Music Reference vs. Quicksilver

I am in the market for a lower powered tube amp.....small, moderately efficient speakers in small room. I am thinking about either a used RM-10 amp (35 watts our of a pair of 6bq5 tubes), or a used pair of Quicksilver mini-mites (25 watts out of a pair of el34 tubes). Any one got recommendations based on their experience? Appreciate the input.....
I am using an RM10 (original version) to drive as pair of Proac 2_5's in a 2nd system.

Plenty of nice spounding power in a 12*14' high ceiling room.
music reference would be the most versatle....the keeper of the two
Quicksilver Mini-Mites are self-biasing, and can run at least four different types of power tubes with no modifications necessary. Simply pop in whatever you like. They are phenomenal amps, IMO, and silly cheap. The EL34's are sweet, nearly SET-like, and these amps will easily rock with KT88's.
the little quick silvers are awsome
I have an RM-10, and just think it is great. Small, beautiful, and sounds wonderful. I think you will find only fans of both the amps you mention. I say you should buy both, compare them, sell the one you don't prefer, and then report back on this forum about the sonic differences.
i woned older quicksilver and an earlier roger majeski amp.

i liked the earlier quicksilver ams, the 8417 and ms 190. since then, the designs have changed. they are less tube like, in the classic sense. riger majeski's amps never sounded tube like to me.

thus, i would consider other low powered tube amps such as some of the single ended triode varieties.
Music Reference gear is pretty bulletproof and great sounding plus with the RM-10 tubes last up to 10,000 hrs....

The Quick Silvers are going to be more colored. If you need to do lower impedences go Music Reference.

I've owned RM9's and an RM200's prior.
I have not heard the current Quickies, nor the Muse References. I do have a bkgrd of experience with Quicksilver from when I owned several Quickie products. From this experience, I can say that Quicksilver provides some of the best and no-nonsense customer service in the high end industry. To my way of thinking, that level of quality support holds a lot of weight when making a purchase decision.

In addition, the Quickie products are engineered quite well by a very smart designer, and built quite solidly.
Tubes108, I agree with you, but keep in mind that the very same can be said about RM, both the man and the product. Two classic designers, if that can be said of a person.
Drove a pair of Reference 3a MM De Capos with all Quicksilver stuff for a couple of years (Mini Mites, Linestage, and phono preamp). The combination sounded great--far superior to the integrated amps that preceded it (Audio Analogue Puccini, Musical Fidelity A 3.2, and Unison Research Unico).

I ended up selling the De Capos and now need a much bigger amp than the Mini Mites--I only wish I could afford a pair of V4s.
Cytocycle, I'm not clear, did you own the 9 and 200 and now own the 10?
Pubul57: I owned the Music Reference RM9 Mk1, and a Music Reference RM200 which I bought and sold twice over the years and still regret selling.

I considered the RM10 a couple of times but have always owned power hungry speakers, so I never owned a RM10 (yet)
In the next week or so I will be comparing my RM10 MKII with a RM9SE owned by a fella that happens to have my speaker (Merlin VSM-MXe) and preamp (Joule LA 150MKII) and cabling (Cardas GR) AND same size room - hmmm?. It will be very interesting to compare the little 35 watt (EL84) amp with the more powerful (EL34)(100watts?)RM9SE. I typically believe in "less power is better" if it is sufficient to play loud enough with your speakers in your room (less complexity and parts) so it will be an interesting "faceoff" with the easy to drive and fairly sensitive Merlins (89db - very linear 8ohm) - of course I expect the RM9 to drive a much wider choice of speakers. I have also owned Quicksilver 8417, Mid Monos, and V4s. QS and MR are similar - high quality, solid engineering, great value, no BS; and most interestingly you almost never hear someone who has owned either say they did not love them. QS is a bit warmer with a more forward midrange, MR seems faster and more nuetral - both top notch in my book and the choice could easily be made based on the pre and speakers to be used with them.
Sounds like fun... I had EL34's for my RM9 and I used 6550's which I ultimately preferred because of the extra bass control and crytal clear highs. when you say RM9SE are you referring to the RM9 Mk2 which is a 125watt a channel amp versus the RM9 mk1. Keep in mind the(Roger's Tube company) RAM tubes are best for these amps because they DC stress test them because of the design Roger uses.

Also since you are using Cardas and if you find the amp to warm a step up to 6550 or KT88 (more delicate top with just as much bass as the 6550's) might be a better match then the EL34's (which are warm on top and rolled on the bottom. Even if the Merlin's are 8ohm, try the 4ohm taps also.... I've found with tube gear that I prefer odd taps on the back of tube gear.. 8ohm for 4ohm gear and 4ohm for 8ohm.. it's all about synergy..

Sounds like a lot of fun!
The Quickies will be much warmer and tubey in a classic since. The Music Reference will be more nuetral. It all depends on your current system,room,and music taste.
Cytocycle, it will be a "special edition" of the RM9 of which Roger made 19 of (he's kept one for himself) and sells for $8,000 - he has six left. I am running the 4ohm tap with my RM10 - "light loading" - seems to have slightly better bass, and also puts less stress on the tubes (Roger recommended it). Philefreak has it right.