Carver "The Receiver" question?

Qoute: "I don't think you know what you're talking about."

Sorry to hear you feel that way TA.. but the thing is.. I know EXACTLY what I'm talking about. And to be perfectly honest.. I'm suprised you're defending Carver. I realize I haven't been on this site in a few months.. haven't had time. But apparantly.. opinion's here have gone south in a handbag. :( And that's a real shame.
There used to be Audiophiles on the board.. who were serious about audio. Apparantly, that time is no more.

In the early1980's, is when audio companies began going south. Do an A/B with virtually any gear about 1980 on back, with this new crap about 1985 to the present, the earlier stuff is FAR superior. In sound.. power.. and build.

VERY Sad to say.. and I'm not saying this to bash Carver.. or any of the other brands out there, but I could take a 1970's POS Soundesign (not speakers..) and it would have a better tuner, and more power than a POS Carver MXR-130..! lol And Soundesign.. was the lowest of the low.

TRC
 
TRC said:
.. edited....

There used to be Audiophiles on the board.. who were serious about audio. Apparantly, that time is no more.

In the early1980's, is when audio companies began going south. Do an A/B with virtually any gear about 1980 on back, with this new crap about 1985 to the present, the earlier stuff is FAR superior. In sound.. power.. and build.

VERY Sad to say.. and I'm not saying this to bash Carver.. or any of the other brands out there, but I could take a 1970's POS Soundesign (not speakers..) and it would have a better tuner, and more power than a POS Carver MXR-130..! lol And Soundesign.. was the lowest of the low.

:rofl:

... somebody is trolling!
 
Quote: "... somebody is trolling! "
No.. not "trolling" at all. Just stating a factual opinion.

Like I said previously.. if you're satisfied with the sound, power and build of the new stuff.. then BUY IT. I hope you ENJOY it..! All I'm saying is.. the OLDER gear .. is BETTER..! :)

Check out the build of 70's Pioneer's for example.. and compare them to the build of the new stuff. Just because someone gives a unit a favorable review.. you think that's makes the unit a quality piece..? Use your own ear and judge it for yourself. Why do you think there's such a demand for the OLDER gear? Because it's QUALITY..! Quality BUILD.. Quality SOUND.. real POWER..

TRC
 
TRC said:
...In the early1980's, is when audio companies began going south. Do an A/B with virtually any gear about 1980 on back, with this new crap about 1985 to the present, the earlier stuff is FAR superior. In sound.. power.. and build...

TRC
Broad generalizations, especially 'objective' ones like that, can get one into trouble. Someone will be waiting to provide counterexamples, refuting your statement. IOW, is it your contention that NO post-1985 gear is superior to ALL pre-1980 gear? Want to stack an SA-9800 against a Copeland/Hovland/Krell/pick your favourite new monster.

Or, is it your contention that, IN YOUR OPINION, MOST pre-1980 is superior to COMPARABLE post-1985? (insert your own modifiers: sonically, build quality, power, as you wish)

I've got a 2252B, that I really like a lot. I also have a Cambridge Audio A500, that outperformed it, with my Tangent RS-4s. In MY opinion.

Still want to leave your last statement an absolute?
 
Last edited:
TRC said:
Quote: "... somebody is trolling! "
No.. not "trolling" at all. Just stating a factual opinion.

Help me out here- what is a "factual opinion"? I think what you're actually stating is your opinionof a broad range of equipment, based on your experience with one piece. There is nothing "factual" about it.

Like I said previously.. if you're satisfied with the sound, power and build of the new stuff.. then BUY IT. I hope you ENJOY it..! All I'm saying is.. the OLDER gear .. is BETTER..! :)

My Carver Receiver was built in 1984, if I recall- somehow this is new? How old does a piece have to be before it is acceptable, in your "factual opinion"?

Check out the build of 70's Pioneer's for example.. and compare them to the build of the new stuff.

I bought a Pioneer receiver in 1977 that was a POS straight out of the box- can't even remeber the model it was such a horrible experieince- stayed in the shop for the better part of a year until I got fed up and bought aTechnics that operated flawlessly for over 10 years. Note that I do NOT think that ALL Pioneer equipment is, was, or will be, junk. The one I bought, however, was.

Just because someone gives a unit a favorable review.. you think that's makes the unit a quality piece..?

And somehow your opinion does?

Use your own ear and judge it for yourself.

Only reasonable statement made in your post.

Why do you think there's such a demand for the OLDER gear? Because it's QUALITY..! Quality BUILD.. Quality SOUND.. real POWER..

TRC

Again, a broad-sweeping generalization without any substantiation or attempt to define what it is you're actually talking about. IMO, some vintage equipment is very good, some of it is the same junk it was 20 or 30 years ago. Same for modern stuff.
 
My first post at AK (or next to first) was about a Carver "The Receiver 900" with a problem. It Turned out to be just a dirty tape monitor switch.
What I found odd about that Carver was how BIG speaker friendly it was. Anything less than 10 or 12 inch 3 way's sounded like an alarm clock radio.
But put a less effcient set of BIG boxes (brand didn't matter) and it was very impressive.
I gave it back to the same guy that gave it to me and he had bought it new but never had more than bookshelf speakers for it. He does now! Sansui's I don't know what model but he said they rock.
Terry
 
Oh where have the Audiophiles gone.

Quote:
"My Carver Receiver was built in 1984, if I recall- somehow this is new? How old does a piece have to be before it is acceptable.."

Apx 1980 - 81 or before.

Quote:
"I bought a Pioneer receiver in 1977 that was a POS straight out of the box- Note that I do NOT think that ALL Pioneer equipment is, was, or will be, junk. The one I bought, however, was.

I'm not defending Pioneer.. but probably every company has had QC issuesm and occasionally one slips through. But the Carver's I bought, were POS straight out of the box also.. all THREE of them. That's either a design flaw, or bad QC.

Quote:
"IMO, some vintage equipment is very good, some of it is the same junk it was 20 or 30 years ago. Same for modern stuff."

I agree. I'm not saying ALL vintage gear is quality. When I compared the MXR-130 with the POS Soundesign.. I was stating the quality of the Carver units.

Quote:
"is it your contention that NO post-1985 gear is superior to ALL pre-1980 gear? Want to stack an SA-9800 against a Copeland/Hovland/Krell/pick your favourite new monster.
"Or, is it your contention that, IN YOUR OPINION, MOST pre-1980 is superior to COMPARABLE post-1985?

I'm saying, Quality pre-1981 gear is comporable with todays gear of SAME quality costing thousands.
I.e: If you like the power, sound, build of todays gear costing thousands of doallrs.. just buy an OLDER piece of QUALITY gear.. and REBUILD it for less..!
What is so difficult to understand about that..? And a Carver MXR-130 (or INMO anything ELSE Bob designed..) does NOT fall into that catagory. Sorry..
 
TRC said:
I'm saying, Quality pre-1981 gear is comporable with todays gear of SAME quality costing thousands.
I.e: If you like the power, sound, build of todays gear costing thousands of doallrs.. just buy an OLDER piece of QUALITY gear.. and REBUILD it for less..!
What is so difficult to understand about that...
Well, for the record, that is a VASTLY different statement than your earlier one, and, coincidentally, one to which many of us subscribe.

BTW, allowing for the passage of decades, the "Quality pre-1981 gear" was priced at today's equivalent of thousands. The SX-1980 retailed for $1295, in 1978, which, notwithstanding other factors, has a present value of $3975.

New TOTL = Big $, then and now.
 
There is "STILL" very good equipment out there--trust me there is--if you have ten grand or better--you still get the beefy 100+ lbs of reciever or amp for that matter--to name one is KRELL, levinston,,the list can go on if you care that much to look! the bird
 
And also--carver DOES still make GOOD stuff-like there sunfire sereis for example, just had to feed my 2 cents thats all! the bird :yes: :thmbsp:
 
TRC said:
Oh where have the Audiophiles gone.

Ive been here for 2 1/2 years, and while some folks come and go, there is a fairly large, dedicated core group of very knowledgeable individuals that hasn't gone anywhere. I guess an "audiophile" in your "factual opinion" is limited to anyone who agrees with whatever you espouse, and the rest of the members don't meet the grade.

As for the rest of your post, it's just restating the same "factual opinions" already posted, and not worth commenting on. Enjoy your narrow little world.

This thread got hijacked and should be closed.
 
TRC said:
I'm saying, Quality pre-1981 gear is comporable with todays gear of SAME quality costing thousands.
I.e: If you like the power, sound, build of todays gear costing thousands of doallrs.. just buy an OLDER piece of QUALITY gear.. and REBUILD it for less..!
What is so difficult to understand about that..? And a Carver MXR-130 (or INMO anything ELSE Bob designed..) does NOT fall into that catagory. Sorry..

TRC -- I'm ALMOST with you on that one, however, I do want to say the the Luxman R-117 is, HANDS DOWN, one of the best STEREO receivers ever made by anyone at ANY time. What say ye? :D
 
tentoze said:
I guess an "audiophile" in your "factual opinion" is limited to anyone who agrees with whatever you espouse, and the rest of the members don't meet the grade.

Tentoze -- Even though I understand where TRC is coming from, I do believe he was a little TOO harsh in his judgment of AK. You have summarized my concerns most succinctly. Well said! :thmbsp:
 
Quote: "there is a fairly large, dedicated core group of very knowledgeable individuals that hasn't gone anywhere."
Yes, and I'm one of them.

Quote:
"As for the rest of your post.. not worth commenting on."
Then tentoze, feel free to accept this invitation to refrain from doing so.

Quote:
"Enjoy your narrow little world."
Oh it's not so "narrow".. there are PLENTY of quality-minded individuals. :)
Enjoy your hot-glue / adheisive tape audio system tentoze.. lol.


Quote:
"TRC -- I'm ALMOST with you on that one, however, I do want to say the the Luxman R-117 is, HANDS DOWN, one of the best STEREO receivers ever made by anyone at ANY time. What say ye?"
This I say.. I'm not familiar with it, so I hesitate commenting on it. I will say this though.. but I have owned Luxman in the past, and was good gear. I really like Luxman TUBE gear.

Quote:
"There is "STILL" very good equipment out there--trust me there is--if you have ten grand or better--you still get the beefy 100+ lbs of reciever or amp for that matter--to name one is KRELL, levinston,,the list can go on if you care that much to look! the bird"
I agree with you Bird.. and believe it or not.. yes, I AM familiar with Mark Levinson and Krell. And as for the "$10,000+ gear of today.. you can buy quality VINTAGE gear (about 1980 and earlier..) have it rebuilt and have the same qulaity or better. And I'm sorry.. but Carver just doesn't qualify.


Quote:
"Well, for the record, that is a VASTLY different statement than your earlier one, and, coincidentally, one to which many of us subscribe."
Well, thank you.. but I still stand by my previous statement concerning Carver.

Quote:
"BTW, allowing for the passage of decades, the "Quality pre-1981 gear" was priced at today's equivalent of thousands. The SX-1980 retailed for $1295, in 1978, which, notwithstanding other factors, has a present value of $3975."
And that SX-1280 is an excellent example of the type of gear to which I was reffering.

TRC
 
Last edited:
This criticism from TRC got a little out of hand and irrational. Unusual for AK. The consensus here is that the Carver Receiver is a respectable device and is recommended.

I probably could find amps out there in the same class that would be better, but you'd probably find lots more worse. It's an amp, so it should not sound like anything, and it doesn't. It provides clean power, as rated. They are a good value.

I just thought of an interesting test I could have done before I rack mounted my Peavey 120/120 (I am not going to rip one of them out now). It would have been cool (and a little difficlut due to load requirements) to A/B test the Peavey, a four-6L6 per channel tube amp, against the Carver (it probably would have lost). I also never tried the receiver on the Acoustat speakers for which I bought 120/120's. All other transistor amps I tried failed horribly (crackling noises at moderate volume).

My Carver Receiver has had a home (in my pool house) and I wasn't considering moving it. It works extremely well with the Dynaudios.
 
Hmmm, a buck fifty huh? Not bad......

Had one of these and it was Ok. The remote interferred with my RCA Hi-Fi VCR and vice versa :worried: It was a major annoyance! :thumbsdn: The FM OK as was its performance. Bought it new and I will never do that again. What I really would like is the original Carver Receiver. The analog dial model from the 80's. A friend got one in 1985. Cool! Always wanted one of these! If I found one for $150 I jump all over it!!! He ran it on JBL Centurys like I do now. The digital model I had did not stay around long. Gave it to a friend eight or nine years ago for their wine shop. Runs every day 12 hrs. Two years ago one channel crapped out and since its for background music I hooked it to the remaining working channel. When it goes I will replace it with a nice vintage receiver. My original plan was to sent it to the landfill, but that was before AK. Now I'll give it to someone here when it goes. :D

Eric
 
I sometimes wonder if some folks are more proud of self-adorned apellations such as Audiophile or the recently acquired penchant for wearing shoes during the week... :sigh:
 
I need to make a correction here. I stated earlier in this thread,

Quote:
"Like I said previously.. if you're satisfied with.. the new stuff.. "

Then someone else said,

Quote:
"My Carver Receiver was built in 1984.. somehow this is new?

I shouldn't have used the term "new", but rather, "modern". I appologize for the misunderstanding.

Most (not all..) gear (IMHO) from the early 1980's to the present, I have mistakenly classified as "new", because it was around this time in audio history, the manufacturers began "re-designing" and producing substandard "crap". And I'm sorry, but (IMHO) the MXR-130, fall's into that catagory. It just has that "post 1980" sound to it.

I like an amp (or reciever..) that will blow your doors off, without needing a stack of processing equipment to help it along. I'm not saying it's all about power.. it's not. It's also about the QUALITY of the audio.


Again, I appolgize for any misunderstanding.

TRC
 
Last edited:
Well I wasen't gonna say anything as I think we all know this thread has gone down the sh*tter. But I'll say a few things anyway. In the 80's I sold many Carver products. When Bob Carver was with the company, the company produced some truely amazing gear - the Reciever being one of them. The Reciever is nothing more than their TX-11 tuner, C-1 pre-amp, and TFM-25 amplifier slimmed down to fit a very pretty looking package. I think the Reciever is a very nice piece. But after Bob Carver left the company, Carver Corp still tried to push off some seriously bad equipment onto the public but failed. The real brains of the company was gone. This is where I think people are getting confused. If you bought late 80's Carver gear, you were buying crap. If you bought early 80's Carver gear, you got real high-end gear at a down to earth price. As for the scotch tape issue? Should a manufacture use scotch tape to hold their gear together? I think they should not as tape will not last. BUT---everyone does it, even McIntosh. Ever seen those bubbles on the glass face? That's scotch tape on the back drying up, coming loose, and pulling the paint off with it. Does this make McIntosh crap? Of course not. Does it make the Carver Reciever crap? Of course not. Could they have done it better? Yes, but they didn't, and that's were it ends.

There are many differing minds here. Some swear by Sansui, or Pioneer, or McIntosh. But let's keep apples to apples. Even though there are many, many stereo recievers on the market, thay can all be grouped into "classes", ie; Carver claasic would not compare to modern Fisher, but McIntosh classic would compare to vintage Fisher, or Sansui, or Pioneer, etc.... get it? Tear them both apart and see the similarities of craftmanship. You'll find that they both have a very similar build - scotch tape and all. At the time of a gears build, they are built with what is at hand - tape, glue, or screws. I'm just thankful that they even get built at all.

Now to address the "Where have all the audiophiles gone" question. I got your audiophile right here, buddy! This place is full of more real audiophiles then you have on your own self-proclaimed pinky. How do I know? Easy. An audiophile finds pleasure and feeling in music, a nut finds it in the gear he owns. Audiophiles have many pieces and brands and styles of gear because they understand there is no one true piece of gear that is perfect. A snob owns one type out of vain. So open your eyes and ears. the world is full of great gear. It should all be heard.
 
Last edited:
Agreed, and a lot of it has passed through here, though no one has ever asked me to restore a Soundesign or Yorx - that's something like teaching a pig to sing. :D I confess that I find the concern with adhesives mildly amusing - don't take too close a look at your loudpeakers people, you would be amazed at how many are glued together with adhesives from Henkel Loctite and others. :scratch2:

Rob
 
Back
Top Bottom