I met Bob Carver a number of of years ago. We were visiting my older brother, who lived off of Puget Sound in Washington state. I talked him into driving out to Woodinville to the Carver factory. Upon arrival, we walked in and asked the receptionist if it would be possible to meet Bob and get a tour. She told us to hang on a second and then proceeded to yell across the room to the open office behind us, "Hey Bob, these guys would like to meet you!" We turned to see Bob in the office with his chief engineer. He waved us in and we sat for almost an hour chatting about amps, sonic holography, and everything else hifi. I told him about some issues I was having with my C-4000 preamp. Bob said, "Send it back to us and we'll update it to the latest specs. We'll cover shipping both ways." After recovering from that, he had this chief engineer take us on a tour of the factory. We saw everything except Bob's private lab. We finally left a couple hours later. I will never forget that day. Along with the C-4000, I had a couple of his amplifiers and his FM tuner. All sounded fantastic. I wish I still had them all.
I took my old Phase Linear D-500 amp back to Bob Carver's shop and he also undated it and re CAP'd it for free. I lived in Redmond WA back in the 1980s so a quick strap the amp to the back of my Suzuki and dropped it off. A week later i got the call to come pick it up. It is still a very good 3/4 power amp meaning that at 3/4 power it is great but by todays standards not so good. But with 500 Watts per channel..... 3/4 power is still LOUD.
PM: Always interesting to hear your take on various subjects. I too was "there". This stunning stroke of marketing brilliance was accomplished because Bob is an "agnostic audiophile". In other words, he doesn't believe in "ineffable magical hi-fi unicorns" nor the boasts of the “SnobbyOphile class”. He is a brilliant scientist and it is his broad background in PHYSICS that gives him the intellectual scope to see in his mind's eye what mere electrical engineers cannot (because electronics is a mere SUBSET of PHYSICS). Carver essentially knew that ALL amplifiers color the sound in subtle ways due to their implementation of components which have traits that are always a bit more complex than their schematic symbols let on. Consider the number of capacitances & inductances exhibited internally by ANY FET, for example. Taken in aggregate, these nuances that affect a signal give an amplifier its unique, subtle sonic fingerprint - which Bob refers to as the amplifier’s "Transfer Function". In the “Carver Challenge”, what Carver did IN HIS HOTEL ROOM, was to measure the TRANSFER FUNCTION of the amps he needed to duplicate the sound of. One amp was a $5000 Conrad Johnson tube model if memory serves. Once Carver had derived a behavior of the target amps transfer function, - he proceeded to build a line-level filter out of components that he had brought into his HOTEL ROOM & that filter had a number of variable components on it that he used to tweak it - in order to match, extremely closely, the transfer function signal dynamics that he needed to duplicate. Testing the design consisted of NULL measurements at the output stage of his amp (out of phase) with the target amp. When the speakers went silent playing test signals - he knew that he had matched the transfer function of the target amp & then implemented that bread-boarded TF-filter into the signal path of his amp. The ultimate result is history & a stunning display of the “audiophile’s ultimate lesson in humility”. Carver won the challenge and it was published far & wide (which is why 4+ decades after the fact - we’re still talking about it)! Then is a stroke of marketing brilliance, Carver designed the “spared no expense” SILVER SEVEN TUBE MONOBLOCK AMPLIFIER. This monster/masterpiece would set you back $12,000 (& you needed 2 for stereo). Well, the reviews were stellar. “Audiophiles” were in near consensus that the Silver Seven was a triumph of audio engineering (And sadly [sniff] priced out of the reach of the masses). And then, Carver did the unthinkable to the SnobbyOphile, eh, audiophile elitist class (those better-thans who had $24 grand to drop on Carver’s Silver Seven): He duplicated its TRANSFER FUNCTION into his ultra-powerful, solid state “magnetic field power amp” design. Hence the Carver M 4.0t (the “t’ denotes ‘transfer function’) was born (for about $700 if memory serves)! And that $700 got you BOTH channels! And since Carver had already PROVEN that he could duplicate a transfer function of any audio amplifier in the infamous “Carver Challenge”; - he now could claim, with unchallenged confidence, that the M4.0t at $700 sounded INDISTINGUISHABLE from his $12,000 (eh, stereo configured $24,000) Silver Seven Tube amp! I can almost hear their hell-tormented, narcissistic screams as the SnobbyOphiles realized that Carver had completely OWNED them - not once, but twice (& that their boast of owning the most superior amplifier was now a boast that virtually anyone with $700 or a credit card could make)! And that, was poetry. BTW: Bob Carver was MY inspiration also. He proved what understanding the nature of THE SIGNAL could accomplish. And today, my venture is using proprietary tech (such as AI) to demonstrate just what artfully manipulating an audio signal can accomplish. Interested? 5mash my !con.
I met Bob years back at an audio show in Scottsdale, AZ. He took time from the rest of the crowd to chat with me about technology the way he saw it, a fascinating individual. I ended up purchasing a subwoofer that was being promoted and Bob happily signed it for me. I still have it to this day!
i worked at Carver for about 2 years right out of high school. it was one of my 1st jobs. i read all their material with all these null tests, the Carver Challenge. it is a strange feeling to hear all this stuff so many years later. i have stories but i dont think anyone is going to see this text.......we shall see....shadowban
I worked in Carvers design office for a summer in the early 90's. My drafting board was right next to gear room. Fun geeking out everyday surrounded by audio gear and doing my bit to support the engineers with testing prototype amps.
I owned a phase linear 400 amplifier so many years ago and I was thrilled with the way it drove my Dahlquist speakers. Then one day I decided to buy an Audio Research D-76A. I never tried to compare the sound of the two against each other but there is no question to my ears that the audio research was a much more musical amplifier. Carver is a true genius in this industry and always has been and I tip my hat to him for everything that he’s given to our community.
I was lucky enough to talk with Bob this past year and it was a pleasure, so friendly, I am a Carver fan and own his 350 watt tube mono blocks and a C11 preamp with sonic Holograph, if you never heard sonic holograph, you need to try it just so cool. Also his tube amplifiers will drive any speaker and the sound signature is so smooth and refined. Everyone has a different taste when it comes to sound that’s why it’s so hard to say one system is better than another. Hats off to Bob Carver, a legend in the audio world.
I had a highly modded Carver TFM 45. Carver did the work. Great amp. Dead quiet. Tons of power. I wanted to try something different so I bought a pair of M 1200s from PS Audio. It was like a Vail was lifted. Way better. More clarity. More air. Very happy. Good work Paul.
Sorry Paul....that was a "cop out" of sorts. First: thank you for not trashing Carver....he IS a genius. Second: You truthfully gave the test credit.....but....you didn't go on to say why someone would spend thousands of dollars on a "mega-amp", when very similar results could be had by a "mega-cheaper" Carver amp?? I had the "Carver Cube" amp for years (driving Shehannian Oblisks), and I was in sonic heaven ! I absolutely know that your products are state of the art today.....but they are so out of reach, price wise, for 99% of stereo consumers. P.S. LOVE your videos, your dedication to the art of sonic excellence, and to the education of the masses !!!!!
What Carver was really doing was establishing that measurements define and characterize the sound, but doing it in a cute competitive way that subjectivists thought must fail. Very smart.
The first challenge amp was a Conrad-Johnson Premier Four which Bob successfully duplicated its sound and sold as the Carver M1.0t. The second challenge amp was a pair of Mark Levinson ML-2 mono blocks that Bob duplicated the sound in his Carver M1.5t.
@@mitchtaylor6512 I was very much around at that time. Never heard of your claim of instability of the prototypes. I’ve owned the M400a, 1.0t, M500t, and they all had a specific sonic character. One would assume because they were all tweaked to sound a certain way.
@@mitchtaylor6512 There were no prototypes, really. They were open boxes with trim pots sticking out of them and he would adjust them, with the adjustments being unstable. Production nulls that were stable were far less and made this made the amps sound similar but not indistinguishable from the originals. The "clone" amps were crappy performers with no bass control and zero depth and poor resolution.
Thanks, Paul. I remember following all the craziness around this. He did what he said and made his amp indistinguishable from others. It's just physics, engineering, and psychoacoustics. He put the litter to all the marketing nonsense about power cables (which can be pretty), the tube sound (which i like :), power conditioners (sorry Paul :(), etc. Most of all he was an economic threat to our beloved hobby. Good testing can go along easy to protect our sanity and wallet. That's why it is done so little. Thanks!
@@brucermarino I think there's something to it though. It's undeniable that after all these years (since 1947) of the transistor, and of digital (first recording in 1971) the promise of both today is, "Sounds as good as tubes/analog". And every new product is supposed to finally realize that goal. Both, digital and solid state, obviously have their places and advantages. But it's mostly cost, efficiency, and convenience.
I have a 35 year old Carver Receiver that I don't use anymore. It's sitting in my closet wrapped up because I decided to modernize and take advantage of some of the newer audiophile offerings out there. I have a pair of Maggie LRS+. I connected that Carver a few months ago for kicks to hear how it sounded with the LRS+ and I'll have to say it kicked that more modern setup, an Outlaw RR 2160 MkII all over the place, it drove those speakers without breaking a sweat, quality of sound wise it sounded great. It's a different kind of sound. I preferred the Outlaw's openness a little more but that Carver pushed those speakers in a way the Outlaw does not and the Outlaw has a higher rating wattage wise.
Owned a Phase 400. Managed to blow one channel. Took it to high end repair store in Manhattan. Repaired and everything biased again, I took took it to my local hifi store in Queens for it to do battle with the Carver 1.5t. I was confident in the Phase 400. Lets just say, after the "battle", I took my Phase 400 home and sulked. A little while later, I bought the 1.5t. It drove my Acoustat 1+1's medallion mod electrostatic speakers. Front end was VPI HW19 (when they were made in Long Island City), Premiere tone arm, Koetsu Black Goldline, Counterpoint SA3 pre amp, SA2 head amp. And it was magic in my listening room. Eventually the 1.5t gave up the "ghost" after several years of hard use driving the Acoustats. Then I bought a Counterpoint SA220 amp, but I do miss that 1.5t.
I still have a Carver PM 1.5 amp I bought used for DJ work and it was a WORKHORSE! I used the hell out of it and it still sounds pretty good but really needs recap and capacitor replacements. Great Amp👍 Bob is another legend in the world of sound. 💯
I had the Phase Linear 4000 pre and the subsequent Carver branded update (which I have still). I enjoyed both , but I have to hand it to Carver, the man loves his fine adjustments. There is a knob or switch for almost everything.
I met Bob in Seattle a year or two after he released the Sunfire TruSub. I'll never forget the interview with him and his wife and her going on about "Musicus Interruptus" and him saying "the ceiling did not fall down..."
Bob Carver is not very famous in Taiwan, but the beautiful UV of the TFM-25 attracted me to buy one at the auction. The TFM-25 performed amazingly and easily pushed the difficult Technics sb-x5 out of the bass, and at very low output (0.1W). Unfortunately, it is difficult to find a Carver preamplifier in Taiwan, but I used Diatone da-p100 with it and got a satisfactory sound.
What a fascinating story - I had never heard of it. I owned the Phase Linear 700B long ago, used it to power a pair of Infinity Quantum II speakers. Great combo. Both unfortunately long gone from my stereo system.
IMHO, there aren’t enough null tests in this industry as it should. Some manufacturers hate them (audio cables being probably the first ones), since it can expose a lot of harsh realities. By using music, it’s not the test to tell us which product is “right” or “wrong”, but it’s the easiest to get meaningful audible results of what the difference really is, and above all, if there’s any audible difference at all. 😉 It’s great at pointing out how much musical information is discarded by lossy encoding (like mp3, aac, ogg, etc), and how lossless formats (like flac) present a complete silence, which is what you want from a lossless codec (on file content level). It can be expanded to the output of any playback device, where any difference will mean that one of the playback devices (if not both) are doing something different to that audio file. That helps to remove the bias that we all can have on A/B comparisons, while listening to different dacs or streamers, and be sure that there really is an audible difference between them. That test won’t tell us which one we love the most, but it does clarify in an audible way if there is a difference at all. Test bench measurements are less reliable in many cases, because we’re not using music to test them, and even if we did, we would be looking at graphs and numbers, which is not how our ears/brains actually listen to music. Bob Carver is a genius, and Dunlavy also made a very challenging experience to the audiophile community, which was a very tricky move coming from a manufacturer. 😉
With today's chip technology it might be possible to market an amp that can sound the same as 100 various fancy schmanzi amps at the click of a remote button
The "problem" here is that he actually made a cheap amp sound as good as a expensive amp... That is a mind twister.. If a cheap amp can be made to sound that "good" you would think expensive amps are just rubbish.. :) If he did not touch the expensive amps to adjust them down he did prove something extraordinary.. :)
I have one. I love the form factor, but the electronics inside had weird ground loop issues. I recently needed a small sub for my bedroom sleep noise system, so I opened up the Sunfire, disconnected its electronics, and powered it with an external sub plate amp. It works great now.
@@Exgol2005 Sunfire SW that I got to see inside of used optocouplers in the feedback circuits or perhaps high-low rail switching. These amps took brutal control of the woofers but took a slightly different species to troubleshoot.
The only reason I don’t have PS Audio is because I can’t part with my Phase Linear/Sunfire/Carver setup. If it ever gets destroyed by an act of God my PS Audio order will be in. Paul is an AudioGod but Bob Carver is an AudioGodNutcase ❤️
Any second year electrical engineering student can be taught in a weeks time, how to measure the transfer function H(s) of an amplifier with modern test equipment (~ $1000us) to do the same. Carver did it with 'crude' stuff in a day, hats off to Bob 👍 edit: most of the expense in an amplifier has NOTHING to do with sound - design time, manufacturing, marketing, shipping, profit margins etc. ...parts are typically about 1/5 retail. And I would add: it's actually harder to mimic a bad sounding amplifier, all the nasty poor behaviors!
I've tried the null test between the channels of several vintage amps and receivers, in the course of repair, sometimes finding bad switches and aging pots. I've yet to find one that completely nulls against itself, best null was maybe 40 dB down.
@@richardshippful Respectfully, you're just looking at it through the same lense as Bob himself. Of course it's going to be the best thing ever. I suppose if you really get to know a lot about a respected engineer their philosophies will rub off on you.
@@InsideOfMyOwnMind It was my first introduction to the high fidelity world and it sounded incredible. Tears for fears songs from the big chair. The music enveloped me. It was a stunning experience. I bet another good 30k system would be as wonderful.
The Carver challenge proved one thing. You can add whatever you want to your music. But you can't take it out once it's in there. Simply put, if you start with a perfect recreation of your source, you can then add whatever you want to it. You can equalize it, you can add echo or reverb, or tremolo, and even extremely complex distortions to make it sound however you like. The Yamaha DSP-1 is a great example of this. But once you've added in whatever you added in, it's extremely difficult to remove. It's like trying to take the cream back out of your coffee. This is why it's very important to start with an extremely accurate system from your source to the speakers. You want to start with as much accuracy as you can afford. THEN you can add whatever you want - equalization, dynamic range compression / expansion, surround sound, echo/reverb, etc.. If you start with a system that is NOT accurate, it's extremely hard to remove whatever distortion (and for this argument, all deviation from the source is distortion. Even what you want added in) the system added in there. A fine example of this is the very popular Klipsh speakers. They are known to be very bright - the upper frequencies are exaggerated. This requires a carefully measured EQ to remove. EQs add distortion and "choppiness" to the response, and many Klipsh speakers are already choppy. It would be better to start with speakers that are smooth and flat to begin with. Then you can use an EQ to add brightness if that is what you want.
@@mitchtaylor6512 Some more than others. And you can add whatever you want to make them "sound good to you". But you cannot easily subtract to make them "sound good to you". That's my point.
It’s a bit of a variant on Peter Walker’s statement that all good amplifiers sound the same as long as they are used within their specifications and limitations. But cost increases exponentially if you want or need more power. And to have a realistic playback of for instance a grand piano you simply needs lots of power, i.e. an expensive amp.
From my ignorance it sounds like what is done today digitaly using VST plugins on DAWs. Wonder if you could do that in an amp. Have a VST DSP module and recreate different amp signatures. Why can't amplifiers just amplify?....
A big issue with the Carver approach is that it was all done with a specific loudspeaker. With any other speaker, the Carver amp didn’t sound like the Conrad Johnson.
Ps is a company run by paul cheap ass con audio guy uses super cheap stuff ive heard him say so in ted smith interviews and buy buying alot and major issues like the first stellar gain cell the jr and the direct stream speaker supports are not wide enough they are tippy and the front baffle plate so thin😮😊
All amps do NOT sound the same. 30 years ago I purchased a premium British integrated amplifier. The flagship of the manufacturer’s range. It’s still in production, I think they’re now on the MK3 version which sports a remote control. Mine is the MK1, which doesn’t. Anyways, 5 years ago I took that amp back to the retailer and asked them to return it to the manufacturer to be refurbished. When it arrived back at the retailer, they persuaded me to audition the 2 new integrated amps, higher up in the manufacturer’s range. I agreed, providing the auditions were done, blind. I arrived at the store armed with a bag of my favourite CDs and vinyl records. Immediately the 1st track started playing, I knew beyond any shadow of a doubt, that was unquestionably my 25 year old amp. 6 tracks later the assistant switched to the next amp. Now, I started to question my initial decision. For this amp was indistinguishable from mine. 6 tracks later the assistant switched to amp number 3. This amp was clearly, sonically very different. Leaner, more analytical. It didn’t ’float my boat’. I was spot on. The 1st amp was mine. The 2nd was the next up in the range and twice the retail price of my amp. The 3rd was the manufacturer’s new flagship integrated. 4 times the retail price of mine. The assistant then repeated the audition, but this time using a much more difficult to drive pair of speakers. Now, the middle price, amp number 2 showed it’s pedigree. It could drive those speakers with more precision than my amp. What surprised me the most was the fact that even though that retailer was using a different source to mine. Different speakers and vastly different room acoustics, I could so easily pick out my own amp.
@@InsideOfMyOwnMind Nah !! This is all science I'm an Inventor and have personally studied Audio back to 1850 and wax, tubes , horns. This hobby is full of myths where there should be science. Quote, Bob Carver I don't understand why more people don't do it.
@@mitchtaylor6512Our hobby loves Marketing and not Science. Bob figured that out !! most of Audio pricing is ROI the rest is greed !! That being said plus or minus 10 millivolts in audio can drastically change sound so there is hard work involved. I commend PS Audio for putting some profit towards support of the products
@@mitchtaylor6512 You would be stunned to learn how many of these so-called "gurus" work through iteration untill something sticks. Guaranteed their notes contain more subjective reasoning than math.
Brave response by Paul. Why? Because aside from the use of nulling the signals, the other huge concept here is evaluating via listening on a blind compare basis. And I firmly believe that aside from amps, products that are secondary and tertiary to the signal path, such as power cables and yes power plants are even less likely to survive blind comparison with a setup omitting those items. So Paul, please test a power plant or power cable this way and let’s see if it goes the way of the Mark Levinson amp in the carver challenge. After all, this is a “legit”means of comparing as you say.
@@mitchtaylor6512 Does not change the fact that the only way to assess improvements in sound quality in the mind of any individual is via blind AB compares. And I suggest again that a change in power cord or the addition of a power conditioner/regenerator will not be discernible in a blind AB test to the vast majority of listeners.
@@mitchtaylor6512 a blind test will reveal if one item is distinguishable from another. If they aren’t distinguishable, then if a person dislikes the sound of one over time, he would have disliked the sound of the other. But hopefully the testing will have allowed him to select the cheaper item, or no item at all if it added nothing to the sound.
Bob Carver is Still Alive and Well….Back in The Mid 1970’s The Phrase Linear 700-B Amp The Back of The Amp Should Be Stamped Seattle Washington The 700-B Amp Back in The Day During The Amp Wars Bob Carver Said This Is All The Amp You Will Ever Need This Pig Will Blow Any Amp Out Of The Water Bob Carver Was Right Yet I Do Own 8 Phase Linear 700 Power Amps Silver Face Bob Carver Did Make a Custom Pro/Touring Phase Linear Power Amp That was Designed for Touring This Pig is The Holy Grail of Phase Linear It Was The Black Face And Built a Bit More Robust I Have 4 Of The 700-B Phase Linear Black Face Mid 1970’s Power Amps That I Tri Amp My Sound System With These Pigs I Have High Mid and Bass and The 4th Amp For a 2 15” Subwoofers 🔊 all with a BSS Cross Overs I Pretty Much Collect 1960’s and 1970’s Vintage Amplifiers and I Secured These Gems Before They Became The Holy Grail They Are Point To Point Wire Ring The Filter Caps Are as Big as Beer Cans And This Home Set Up Will Not Max Out InFact The Phase Linear Was Called The Flame 🔥 Linear Back in The Day Because They Put Out So Much Gain You’re Speakers Caught Fire….! Bob Carver is The Man
He didnt test at levels that showed the strength of the better amp. Yes at moddest levels and at high imp. (8 ohm) its not that difficult. Matter of fact the diff can make the correction. More or less.. but his amps have a problem at the low freqs.I wont bash bob.
Love you Paul, but I think you sidestepped this one by implying that what happened was a bit of a trick. The real question IMHO is if you find the sound of a reasonably priced amp to be the same (or better) than a mega $ amp, is there any reason to avoid the low priced one? I say, not really. Make sure the comparison is done using your speakers in your own room using your own ears and be happy. If you prefer the look of the pricy one, or want to impress your friends with your expensive asset and can buy it without compromising the quality of your life or your kids college fund, then have fun.
I bought into the Carver hype back in the '80s. Then, a hifi shop opened in town, and I compared my Carver M1.5t to a 60 watt Adcom, and the Adcom sounded so much better. The TX-11 tuner is the only Carver equipment I kept. Some years later, I listened to his Amazing speakers, and they were terrible. I've referred to him as Bob "Tin Ears" Carver ever since.
@@robertthurston6858 I replaced the Carver M1.5t with an Adcom GFA-545 II. It's now hooked up to some old Infinity bookshelf speakers for a desktop computer. My current system is a custom 7.2 system powered by 5 Jeff Rowland Model 125 amps.
So if the carver sounds like Conrad Johnson or Mark Levinson, would it be safe to say you guys don't like that type of sound either? That doesn't sound like a carver issue, more of a characteristic of that category of sound.
@@delcampbell9558 I've never listened to a Mark Levinson amp. But, the Carver's low end was really weak compared to a 60 watt Adcom. Being in my early 20's, I'd bought into sales hype without really doing my homework. Live and learn.
Boy, Paul skirted the main point here entitrely. Copying the sound of an amp is just that...copying. You have to have someone first design an amp in order to copy it. Secondly, Bob could not in production actually make an amp indistinguishable from the original. The production copies actually sounded like absolute crap. The 1.0t and 1.5t are terrible sounding amps. His later amps which he designed were much better but there is no free lunch and his best sounding amps were, wait for it........expensive! The whole thing was a sham and Bob knew it. Paul here is being disingenuous to say the least. It takes a real designer and engineer, time and money to actually create a superior amp in order for one to be cloned. Cost of the original is reflected in this reality. Where are all the great, desirable sought after amps made by Carver? There are none.
I sold mid fi and some hi end hi fi decades ago and MATCHING THE AUDIO OUTPUT is a bitch -- but when really done carefully it can make sonic differences tend to disappear. The flip side is when you compare any decent quality audio stuff the slightly louder piece always "sounds better" when doing side by side comparisons. So if a salesperson is pushing his or her brand a subtle 1-2 DB increase in volume will usually "sound better"...
I know this is a set in stone legend in audio - but I call BS on it. I can sit in my living room and do a test with say 6 tracks on different equipment (amps, speakers, DAC makes no difference) and if the difference is big enough then at any volume and even adjusting volume on each you can still remember enough as to the characteristic of the sound. To say not is just illogical, I can tell as soon as I turn something on if it is different enough. At any volume
Perhaps for you. I’ve got a Sunfire true sub and it’s the only one that I’ve used in my system that blends in perfectly with my Maggies. I’ve purchased and returned three other supposed high-quality subs and they don’t even come close to giving me system synergy next to the Carver. listening is in the ear of the beholder.
@@stimpy1226 My friend had his sunfire amp and pre/processor with some maggies and decided to sell the sunfire gear. we took it to another friends house to demo for possible sale. sounded great with movies on our friends cf4s and our friend was set to buy but wanted to hear it play music and that is when it all fell apart.... sounded terrible and there was no sale. it did sound fine on the maggies for what its worth. no, lol listening is not in the ear of the beholder that's non sense. everyone recognizes good sound and everyone recognized carver was a bit of a quack. i've hear that little sub when it first came out and it is not impressive at all. try an hsu research sub if you want a real sub.
I met Bob Carver a number of of years ago. We were visiting my older brother, who lived off of Puget Sound in Washington state. I talked him into driving out to Woodinville to the Carver factory.
Upon arrival, we walked in and asked the receptionist if it would be possible to meet Bob and get a tour. She told us to hang on a second and then proceeded to yell across the room to the open office behind us, "Hey Bob, these guys would like to meet you!" We turned to see Bob in the office with his chief engineer. He waved us in and we sat for almost an hour chatting about amps, sonic holography, and everything else hifi.
I told him about some issues I was having with my C-4000 preamp. Bob said, "Send it back to us and we'll update it to the latest specs. We'll cover shipping both ways." After recovering from that, he had this chief engineer take us on a tour of the factory. We saw everything except Bob's private lab.
We finally left a couple hours later. I will never forget that day. Along with the C-4000, I had a couple of his amplifiers and his FM tuner. All sounded fantastic. I wish I still had them all.
Wonderful story thank you 😄🙏
I took my old Phase Linear D-500 amp back to Bob Carver's shop and he also undated it and re CAP'd it for free. I lived in Redmond WA back in the 1980s so a quick strap the amp to the back of my Suzuki and dropped it off. A week later i got the call to come pick it up.
It is still a very good 3/4 power amp meaning that at 3/4 power it is great but by todays standards not so good. But with 500 Watts per channel..... 3/4 power is still LOUD.
@@davej3487 Bob Carver was very generous in that way and partly explains why he was a terrible businessman.
PM: Always interesting to hear your take on various subjects. I too was "there". This stunning stroke of marketing brilliance was accomplished because Bob is an "agnostic audiophile". In other words, he doesn't believe in "ineffable magical hi-fi unicorns" nor the boasts of the “SnobbyOphile class”. He is a brilliant scientist and it is his broad background in PHYSICS that gives him the intellectual scope to see in his mind's eye what mere electrical engineers cannot (because electronics is a mere SUBSET of PHYSICS).
Carver essentially knew that ALL amplifiers color the sound in subtle ways due to their implementation of components which have traits that are always a bit more complex than their schematic symbols let on. Consider the number of capacitances & inductances exhibited internally by ANY FET, for example. Taken in aggregate, these nuances that affect a signal give an amplifier its unique, subtle sonic fingerprint - which Bob refers to as the amplifier’s "Transfer Function".
In the “Carver Challenge”, what Carver did IN HIS HOTEL ROOM, was to measure the TRANSFER FUNCTION of the amps he needed to duplicate the sound of. One amp was a $5000 Conrad Johnson tube model if memory serves. Once Carver had derived a behavior of the target amps transfer function, - he proceeded to build a line-level filter out of components that he had brought into his HOTEL ROOM & that filter had a number of variable components on it that he used to tweak it - in order to match, extremely closely, the transfer function signal dynamics that he needed to duplicate.
Testing the design consisted of NULL measurements at the output stage of his amp (out of phase) with the target amp. When the speakers went silent playing test signals - he knew that he had matched the transfer function of the target amp & then implemented that bread-boarded TF-filter into the signal path of his amp. The ultimate result is history & a stunning display of the “audiophile’s ultimate lesson in humility”. Carver won the challenge and it was published far & wide (which is why 4+ decades after the fact - we’re still talking about it)!
Then is a stroke of marketing brilliance, Carver designed the “spared no expense” SILVER SEVEN TUBE MONOBLOCK AMPLIFIER. This monster/masterpiece would set you back $12,000 (& you needed 2 for stereo). Well, the reviews were stellar. “Audiophiles” were in near consensus that the Silver Seven was a triumph of audio engineering (And sadly [sniff] priced out of the reach of the masses). And then, Carver did the unthinkable to the SnobbyOphile, eh, audiophile elitist class (those better-thans who had $24 grand to drop on Carver’s Silver Seven): He duplicated its TRANSFER FUNCTION into his ultra-powerful, solid state “magnetic field power amp” design. Hence the Carver M 4.0t (the “t’ denotes ‘transfer function’) was born (for about $700 if memory serves)! And that $700 got you BOTH channels! And since Carver had already PROVEN that he could duplicate a transfer function of any audio amplifier in the infamous “Carver Challenge”; - he now could claim, with unchallenged confidence, that the M4.0t at $700 sounded INDISTINGUISHABLE from his $12,000 (eh, stereo configured $24,000) Silver Seven Tube amp! I can almost hear their hell-tormented, narcissistic screams as the SnobbyOphiles realized that Carver had completely OWNED them - not once, but twice (& that their boast of owning the most superior amplifier was now a boast that virtually anyone with $700 or a credit card could make)! And that, was poetry.
BTW: Bob Carver was MY inspiration also. He proved what understanding the nature of THE SIGNAL could accomplish. And today, my venture is using proprietary tech (such as AI) to demonstrate just what artfully manipulating an audio signal can accomplish. Interested? 5mash my !con.
Ahhhhh good old bob carver. If he were stuck on an island, he could probably build an amp out of coconuts and wilson volleyballs.
😂😂😂
Some of his speakers seemed damn near made from such but they worked and worked well.
Practically every large multinational corporation began with a smart guy tinkering in his garage with surplus 'junk'. 😎
Hahahahshs gooodd
I met Bob years back at an audio show in Scottsdale, AZ. He took time from the rest of the crowd to chat with me about technology the way he saw it, a fascinating individual. I ended up purchasing a subwoofer that was being promoted and Bob happily signed it for me. I still have it to this day!
i worked at Carver for about 2 years right out of high school. it was one of my 1st jobs. i read all their material with all these null tests, the Carver Challenge. it is a strange feeling to hear all this stuff so many years later. i have stories but i dont think anyone is going to see this text.......we shall see....shadowban
...You too?
wow, my comments are sometimes seen
I worked in Carvers design office for a summer in the early 90's. My drafting board was right next to gear room. Fun geeking out everyday surrounded by audio gear and doing my bit to support the engineers with testing prototype amps.
I owned a phase linear 400 amplifier so many years ago and I was thrilled with the way it drove my Dahlquist speakers. Then one day I decided to buy an Audio Research D-76A. I never tried to compare the sound of the two against each other but there is no question to my ears that the audio research was a much more musical amplifier. Carver is a true genius in this industry and always has been and I tip my hat to him for everything that he’s given to our community.
I still have my D-76A. For me, it does everything right.
It’s one of the greats and so is the Sp3A-1 preamp. A fabulous match.
I was lucky enough to talk with Bob this past year and it was a pleasure, so friendly, I am a Carver fan and own his 350 watt tube mono blocks and a C11 preamp with sonic Holograph, if you never heard sonic holograph, you need to try it just so cool. Also his tube amplifiers will drive any speaker and the sound signature is so smooth and refined. Everyone has a different taste when it comes to sound that’s why it’s so hard to say one system is better than another. Hats off to Bob Carver, a legend in the audio world.
I had a highly modded Carver TFM 45. Carver did the work. Great amp. Dead quiet. Tons of power. I wanted to try something different so I bought a pair of M 1200s from PS Audio. It was like a Vail was lifted. Way better. More clarity. More air. Very happy. Good work Paul.
Sorry Paul....that was a "cop out" of sorts. First: thank you for not trashing Carver....he IS a genius. Second: You truthfully gave the test credit.....but....you didn't go on to say why someone would spend thousands of dollars on a "mega-amp", when very similar results could be had by a "mega-cheaper" Carver amp?? I had the "Carver Cube" amp for years (driving Shehannian Oblisks), and I was in sonic heaven ! I absolutely know that your products are state of the art today.....but they are so out of reach, price wise, for 99% of stereo consumers. P.S. LOVE your videos, your dedication to the art of sonic excellence, and to the education of the masses !!!!!
What Carver was really doing was establishing that measurements define and characterize the sound, but doing it in a cute competitive way that subjectivists thought must fail. Very smart.
The first challenge amp was a Conrad-Johnson Premier Four which Bob successfully duplicated its sound and sold as the Carver M1.0t. The second challenge amp was a pair of Mark Levinson ML-2 mono blocks that Bob duplicated the sound in his Carver M1.5t.
He couldn't duplicate the sound of the two amps in production though, the prototypes were very unstable.
@@mitchtaylor6512
I was very much around at that time. Never heard of your claim of instability of the prototypes.
I’ve owned the M400a, 1.0t, M500t, and they all had a specific sonic character.
One would assume because they were all tweaked to sound a certain way.
@@mitchtaylor6512 There were no prototypes, really. They were open boxes with trim pots sticking out of them and he would adjust them, with the adjustments being unstable. Production nulls that were stable were far less and made this made the amps sound similar but not indistinguishable from the originals. The "clone" amps were crappy performers with no bass control and zero depth and poor resolution.
@carlosoliveira-rc2xt you've just described the classic tube sound...
@@RacingAnt Then why, decades later, are we still hearing the claim, "It sounds as good as tubes.", from not just solid state but digital?
Thanks, Paul. I remember following all the craziness around this. He did what he said and made his amp indistinguishable from others. It's just physics, engineering, and psychoacoustics. He put the litter to all the marketing nonsense about power cables (which can be pretty), the tube sound (which i like :), power conditioners (sorry Paul :(), etc. Most of all he was an economic threat to our beloved hobby. Good testing can go along easy to protect our sanity and wallet. That's why it is done so little. Thanks!
Then he went full on audiophile and made expensive tube amps himself. 😎
@@Relayer6ayes! prophet & profit :)
@@brucermarino I think there's something to it though. It's undeniable that after all these years (since 1947) of the transistor, and of digital (first recording in 1971) the promise of both today is, "Sounds as good as tubes/analog". And every new product is supposed to finally realize that goal.
Both, digital and solid state, obviously have their places and advantages. But it's mostly cost, efficiency, and convenience.
I have a 35 year old Carver Receiver that I don't use anymore. It's sitting in my closet wrapped up because I decided to modernize and take advantage of some of the newer audiophile offerings out there. I have a pair of Maggie LRS+. I connected that Carver a few months ago for kicks to hear how it sounded with the LRS+ and I'll have to say it kicked that more modern setup, an Outlaw RR 2160 MkII all over the place, it drove those speakers without breaking a sweat, quality of sound wise it sounded great. It's a different kind of sound. I preferred the Outlaw's openness a little more but that Carver pushed those speakers in a way the Outlaw does not and the Outlaw has a higher rating wattage wise.
Owned a Phase 400. Managed to blow one channel. Took it to high end repair store in Manhattan. Repaired and everything biased again, I took took it to my local hifi store in Queens for it to do battle with the Carver 1.5t. I was confident in the Phase 400. Lets just say, after the "battle", I took my Phase 400 home and sulked. A little while later, I bought the 1.5t. It drove my Acoustat 1+1's medallion mod electrostatic speakers. Front end was VPI HW19 (when they were made in Long Island City), Premiere tone arm, Koetsu Black Goldline, Counterpoint SA3 pre amp, SA2 head amp.
And it was magic in my listening room.
Eventually the 1.5t gave up the "ghost" after several years of hard use driving the Acoustats. Then I bought a Counterpoint SA220 amp, but I do miss that 1.5t.
I still have a Carver PM 1.5 amp I bought used for DJ work and it was a WORKHORSE! I used the hell out of it and it still sounds pretty good but really needs recap and capacitor replacements. Great Amp👍 Bob is another legend in the world of sound. 💯
I had the Phase Linear 4000 pre and the subsequent Carver branded update (which I have still). I enjoyed both , but I have to hand it to Carver, the man loves his fine adjustments. There is a knob or switch for almost everything.
I bought his sub in 1998 ( Sunfire True Sub) and still use it today. Bought his EQ sub later and still use it. Beast of a thing
I met Bob in Seattle a year or two after he released the Sunfire TruSub. I'll never forget the interview with him and his wife and her going on about "Musicus Interruptus" and him saying "the ceiling did not fall down..."
Bob Carver is not very famous in Taiwan, but the beautiful UV of the TFM-25 attracted me to buy one at the auction.
The TFM-25 performed amazingly and easily pushed the difficult Technics sb-x5 out of the bass, and at very low output (0.1W).
Unfortunately, it is difficult to find a Carver preamplifier in Taiwan, but I used Diatone da-p100 with it and got a satisfactory sound.
What a fascinating story - I had never heard of it. I owned the Phase Linear 700B long ago, used it to power a pair of Infinity Quantum II speakers. Great combo. Both unfortunately long gone from my stereo system.
IMHO, there aren’t enough null tests in this industry as it should.
Some manufacturers hate them (audio cables being probably the first ones), since it can expose a lot of harsh realities.
By using music, it’s not the test to tell us which product is “right” or “wrong”, but it’s the easiest to get meaningful audible results of what the difference really is, and above all, if there’s any audible difference at all. 😉
It’s great at pointing out how much musical information is discarded by lossy encoding (like mp3, aac, ogg, etc), and how lossless formats (like flac) present a complete silence, which is what you want from a lossless codec (on file content level).
It can be expanded to the output of any playback device, where any difference will mean that one of the playback devices (if not both) are doing something different to that audio file.
That helps to remove the bias that we all can have on A/B comparisons, while listening to different dacs or streamers, and be sure that there really is an audible difference between them.
That test won’t tell us which one we love the most, but it does clarify in an audible way if there is a difference at all.
Test bench measurements are less reliable in many cases, because we’re not using music to test them, and even if we did, we would be looking at graphs and numbers, which is not how our ears/brains actually listen to music.
Bob Carver is a genius, and Dunlavy also made a very challenging experience to the audiophile community, which was a very tricky move coming from a manufacturer. 😉
With today's chip technology it might be possible to market an amp that can sound the same as 100 various fancy schmanzi amps at the click of a remote button
The "problem" here is that he actually made a cheap amp sound as good as a expensive amp... That is a mind twister.. If a cheap amp can be made to sound that "good" you would think expensive amps are just rubbish.. :) If he did not touch the expensive amps to adjust them down he did prove something extraordinary.. :)
Bob Carver's Surfboards to Hell in the Late Mid 80's were quite Radical in Concept! Genius and Crazy run hand in hand! Gotta Love Bob!💯
Sunfire subw: sonics that floored me. My first infatuation with a subw
I have one. I love the form factor, but the electronics inside had weird ground loop issues. I recently needed a small sub for my bedroom sleep noise system, so I opened up the Sunfire, disconnected its electronics, and powered it with an external sub plate amp. It works great now.
Those were a thing of wonder😄! I'll never forget them.......
@@Exgol2005 Sunfire SW that I got to see inside of used optocouplers in the feedback circuits or perhaps high-low rail switching. These amps took brutal control of the woofers but took a slightly different species to troubleshoot.
The only reason I don’t have PS Audio is because I can’t part with my Phase Linear/Sunfire/Carver setup. If it ever gets destroyed by an act of God my PS Audio order will be in. Paul is an AudioGod but Bob Carver is an AudioGodNutcase ❤️
I remember saving all my change for Bob's "Holographic Imagiser" for that wonderful sound stage I always wanted. Never achieved it . 😵💫 Thanks Paul.
Any second year electrical engineering student can be taught in a weeks time, how to measure the transfer function H(s) of an amplifier with modern test equipment (~ $1000us) to do the same. Carver did it with 'crude' stuff in a day, hats off to Bob 👍
edit: most of the expense in an amplifier has NOTHING to do with sound - design time, manufacturing, marketing, shipping, profit margins etc.
...parts are typically about 1/5 retail. And I would add: it's actually harder to mimic a bad sounding amplifier, all the nasty poor behaviors!
And he did it in a hotel room.
I've tried the null test between the channels of several vintage amps and receivers, in the course of repair, sometimes finding bad switches and aging pots. I've yet to find one that completely nulls against itself, best null was maybe 40 dB down.
Bob designed my phase linear 400 power amp ( mine hasn’t caught fire yet)
I know Bob's Silver 7 tube monoblocks sure sounded nice through Amazing loud speakers (with a digital time lens).
@@richardshippful Respectfully, you're just looking at it through the same lense as Bob himself. Of course it's going to be the best thing ever. I suppose if you really get to know a lot about a respected engineer their philosophies will rub off on you.
@@InsideOfMyOwnMind It was my first introduction to the high fidelity world and it sounded incredible.
Tears for fears songs from the big chair.
The music enveloped me.
It was a stunning experience.
I bet another good 30k system would be as wonderful.
I seem to remember another involving speakers with the null test.
The Carver challenge proved one thing. You can add whatever you want to your music. But you can't take it out once it's in there.
Simply put, if you start with a perfect recreation of your source, you can then add whatever you want to it. You can equalize it, you can add echo or reverb, or tremolo, and even extremely complex distortions to make it sound however you like. The Yamaha DSP-1 is a great example of this.
But once you've added in whatever you added in, it's extremely difficult to remove. It's like trying to take the cream back out of your coffee. This is why it's very important to start with an extremely accurate system from your source to the speakers. You want to start with as much accuracy as you can afford. THEN you can add whatever you want - equalization, dynamic range compression / expansion, surround sound, echo/reverb, etc..
If you start with a system that is NOT accurate, it's extremely hard to remove whatever distortion (and for this argument, all deviation from the source is distortion. Even what you want added in) the system added in there. A fine example of this is the very popular Klipsh speakers. They are known to be very bright - the upper frequencies are exaggerated. This requires a carefully measured EQ to remove. EQs add distortion and "choppiness" to the response, and many Klipsh speakers are already choppy. It would be better to start with speakers that are smooth and flat to begin with. Then you can use an EQ to add brightness if that is what you want.
@@jdlech all speakers have a lot of distortion, even the best measuring speakers, the question is do so called accurate speakers sound good to you.
@@mitchtaylor6512 Some more than others. And you can add whatever you want to make them "sound good to you". But you cannot easily subtract to make them "sound good to you".
That's my point.
It’s a bit of a variant on Peter Walker’s statement that all good amplifiers sound the same as long as they are used within their specifications and limitations. But cost increases exponentially if you want or need more power. And to have a realistic playback of for instance a grand piano you simply needs lots of power, i.e. an expensive amp.
It's nothing of the kind. How do you get that logic from the Carver Challenge. Are you actually familiar with it?
I owned a Carver Cube in the "70's, blew it up, still have a Carver tuner. Paul did not explain the need for 10,000 Large amps though
From my ignorance it sounds like what is done today digitaly using VST plugins on DAWs. Wonder if you could do that in an amp. Have a VST DSP module and recreate different amp signatures. Why can't amplifiers just amplify?....
A big issue with the Carver approach is that it was all done with a specific loudspeaker. With any other speaker, the Carver amp didn’t sound like the Conrad Johnson.
Incorrect: measured on the output signal, not on loudspeaker sound.
@@TannhaeuserGate did he measure the amplifiers unloaded? If so, how valid is that? Some loudspeakers are more difficult to drive than others.
They were also not very stable, and it couldn't be done in production.
@@MrJef06 my mistake: He tested with load through speakers.
Thanks for the explanation
I had a Carver cube. Wish I had held on to it.
Would be great to see some Null tests of SPDIF vs i2s
Would love to buy such an amp with presets that switch between various null matched amplifiers. Give me a Macintosh today! How about a warm tube amp!
That speaker looks a bit wobbly when Paul leans against it.
it seems like it is decoupled from the floor. It might be the reason.
Ps is a company run by paul cheap ass con audio guy uses super cheap stuff ive heard him say so in ted smith interviews and buy buying alot and major issues like the first stellar gain cell the jr and the direct stream speaker supports are not wide enough they are tippy and the front baffle plate so thin😮😊
All amps do NOT sound the same. 30 years ago I purchased a premium British integrated amplifier. The flagship of the manufacturer’s range. It’s still in production, I think they’re now on the MK3 version which sports a remote control. Mine is the MK1, which doesn’t. Anyways, 5 years ago I took that amp back to the retailer and asked them to return it to the manufacturer to be refurbished. When it arrived back at the retailer, they persuaded me to audition the 2 new integrated amps, higher up in the manufacturer’s range. I agreed, providing the auditions were done, blind. I arrived at the store armed with a bag of my favourite CDs and vinyl records. Immediately the 1st track started playing, I knew beyond any shadow of a doubt, that was unquestionably my 25 year old amp. 6 tracks later the assistant switched to the next amp. Now, I started to question my initial decision. For this amp was indistinguishable from mine. 6 tracks later the assistant switched to amp number 3. This amp was clearly, sonically very different. Leaner, more analytical. It didn’t ’float my boat’. I was spot on. The 1st amp was mine. The 2nd was the next up in the range and twice the retail price of my amp. The 3rd was the manufacturer’s new flagship integrated. 4 times the retail price of mine. The assistant then repeated the audition, but this time using a much more difficult to drive pair of speakers. Now, the middle price, amp number 2 showed it’s pedigree. It could drive those speakers with more precision than my amp. What surprised me the most was the fact that even though that retailer was using a different source to mine. Different speakers and vastly different room acoustics, I could so easily pick out my own amp.
@@howardskeivys4184 well said
👍
He also first was he could make a Solid state sound just like Tube amp 😮😊
No he could not, at least not in production, the prototypes were unstable, and they would sound far different with vastly different speakers.
Met Bob in his Sunfire days - pretty sure that was the amp?
Bob is on Video sayin he matched the Transfer Function of Transistors
That's interesting because I think most believed he took a more holistic approach.
@@InsideOfMyOwnMind Nah !! This is all science I'm an Inventor and have personally studied Audio back to 1850 and wax, tubes , horns. This hobby is full of myths where there should be science.
Quote, Bob Carver I don't understand why more people don't do it.
@@thinkIndependent2024Carver was more marketing than science.
@@mitchtaylor6512Our hobby loves Marketing and not Science.
Bob figured that out !! most of Audio pricing is ROI the rest is greed !! That being said plus or minus 10 millivolts in audio can drastically change sound so there is hard work involved.
I commend PS Audio for putting some profit towards support of the products
@@mitchtaylor6512 You would be stunned to learn how many of these so-called "gurus" work through iteration untill something sticks. Guaranteed their notes contain more subjective reasoning than math.
Bob's "inexpensive" 1985 $700US amp would be $2,000US+ today.
Still nothing as far as money goes.
Bob Carver revealed the truth within the amp world. No snakeoil and drive his business with honest and unsubjective nonsense.
carver
Brave response by Paul. Why? Because aside from the use of nulling the signals, the other huge concept here is evaluating via listening on a blind compare basis. And I firmly believe that aside from amps, products that are secondary and tertiary to the signal path, such as power cables and yes power plants are even less likely to survive blind comparison with a setup omitting those items. So Paul, please test a power plant or power cable this way and let’s see if it goes the way of the Mark Levinson amp in the carver challenge. After all, this is a “legit”means of comparing as you say.
The Carver production models didn't sound like the amplifiers that they were trying to mimic, it couldn't be done in production.
@@mitchtaylor6512 Does not change the fact that the only way to assess improvements in sound quality in the mind of any individual is via blind AB compares. And I suggest again that a change in power cord or the addition of a power conditioner/regenerator will not be discernible in a blind AB test to the vast majority of listeners.
@@edd2771 what if you don't like the sound after you live with your blind tested equipment for a while, does that mean your blind test was wrong?
@@mitchtaylor6512 a blind test will reveal if one item is distinguishable from another. If they aren’t distinguishable, then if a person dislikes the sound of one over time, he would have disliked the sound of the other. But hopefully the testing will have allowed him to select the cheaper item, or no item at all if it added nothing to the sound.
Bob Carver is Still Alive and Well….Back in The Mid 1970’s
The Phrase Linear
700-B Amp The Back of The Amp Should Be Stamped Seattle Washington
The 700-B Amp Back in The Day During The Amp Wars
Bob Carver Said This Is All The Amp You Will Ever Need
This Pig Will Blow Any Amp Out Of The Water
Bob Carver Was Right
Yet I Do Own
8 Phase Linear 700 Power Amps Silver Face
Bob Carver Did Make a Custom Pro/Touring
Phase Linear Power Amp
That was Designed for Touring
This Pig is The Holy Grail of Phase Linear It Was The Black Face And Built a Bit More Robust I
Have 4 Of The 700-B
Phase Linear Black Face
Mid 1970’s Power Amps
That I Tri Amp My Sound System With These Pigs
I Have High Mid and Bass and The 4th Amp For
a 2 15” Subwoofers 🔊 all with a BSS Cross Overs
I Pretty Much Collect
1960’s and 1970’s Vintage Amplifiers and I Secured These Gems Before They Became The Holy Grail
They Are Point To Point Wire Ring The Filter Caps
Are as Big as Beer Cans
And This Home Set Up
Will Not Max Out
InFact The Phase Linear Was Called
The Flame 🔥 Linear Back in The Day Because They Put Out So Much Gain You’re Speakers Caught Fire….!
Bob Carver is The Man
He didnt test at levels that showed the strength of the better amp. Yes at moddest levels and at high imp. (8 ohm) its not that difficult. Matter of fact the diff can make the correction. More or less.. but his amps have a problem at the low freqs.I wont bash bob.
😂
Love you Paul, but I think you sidestepped this one by implying that what happened was a bit of a trick.
The real question IMHO is if you find the sound of a reasonably priced amp to be the same (or better) than a mega $ amp, is there any reason to avoid the low priced one? I say, not really. Make sure the comparison is done using your speakers in your own room using your own ears and be happy.
If you prefer the look of the pricy one, or want to impress your friends with your expensive asset and can buy it without compromising the quality of your life or your kids college fund, then have fun.
This doesn't really answer the question
He didn't answer the question at all. Sidestepped it and almost tripped over his massively expensive amplifiers!
I bought into the Carver hype back in the '80s. Then, a hifi shop opened in town, and I compared my Carver M1.5t to a 60 watt Adcom, and the Adcom sounded so much better. The TX-11 tuner is the only Carver equipment I kept. Some years later, I listened to his Amazing speakers, and they were terrible. I've referred to him as Bob "Tin Ears" Carver ever since.
What amplifier where you using though ?
I couldn't stand adcoms , they were nothing good either. Carver same deal unless it was tube gear. His solid state stuff was just mediocre to me
@@robertthurston6858 I replaced the Carver M1.5t with an Adcom GFA-545 II. It's now hooked up to some old Infinity bookshelf speakers for a desktop computer. My current system is a custom 7.2 system powered by 5 Jeff Rowland Model 125 amps.
So if the carver sounds like Conrad Johnson or Mark Levinson, would it be safe to say you guys don't like that type of sound either? That doesn't sound like a carver issue, more of a characteristic of that category of sound.
@@delcampbell9558 I've never listened to a Mark Levinson amp. But, the Carver's low end was really weak compared to a 60 watt Adcom. Being in my early 20's, I'd bought into sales hype without really doing my homework. Live and learn.
Boy, Paul skirted the main point here entitrely. Copying the sound of an amp is just that...copying. You have to have someone first design an amp in order to copy it. Secondly, Bob could not in production actually make an amp indistinguishable from the original. The production copies actually sounded like absolute crap. The 1.0t and 1.5t are terrible sounding amps. His later amps which he designed were much better but there is no free lunch and his best sounding amps were, wait for it........expensive! The whole thing was a sham and Bob knew it. Paul here is being disingenuous to say the least. It takes a real designer and engineer, time and money to actually create a superior amp in order for one to be cloned. Cost of the original is reflected in this reality. Where are all the great, desirable sought after amps made by Carver? There are none.
What makes you the sole authority of your comment?
@@stimpy1226 Who else would be the authority of my comment if not I? Silly question.
I also read that Bob had to do some serious trimming on the amp he was trying to mimic in order to make them sound similar.
@@mitchtaylor6512 Absolutely, on the fly.
@@carlosoliveira-rc2xt the only reason anyone buys them is that they don't cost much and have high power, but at the cost of sound quality.
I sold mid fi and some hi end hi fi decades ago and MATCHING THE AUDIO OUTPUT is a bitch -- but when really done carefully it can make sonic differences tend to disappear. The flip side is when you compare any decent quality audio stuff the slightly louder piece always "sounds better" when doing side by side comparisons. So if a salesperson is pushing his or her brand a subtle 1-2 DB increase in volume will usually "sound better"...
I know this is a set in stone legend in audio - but I call BS on it. I can sit in my living room and do a test with say 6 tracks on different equipment (amps, speakers, DAC makes no difference) and if the difference is big enough then at any volume and even adjusting volume on each you can still remember enough as to the characteristic of the sound. To say not is just illogical, I can tell as soon as I turn something on if it is different enough. At any volume
Carver sounds very dull.
His sunfire series sure didn't sound great.
Perhaps for you. I’ve got a Sunfire true sub and it’s the only one that I’ve used in my system that blends in perfectly with my Maggies. I’ve purchased and returned three other supposed high-quality subs and they don’t even come close to giving me system synergy next to the Carver. listening is in the ear of the beholder.
@@stimpy1226 My friend had his sunfire amp and pre/processor with some maggies and decided to sell the sunfire gear. we took it to another friends house to demo for possible sale. sounded great with movies on our friends cf4s and our friend was set to buy but wanted to hear it play music and that is when it all fell apart.... sounded terrible and there was no sale. it did sound fine on the maggies for what its worth. no, lol listening is not in the ear of the beholder that's non sense. everyone recognizes good sound and everyone recognized carver was a bit of a quack. i've hear that little sub when it first came out and it is not impressive at all. try an hsu research sub if you want a real sub.