Regarding Carver Amps.

[stuartk]

I think Julian had just a smidge more experience than most of us here...

You say there is a difference, but you can't prove it.

However, you're entitled to your opinion.

I read some comments from someone who actually visited Hirsch's "testing labs." It was in a garage, with concrete floor and bare walls. His test bench was in there, and that's also where he listened to components he was reviewing.

Maybe I'm too picky, but I think I'd listen to stuff I was reviewing in something closer to a normal listening room.

 

[jocko_nc]

Carver's stuff is controversial, I think it always has been. I think there are a lot more opinions than actual experience, and a lot of preconceived notions. If you can get a line on one for a reasonable price, give it a try. If you don't like it, you will have no problem selling on Ebay.

If nothing more, the units are flat-out beautiful.

Among the Carver faithful, the TFM series are highly regarded.

They all use the "trick power supply", that is the whole concept behind the design. That is where those sick power ratings come from.

I have compared a Carver Receiver 150 versus Adcom 545II. Both are nice. The Carver seemed to have more raw guts, the Adcom was more detailed and revealing. The test may have been flawed, the Carver was likely in less-than-optimal condition from years of abuse.

jocko

 

[outshined]

I read some comments from someone who actually visited Hirsch's "testing labs." It was in a garage, with concrete floor and bare walls. His test bench was in there, and that's also where he listened to components he was reviewing.

Maybe I'm too picky, but I think I'd listen to stuff I was reviewing in something closer to a normal listening room.

Stereo Review did build a dedicated listening room, much like a living room setting, in the late 70's.

The design and build was featured as an ongoing column in the mag.

 

[stuartk]

Ive deleted my response as i see no use in continuing this further,your right & im wrong,TFM 55's are world renouned for having extra beefy transformers & massive caps & Cornwalls will explode with that much wattage being that they are so efficient.

My Amps had to have been defective.

Enjoy.

Amps don't necessarily need a huge beefy linear power supply in order to deliver a lot of power. It really depends upon the design.

I've seen Carver Magnetic Field amps used for Pro applications (live sound and studio) and they more than held their own. Admittedly, this was 20 years ago, but I didn't hear any complaints about the Carvers blowing up or sounding lousy.

The Wikipedia entry on Bob Carver lists some of his patents, and they make for an interesting read. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bob_Carver

 

[Tube Radio]

The only thing that matters is how an amp sounds to the person who owns it. If they like it that's fine with me.

 

[stuartk]

Stereo Review did build a dedicated listening room, much like a living room setting, in the late 70's.

The design and build was featured as an ongoing column in the mag.

Maybe it got better in later years.

Here's the comment I referred to:

http://www.audiocircle.com/circles/index.php?topic=29717.msg264601#msg264601

 

[wineslob]

Well I'll jump into the waters.
My first "real" stereo was an Akai AA 1050 reciever, Akai casette deck, ADC eq and DIY 3-way speakers using Philips drivers. Wanting more power I went to a Souncraftsmen PCR 800. It sounded totally different than the reciever. More bass, detail, wider soundstage. Admittedly it had gobs more power than the Akai, 50 w/ch compared to 205.
I used the PCR for many years until I decided to get a Bedini 150/150 mkII which I still use to this day. The speakers I was using at the time were a Dynaudio based sat/sub DIY system. Changing the amp was a night and day difference. Compared to the Bedini the PCR was harsh, lacked bass extension, and detail. The Bedini just had/has an over-all ease to the sound, never sounding strained (the PCR sounded like it was trying too hard). Detail was much better, I was doing the "I've never heard that before!" with every album/CD I played. Bass was much more realistic, this is where the "ease" comes in, it just sounds natural.
Could I do a double blind test and pick one out? Probably not, though I could say something sounded different, but IMHO the idea of double blind was invented to prevent dissention amongst the ranks. If you can't prove it, it dident happen. Beautiful CYA for manufacturers.
As I have said before, speakers being the "end game" of an audio system will determine what you can and cannot hear. YMMV.

 

[outshined]

"Changing the amp was a night and day difference. Compared to the Bedini the PCR was harsh, lacked bass extension, and detail."
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Then, it would follow that you could pick the Bedini out over the Soundcraftsmen very easily.

But, you say that you probably couldn't pick one out in an ABX test, although you may be able to hear a difference.

This is exactly what an ABX test is supposed to accomplish. If you can hear a "difference" with a 99% success rate, then you can, effectively, pick between the two. Even if you can't say which is which, the fact that you hear differences when the amps are switched would be proof that differences exist.

But, if your score is basically around 50%, then you are just "guessing" and the results are statistically meaningless; just as if you were flipping a coin, so to speak.

Everyone, from manufacturers to audiophiles are afraid of properly conducted double blind ABX listening tests. The reason should be obvious.

There are many "reasons" that people discount ABX testing. Now that's CYA!

There is another, new take on ABX which may be much better in accomplishing the same goal.

http://theaudiocritic.com/blog/index.php?op=ViewArticle&articleId=35&blogId=1

 

[panhead]

My 2 cents on the DBT/ABX deally is this,why is a test that relys on human memory so highly touted as gospel when the most faulty of things (memory) is used in the experiment.

Differences in how different amps sound show up in lab equipment & they do show up in home audio,when the room response is measured with a spectrum analizer the differences can be seen.

Once again it all boils down to can you hear a difference.

 

[outshined]

My 2 cents on the DBT/ABX deally is this,why is a test that relys on human memory so highly touted as gospel when the most faulty of things (memory) is used in the experiment.

Differences in how different amps sound show up in lab equipment & they do show up in home audio,when the room response is measured with a spectrum analizer the differences can be seen.

Once again it all boils down to can you hear a difference.

Actually, the ABX test methodology does not rely on sonic memory, which is extremely short. Rather, the ABX Comparator switches between amps very fast. Then, you tally your choice between A and B, against X.

The amp then, as you suggest, goes into a system where the room, speakers, and source material may alter your perception of the test outcome, due to all the other variables mentioned above.

The amp still sounds the same before and after...

After all, isn't the goal of any amplifier, preamp and say, a cdp to pass the source signal to the speakers with the least amount of deviation with respect to the source as possible?

 

[Bigerik]

After all, isn't the goal of any amplifier, preamp and say, a cdp to pass the source signal to the speakers with the least amount of deviation with respect to the source as possible?

Or is it to provide the most pleasurable listening experience? You might enjoy listening to equipment. I enjoy listening to the music. Whatever system provides the closest illusion to the actual music being played in my listening room is the one I want to listen to. After all, it is all an accoustic trick basically. We are using 2 speakers to try to convince the mind that we are not listening to two speakers. If they could do that with pop cans and string, then thats what I would want in my listening room.

 

[Bigerik]

Actually, the ABX test methodology does not rely on sonic memory, which is extremely short. Rather, the ABX Comparator switches between amps very fast. Then, you tally your choice between A and B, against X.

As long as the ABX comparator does not alter the sound of the equipment being tested....

 

[outshined]

Or is it to provide the most pleasurable listening experience? You might enjoy listening to equipment. I enjoy listening to the music. Whatever system provides the closest illusion to the actual music being played in my listening room is the one I want to listen to. After all, it is all an accoustic trick basically. We are using 2 speakers to try to convince the mind that we are not listening to two speakers. If they could do that with pop cans and string, then thats what I would want in my listening room.

So now we have "designer" components that we choose to make the source sound the way we want it to?

I'll take flat FR any day. If you look at the specs of most any amp or preamp worthy enough of your consideration, you will find that this is indeed the case.

Total Harmonic Distortion, IM, channel seperation, etc... will also be exemplary.

 

[kichijai]

People will ALWAYS bash Carver. He seems to attract attention much like a synthetic oil thread on a car forum. Some people don't like Ohm loudspeakers because of the "substandard" parts they use. I say the proof is in the listening.

 

[outshined]

Actually, the ABX test methodology does not rely on sonic memory, which is extremely short. Rather, the ABX Comparator switches between amps very fast. Then, you tally your choice between A and B, against X.

As long as the ABX comparator does not alter the sound of the equipment being tested....

If you the full story regarding the ABX Comparator, then you know that it does not alter the sound.

Please see the link I posted about a new way to do DBT.

 

[panhead]

Actually, the ABX test methodology does not rely on sonic memory, which is extremely short. Rather, the ABX Comparator switches between amps very fast. Then, you tally your choice between A and B, against X.

The amp then, as you suggest, goes into a system where the room, speakers, and source material may alter your perception of the test outcome, due to all the other variables mentioned above.

The amp still sounds the same before and after...

After all, isn't the goal of any amplifier, preamp and say, a cdp to pass the source signal to the speakers with the least amount of deviation with respect to the source as possible?

Im aware of how both a DBT & an ABX test work & both tests rely on memory when used in the "all properly designed amps sound the same " context.

If differences in amplifiers can be measured they can be heard no if ands or buts.

 

[outshined]

People will ALWAYS bash Carver. He seems to attract attention much like a synthetic oil thread on a car forum. Some people don't like Ohm loudspeakers because of the "substandard" parts they use. I say the proof is in the listening.

I don't think anyone is bashing Carver.

Bob Carvers' designs have been hugely successful. He was the first to say that hundreds of watts are needed for home use.

His amps are legendary.

 

[outshined]

Im aware of how both a DBT & an ABX test work & both tests rely on memory when used in the "all properly designed amps sound the same " context.

If differences in amplifiers can be measured they can be heard no if ands or buts.

So, you're saying, just for arguments sake, that you can hear a diff in an amp with .05THD and one with .1THD, across the audio band?

Measurement differences in THD, IM, crosstalk, damping factor, etc... are so small that they will go completely unoticed.

Heck, the ambient background noise of the listening room, unless low enough, will totally mask any phantom differences.

As for ABX testing, you can take a minute, an hour or a day to listen continuously before the amp is switched out for comparison. Sonic memory is not a factor. That's what David Clark had in mind when he devised the ABX Comparator.

 

[outshined]

I really believe that all this soul-searching, wondering, questioning, agonizing about amplifiers is basically unproductive and would be much more rewarding if applied to loudspeakers instead. For various reasons that I have discussed in the past, people are more willing to change amplifiers than loudspeakers. That’s most unfortunate because a new and better loudspeaker will change your audio life but a new amplifier will not.
Peter Aczel.

 

[panhead]

People will ALWAYS bash Carver. He seems to attract attention much like a synthetic oil thread on a car forum. Some people don't like Ohm loudspeakers because of the "substandard" parts they use. I say the proof is in the listening.

Not that you meant me but since i posted a negative response i'll explain.

There are several reasons why Carver gets so many mixed reveiws with the 1st & main reason being cost,Carver's costs vs watt dollars made it very easy for alot of people to try their products,they had massive sales numbers compared to their competition,i tried Carver & Sunfire for the same reason as many others,hi wattage vs low costs.

The "T" function also did not sit well with alot of people,i cant remember exactly weather its a simple resistor or a circuit that was added to the T amps to make them sound more tube like but IMO it took the balls right out of the amps.

I cant speak for OHM products as ive never used them but i have owned Carver/Sunfire several times , i was not bashing the gear but i was relaying my experience with the gear,if previous Carver owners(insert any other brand here) cant post their thoughts about their own ownership without being labeled as a basher by the Carver fans then its all just a big hug fest instead of a forum.