Music Reference vs. Quicksilver

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.

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?