a cult following, etc. Although I purchased the amp used, and had the amp for years, there was never a problem of any kind. The amp was ultra reliable, and through steady use imparted a Rock-of-Gilbrator-like sense of problem-free behavior. With regard to their later amps, I’ve heard from users that their amps shared the rock-steady reliability that my amp had.

The sonics were exceptional for their time. In fact, when I got the bug to upgrade, I discovered that the MX-190 performed better sonically than many of the highly thought of amps that I considered. Note in testimony to my MX-190 and to Quicksilver, I sold my used Quickie back to the person who originally sold the amp to me! I’ve only heard of that happening with Quad speakers.

An essential item to me with regard to audio gear is the company that makes the gear. What is the value in owning an amp if it is unreliable or if the vendor does not fix your amp in a resonable amount of time if there is a problem, or if the company ignores you if you have a question? Relative to those categories, some vendors are significantly better than others. Mike Sanders and Quicksilver provide some of the best customer service in the industry. In short, if you audition the Quickies of your choice and are pleased with the sound, I would not hesitate to purchase them.

Re. the 6c33c tube. I like the tube, but that means I like how some amps sound that use this tube--it is not just the tube that defines the sound nor reliblilty of an amp. In some amps that use this tube, the sound is more organic and realistic than I've experienced with other amps. As Justin_time mentioned, the sockets used in some amps that have 6c33c's require replacing periodically. This is not a tube issue; it is a design issue. I known of an amp that required the sockets to be replaced on a regular basis seemingly because the amp was designed with bias levels that were unreasonable. Whereas my amps from Joule Electra, with an obviously much more thought out design, were biased at a more reasonable level and the sockets never required replacement.