Carvin SX amps SUCK!!!!!
Victor Ortega
that MAYBE this amp had the "richness, warmth and sustain" they claimed it
had. What a HUGE disappointment I ran into last night when I plugged into
this amp, turned the distortion all the way up and played a chord. This
amp sounds like CRAP!!!!! I fiddled around with ALL the knobs on the amp
for about 2.5 hours in a futile attempt at getting an even slightly
acceptable distorted sound out of that amp, and NOTHING. The sound was
harsh and cold with very little sustain or richness. So the amp sucks.
Let's talk about the company now.
As you might know, Carvin offers a 10-day money-back guarantee if you're
not satisfied with whatever you buy from them, for any reason. The catch
is that the CUSTOMER is responsible for ALL shipping charges. So, you're
either stuck with a piece of junk you don't like, or you lose money when
you send it back to the company. So, in effect, it's going to cost me
$60 to try out the amp, "risk free." Either way you get ripped off.
But I rather get ripped off of $60 and get and amp that I DO like than
to get ripped off of $450 and be stuck with an amp I DON'T like.
Has anyone out there had a similar experience? It seems to me that it is
*Carvin* that is doing business risk-free. The rich stealing from the
poor... The Big Corporations ripping off the little people... It's in
vain that I thought that maybe, just MAYBE, Carvin would be different.
How wrong I was.
Victor
mike
[Stuff about amp being bad deleted]
>As you might know, Carvin offers a 10-day money-back guarantee if you're
>not satisfied with whatever you buy from them, for any reason. The catch
>is that the CUSTOMER is responsible for ALL shipping charges. So, you're
>either stuck with a piece of junk you don't like, or you lose money when
>you send it back to the company. So, in effect, it's going to cost me
>$60 to try out the amp, "risk free." Either way you get ripped off.
>But I rather get ripped off of $60 and get and amp that I DO like than
>to get ripped off of $450 and be stuck with an amp I DON'T like.
>
>Has anyone out there had a similar experience? It seems to me that it is
>*Carvin* that is doing business risk-free. The rich stealing from the
>poor... The Big Corporations ripping off the little people... It's in
>vain that I thought that maybe, just MAYBE, Carvin would be different.
>How wrong I was.
>
>
>Victor
Carvin's policy is clearly presented in their catalog. Did you fail to
read it, or did read it but still want to gripe. Either way, it's your
fault, not Carvin's. Maybe you should have thought about this possibility
before you made your order.
As far as "the rich stealing from the poor... The Big Corporations ripping
off the little people" -- why don't you blow things a little further
out of proportion.
BTW, I'm not associated with Carvin and have never done business with them.
But I do own a copy of their catalog, and while some of their products
do look atractive, I would never buy anything having to do with music
without a *COMPLETELY FREE* trial..
--
-- Mike
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
| Have you hugged your .sig today? |
| mkoh...@silver.ucs.indiana.edu | mkoh...@amber.ucs.indiana.edu |
Dennis O'Neill
> that MAYBE this amp had the "richness, warmth and sustain" they claimed it
>
> As you might know, Carvin offers a 10-day money-back guarantee if you're
> not satisfied with whatever you buy from them, for any reason. The catch
> So, in effect, it's going to cost me $60 to try out the amp, "risk free."...
>
>Has anyone out there had a similar experience? It seems to me that it is
>*Carvin* that is doing business risk-free. The rich stealing from the
>poor... The Big Corporations ripping off the little people... It's in
>vain that I thought that maybe, just MAYBE, Carvin would be different.
>How wrong I was.
This is a bit thick. Carvin's catalog clearly describes the terms of purchase
and return. If Victor didn't read the terms, well, what does that say
about Victor?
With Carvin, as with any vendor:
o if you believe anyone's advertising hype, you deserve what you get
(i.e., caveat emptor)
o if you get a Carvin expecting a Marshall (or Fender or Mesa/Boogie
or whatever) for a bargain price, remember that you get what you
pay for. There's often a good reason that Brand A costs $2X while
Brand B costs $X - sometimes it's engineering, sometimes it's the
bill of materials (i.e., quality of components), sometimes it's
increased cost owing to low production, sometimes it's that the
manufacturer pays its employees decent wages, and sometimes it's
what the market will bear.
With respect to Carvin in particular:
o I've played the Carvin solid-state and tube amps at Carvin's
Escondido factory, and found them acceptable for what I play -
but I don't use distortion much, can't comment on it (to me all
distortion sounds about the same, except the rough edge of
clean/distortion that's commonly heard on old R&B recordings).
o I once bought Carvin's 50-watt tube amp (1x12", no graphic eq)
hoping for a cheap Boogie, and guess what? I was disappointed.
The amp was too rock-and-roll for my taste, so I sent it back.
I knew the terms of the trial, happily paid the shipping in both
directions, and was pleased that I was able to try the amp.
--
Dennis O'Neill de...@seismo.css.gov 703-476-5197
S-Cubed Div. Maxwell Labs 11800 Sunrise Valley Dr. #1212 Reston, Va. 22091 USA
Opinions expressed herein are my own and do not necessarily reflect
the opinions of my employer.
Bill Thomas
>[Stuff about amp being bad deleted]
>>As you might know, Carvin offers a 10-day money-back guarantee if you're
>>not satisfied with whatever you buy from them, for any reason. The catch
>>is that the CUSTOMER is responsible for ALL shipping charges. So, you're
>>either stuck with a piece of junk you don't like, or you lose money when
>>you send it back to the company. So, in effect, it's going to cost me
To which Mike responded
>Carvin's policy is clearly presented in their catalog. Did you fail to
>read it, or did read it but still want to gripe. Either way, it's your
>fault, not Carvin's. Maybe you should have thought about this possibility
>before you made your order.
>
>As far as "the rich stealing from the poor... The Big Corporations ripping
>off the little people" -- why don't you blow things a little further
>out of proportion.
And I say that I don't agree. I appreciate Victor's posting. I was
getting a good feeling about Carvin, having received their catalogs and
reading good reviews of their products. But this policy stinks, and I'm
glad Victor called my attention to it. I think a company that sells
primarily by mailorder -- like Carvin -- should eat the cost of shipping
if the customer is dissatisfied. Thanks for the post, Victor.
Thomas....@cs.cmu.edu
Well, I guess I can sort of see their point. Their prices are good to
start with, much lower than music stores for the same level of gear. If
they lost money shipping stuff all over the place, the prices would just go
up to reflect this, and their equipment wouldn't be as attractive to people.
I just had the same experience with the X-preamp. It cost me $40 to
find out, but, I'm glad I now know what the unit does. I've got other
Carvin stuff and I like it, so I don't have anything against the company.
Now, on to your amp. What kind of guitar do you use? A friend of mine
has an SX amp (with 2-12's) and it sounds pretty good with his guitar
with humbuckers.. I have used an SX-15 preamp run through my
Roland JC-77, and it sounded ok with my strat. Not all amps sound good
with all guitars, so that is why one has to try out the various amps at the
store with their own gear before buying. Since Carvin only sells through
the mail (unless you live near one of their 3 stores in CA), you don't have
the luxury of trying out the stuff before you buy, so it kind has to be like
this. I don't think their intent is to rip anyone off, and their policy is
clearly stated in their catalog, so the buyer is aware of this before they
buy.
--Tom
NATHAN PHILLIP STEWART
>primarily by mailorder -- like Carvin -- should eat the cost of shipping
>if the customer is dissatisfied. Thanks for the post, Victor.
I don't think so, and I certainly hope you're not talking about shipping both
ways. The company would have to shell out $60 for every guitar player in the
US, plus whatever overseas shipping would be if they do that for the rest of
the world. Even at return costs only, they still shell out $30 and potential
shipping hazards to their merchandise (if they did 3 times their current bus-
iness in free trials stuff would get damaged). Besides, a lot of people are
curious about Carvin, but having never heard them really don't know whether
or not it's for them. After reading the Boogie catalog when I was seventeen,
I wanted a Boogie soo bad, but I've come to find out, I'd have not been happy
with it if I had gotten it. Likewise, even Dumbles, Jim Kelly, Tweeds and Plexy
and Soldano's aren't for everyone. Even if Carvin made the best amp in the
world, they couldn't guarantee that YOU would like it, and hence they're gam=
bling at having to 1) shell out shipping costs, 2) potentially damage stock,
3) have large portions of their stock out in circuilation. You woulnd't expect
your local music store to give you $30 to take an amp home (and who knows
where else) for a week to try out an amp would you?
Nate
dario impini
>In article <74339126...@hartsfield.res.andrew.cmu.edu> Victor Ortega <vi...@CMU.EDU> writes:
>> A month ago, I ordered a Carvin SX-100 transistor guitar amplifier, thinking
>> that MAYBE this amp had the "richness, warmth and sustain" they claimed it
>> had. ...[didn't like the amp]...
>>
what i'm kind of confused about is that steve vai played an xb100 or some such model on his
flexable album and at the time i thought it was the hottest sounding guitar rig i'd ever
heard. i had decided it would be my ultimate setup (which i never got because mail order
is not my thing), but over the years i've heard carvin sucks. what gives? is there a
wide discrepancy in their models or did stevie tweak something somewhere?
d
matt harmon
> wide discrepancy in their models or did stevie tweak something somewhere?
Carvins are fine amps. They are, however, less idiotproof than Marshalls and
such. With the Marsh, as Paul McCartney said, "you just plug in and get this
great, poppy sound" whereas when you first plug into a Carvin, it don't sound
so sweet. Play gently with the controls for a while and you find that they
work and that that sweet sound is near at hand. Also, let me say that the
latest Carvin head has el-34's and sounds a damn sight better than the older
ones with 6l6's. I don't play through a Carvin, but I waas forced to borrow
one when my amp crapped out. First gig sounded like shit, after an hour in my
garage at stage volume (neighbors, what neighbors) I dialed in a slighly
brighter version of Santana's tone -- complete with cool compression and guitar
volume sensitive crunch.
Matt
bar...@austin.ibm.com
bar...@austin.ibm.com
Doug Puchalski
of fun to get one for a weekend to play with and just send it back.
Nathan F. Janette
You may not agree with the policy, but it *is* clearly noted in Carvin
publications. The original poster is bitching a little late into the game.
As for you wish, I've never come across a company that
offered such luscious terms. Perhaps you'd care to provide
references for some companies that offer such terms? I
wouldn't mind an occasional free rental of some neat instruments
and amps. "Sorry, the karma of this PRS is clashing with my
wife. I'll have to return it at your cost. Thanks!"
--
Nathan "USENET" Janette
PPP link from hilbert.csb.yale.edu
Please reply to: nat...@laplace.csb.yale.edu (NeXT)
robert.melchiorre
You know, I've been following this thread and something occurs to me, Victor.
Have you tried to call Carvin and talk to someone familiar with the amp to
try to get the sound you want?
Once I called Peavey and they connected me to one of the amp's circuit
designers. I'm sure what seems to be a reputable company would be happy
to help keep a sale and a customer.
Bob
Bill Day
GS's in Kittyhawk, NC?
say preferably near the Peppertree Resort
--
Why, man, he doth bestride the narrow world| Shakespear-Julias Caesar.
Like a Colossus, and we petty men | Bill Day:bd...@random.ucs.mun.ca
Walk under his huge legs and peep about | "Chicken little has only to be
To find ourselves dishonourable graves. | right once!"
Victor Ortega
I want to reply to a few comments that have have been made on my post.
First, I was fully aware of the policy on returns and shipping that Carvin
offered long before I bought the amplifier. After reading a few posts, I
realized that maybe I should have calmed down before posting to the net and
ripping the company apart (Big Corporation, rich getting richer, etc...).
I was just really upset that I was losing $60 (actually, it's $55.01)
and getting nothing in return, but then again, I got what I paid for, which
was shipping one 45 pound amp from California to Pittsburgh and back.
Also, by purchasing equipment from them, I choose to abide by their return
policy. If it had bothered me THAT much, I wouldn't have bought the amp
to begin with.
I feel that Carvin is becoming less customer-oriented than in the past.
Back in 1989, they offered free shipping anywhere in the 50 states, free
cases with every guitar, and a wider variety of equipment and options,
not to mention the fact that their prices were significantly lower at that
time. But then again, this probably belongs under a different heading...
The only purpose to my original post was to warn others about the SX amps,
in that they don't hold to the claims of producing warm, rich, sustaining
tube-like distortion. I've gotten more tube-like sounds out of my DOD
distortion pedal and other solid state amps (such as the Fender Princeton)
than I got out of the Carvin with the Tube Simulator. And I DO know what
tube amps sound like, having played through many of them with my guitar.
I just wanted to get that great tube sound without the bother and expense
of changing tubes.
Just to be fair with the company, I'd like to mention that the SX amps do
have a great CLEAN sound, and that the four-band equalizer in each channel
is very powerful. The reverb is not impressive, but it's not bad either.
The distortion can be described more fairly as slightly below-average for
a solid state amp.
And sorry about the last post. It's just that I was soooooo upset...
Victor
Carl Christensen
I've owned 2 Carvin guitars in the past and I thought they were
nice, high-quality instruments. I've played through their amps
before (friends or they were there at jam sessions) and they
were pretty good. I think this is just a case of this guy
just not liking the sound -- maybe Steve Vai loves it but this
guy doesn't. So Carvin (which is hardly a big mega corporation)
is supposed to take a loss in shipping (and possible damage
in his handling/use of the amp) because some guy doesn't
like the sound? That's totally unrealistic.
--
Carl Christensen /~~\_/~\ ,,, Dept. of Computer Science
chri...@astro.ocis.temple.edu | #=#==========# | Temple University
"Curiouser and curiouser!" - LC \__/~\_/ ``` Philadelphia, PA USA
Andrew Thall
|> is very powerful. The reverb is not impressive, but it's not bad either.
"not impressive = bad"
Why bother with effects that aren't impressive? Not playing at all isn't
impressive, too, and it's easier.
--Andrew "son-of-Salieri" Thall
aka th...@cs.unc.edu
"...and God turned to him and said, '--What was your name again?'"
Powers Conner
>As you might know, Carvin offers a 10-day money-back guarantee if you're
>not satisfied with whatever you buy from them, for any reason. The catch
>is that the CUSTOMER is responsible for ALL shipping charges. So, you're
>either stuck with a piece of junk you don't like, or you lose money when
>you send it back to the company. So, in effect, it's going to cost me
>$60 to try out the amp, "risk free." Either way you get ripped off.
>But I rather get ripped off of $60 and get and amp that I DO like than
>to get ripped off of $450 and be stuck with an amp I DON'T like.
>
>Has anyone out there had a similar experience? It seems to me that it is
>*Carvin* that is doing business risk-free. The rich stealing from the
>poor... The Big Corporations ripping off the little people... It's in
>vain that I thought that maybe, just MAYBE, Carvin would be different.
>How wrong I was.
>
>
>Victor
Victor This is no different from a reshelving charge most guitar stores seem to charge and if you do any purchasing from any mail order places you have to pay for shipping there too. So this is no different. Like it or not your a grown up now and thats the way mail order works. Any way YxY.
Conner Powers
David L. Campbell
>
>If I didn't have to pay return shipping on a Carvin amp, it would be a lot
>of fun to get one for a weekend to play with and just send it back.
Exactly. I can sympathize with the original poster, but I think his
expectations are out of line. If Carvin had a "we'll pay for
shipping" policy on their returns, they'd basically pay $60 for
*everyone* who wanted to whimsically try out their amps with no
intention of buying them. I'm afraid that's not good business. If
you're a mail order business, you expect to lose some potential
customers since not everyone is willing to risk buying something
sight-unseen. But that's the price they pay. As consumers of mail
order goods, the price we pay is the chance that we may not be
satisfied with the product and that we may have eat the price and
hassle of shipping.
David.
--
+----==== opinions expressed do not represent those of my employer ====----+
| David L. Campbell, IBM AWSD Austin | "The comfort you have demanded |
| INET: dcam...@ajones.austin.ibm.com | is now mandatory!" |
| IBM TR: dcam...@timshel.austin.ibm.com | Jello Biafra |
My name is Brian Rost
A lot of posts have argued back and forth about having to pay shipping both
ways in order to try out the Carvin amps. I'd just like to mention that *any*
mail order purchase is going to be about the same; if you don't like it you eat
the shipping both ways and maybe even pay a restocking fee. Of course, with
many brands, you can rip off your local dealer by trying the stuff out in the
store but saving a few bucks and buying by mail <grin>.
The $60 or so to ship the amp both ways could be compared to a rental fee. The
last time I went amp shopping I saw a nice bass rig but was hesitant to buy it.
The dealer offered to rent it to me for $20 for the weekend. If I liked it, he
would deduct the $20 from the price. I agreed and took the amp out on the gig.
The result was I decided not to buy it, but I learned a few things that led me
to buy a different amp (which I am quite happy with). The $20 was well spent as
far as I was concerned, because not only did I know what the amp sounded like
in the store, I got to take it to a gig and see how it held up under fire.
I've seen stores let *good and valued* customers take amps out on free trials
which is even better than having to pay for a rental. In any case, if you're
picky about your gear, I'd recommend you talk to your dealer about this sort of
thing.
Brian Rost @tecrus.enet.dec.com
****************************************************
* *
* The above does not reflect the opinions of *
* my employer. *
* *
* If music is outlawed, only outlaws will be *
* musicians. *
* *
****************************************************
Victor Ortega
> In article <1993Jul23....@dvorak.amd.com> d...@dvorak.amd.com
> (Doug Puchalski) writes:
> >
> >If I didn't have to pay return shipping on a Carvin amp, it would be a lot
> >of fun to get one for a weekend to play with and just send it back.
> Exactly. I can sympathize with the original poster, but I think his
expectations . . .
MY expectations??? When did I ever say that I expected Carvin to pay
for shipping both ways? Or either way? You guys have obviously
misinterpreted what I was trying to say, which is that I believed what
they said in the catalog, I bought the amp, and now that I'm returning
the amp, I'm down $60 or so because of shipping. That's what I was
bitching about, the fact that what they say in the catalog is a bunch of
garbage and that trying out the amp wasn't worth the $60 I had to pay
for shipping. I don't know where the hell you guys pulled this crap
about me expecting Carvin to pay for shipping.
Also, I never said that I wasn't aware of Carvin's policy on returns.
Yes, their policy *is* clearly stated in their catalog, and I understood
it perfectly.
Rob Davis
Sell the dang amp and move on.
Bill Thomas
>order goods, the price we pay is the chance that we may not be
>satisfied with the product and that we may have eat the price and
>hassle of shipping.
And I still say that this is bad business and something that mail order
companies must overcome. This also flies in the face of the alleged
"quality movement" in American business. I really don't think that
Carvin would have much trouble with people "trying out" their amps and
then shipping them back -- assuming the amps are up to snuff,
quality-wise. If it happens occasionally, well, that's the price a
mail-order company should pay for trying to maximize its profits by
controlling all distribution by being strictly mail-order. L.L. Bean --
considered to be the quality leader in mail order -- built its
reputation by never charging for delivery, never closing its doors, and
providing lifetime guarantees on everything. Now THAT's good business.
lr...@cas.org
like it, no problem. If I try it and I don't like it, I'm out
shipping both ways. If there was an amp at a local store that I
liked but wanted to try in a band situation, I could rent it for
the time needed. One store here in town does this. If you rent
it, and decide to buy it later, bring back the rental card and it
applies toward purchase. IF not, you're only out the rent
money. Simple, eh? Carvin chose to control product by going
mail-order. Peavey goes dealer-only, as does Mesa-Boogie.
Me personally? I have seen a little Carvin stuff. Much of it
works well and sounds great. No snide remarks about "It's not
****** or ******."
--
Luke Mayercin lr...@cas.org "Why does ear wax taste like it does?"
Chemical Abstracts Service is not responsible for these comments.
Peter Barszczewski
they are trying to break the strangle hold that the large music
corporations (yes, I mean Fender, Gibson, Roland, Marshall, Boogie, etc.)
have on the distribution and retail market. Lets face it distribution and
retail usually more than doubles the price of new gear (more than triple or
quadruple if you live in Australia or Europe, but that's due to
monopolistic distribution channels).
By going mail order, they can offer high quality at a low price *and* offer
an alternative to the big guns. Hopefully, we will see more small
businesses follow this route to offer new, inovative products at a
reasonable cost.
I have read glowing reviews in the trade rags of Carvin gear, but then they
have to pay their reviewers more to insure a good review ... people can't
test drive after all. BTW, if you don't think that companies buy good
reviews, then you are crazy. It is usually done twice, once for
advertising and once directly to the person writing the review.
Just food for thought,
--
Peter Barszczewski (ba...@bnr.ca), Montreal, Canada.
dipa...@esvx12.es.dupont.com
How does one go about getting a Carvin catalog???
Nick DiPaolo
David L. Campbell
>>As consumers of mail
>>order goods, the price we pay is the chance that we may not be
>>satisfied with the product and that we may have eat the price and
>>hassle of shipping.
Thanks for conveniently leaving out the context of my sentence. Namely,
that a mail order company has a price to pay as well -- lost sales from
customers who refuse to buy things sight unseen. So I think its a two
way street.
If you don't like the terms, then you should refuse to play the game.
>Carvin would [not] have much trouble with people "trying out" their amps and
>then shipping them back -- assuming the amps are up to snuff,
>quality-wise.
Pure speculation. You're only going by gut instinct here, although my
assertion that they would suffer greatly from such a policy is equally
speculative.
I believe it would be a problem because there just seems to be alot of
people around who will use/abuse a company's service just because its
convenient to do so. For example, one goes to a local music store to
try out the merchandise and decide what to purchase. But the underlying
intent is to purchase from a mail order shop. The local music store
just gave away its value-add (service via free in-store trial) and took
a loss of potential revenue from the depreciation of goods since they
can't sell the merchandise as new anymore (although some unscrupulous
places will still try). This is common enough that I've read numerous
recommendations by netnews posters to do this very thing. Therefore, I
don't think its much of a stretch to imagine people abusing the mail
order policy that you advocate. And remember this as well -- would you
want to buy an amp that had been shipped 3 or 4 times across the country
to various people who had tried it out and decided not to purchase? I
wouldn't.
> If it happens occasionally, well, that's the price a
>mail-order company should pay for trying to maximize its profits by
>controlling all distribution by being strictly mail-order.
The other way to look at it is that they're saving the consumer money by
ensuring that only one entity is entitled to a profit margin -- the
original manufacturer, not resalers.
Remember as well, that the mail order outfit usually doesn't operate on
the maximize-profits strategy. Most mail order companies, especially
music equipment houses, go for high volume sales at lower profit
margins. Why? Because to compete with local stores and overcome the
sales liability of the customer not wanting to deal with the hassles of
shopping by mail, the mail order store must entice customers with lower
prices. In comparison with the local store, however, what a mail order
place has in its favor is a large inventory and low overhead (no fancy
displays/showrooms, less employees, etc). The common strategy, then, is
to sell for less, but move alot of product.
>L.L. Bean --
>considered to be the quality leader in mail order -- built its
>reputation by never charging for delivery, never closing its doors, and
>providing lifetime guarantees on everything. Now THAT's good business.
I hope you're not really that naive. Do you really think they don't
mark up their prices to cover the shipping? Just look at their inflated
prices! My suspicion (yes, speculation, but I'd be willing to put money
on it) is that the consumer pays even more for shipping than they would
otherwise pay if there were a published shipping fee schedule on ordered
merchandise. And yes, that would be "good" business -- fool the
customer into thinking that shipping is free, when you're really making
a tidy profit on it.
I agree with you that there is a general lack of quality and customer
satisfaction in American business. But I don't think that opening
a business up to indiscriminate abuse by unethical consumers is the way
to solve it.
David L. Campbell
>MY expectations??? When did I ever say that I expected Carvin to pay
>for shipping both ways? Or either way? You guys have obviously
>misinterpreted what I was trying to say, which is that I believed what
>they said in the catalog, I bought the amp, and now that I'm returning
>the amp, I'm down $60 or so because of shipping. That's what I was
>bitching about, the fact that what they say in the catalog is a bunch of
>garbage and that trying out the amp wasn't worth the $60 I had to pay
>for shipping. I don't know where the hell you guys pulled this crap
>about me expecting Carvin to pay for shipping.
So just what the heck are you bitching about then?!? You don't like
the fact that you had to shell out $60. And you soundly flogged
Carvin in the process. I'd say that our interpretation of your
intentions was pretty reasonable. Sorry it wasn't accurate. But to
answer you question, we "pulled this crap about you expecting Carvin
to pay shipping" from your crummy article.
>Also, I never said that I wasn't aware of Carvin's policy on returns.
>Yes, their policy *is* clearly stated in their catalog, and I understood
>it perfectly.
In that case, the subject of this clearly shouldn't be that *Carvin*
sucks....
Dennis O'Neill
>I love Carvin, but I have never heard their gear. I love Carvin because
>they are trying to break the strangle hold that the large music
>corporations (yes, I mean Fender, Gibson, Roland, Marshall, Boogie, etc.)
>have on the distribution and retail market. Lets face it distribution and
>retail usually more than doubles the price of new gear (more than triple or
>quadruple if you live in Australia or Europe, but that's due to
>monopolistic distribution channels).
So why haven't you walked it like you talk it?
As far as characterizing the mentioned companies as "large", while I don't
know how many employees each has I would be very surprised if the largest of
them has more than a couple hundred. And why not mention Yamaha?
>I have read glowing reviews in the trade rags of Carvin gear, but then they
>have to pay their reviewers more to insure a good review ... people can't
>test drive after all. BTW, if you don't think that companies buy good
>reviews, then you are crazy. It is usually done twice, once for
>advertising and once directly to the person writing the review.
This is, shall we say, quite a charge. Do you have any evidence for
your assertion? If so, lay it out. If not, maybe you shouldn't be
so ready to make unsupported charges and to impugn the reputations of
many honorable organizations and individuals without backing up what you
claim. (I don't dispute that companies pay for advertising, and they
advertise in the magazines that review them - but where else would they
advertise? In Modern Maturity?) I object most strenuously to your
charge that reviewers "usually" take bribes. Prove it.
>Just food for thought,
^
junk
--
Dennis O'Neill de...@seismo.css.gov 703-476-5197
S-Cubed Div. Maxwell Labs 11800 Sunrise Valley Dr. #1212 Reston, Va. 22091 USA
Opinions expressed herein are my own and do not necessarily reflect
the opinions of my employer.
Karl Houseknecht
<vi...@CMU.EDU> says:
>
>A month ago, I ordered a Carvin SX-100 transistor guitar amplifier, thinking
>that MAYBE this amp had the "richness, warmth and sustain" they claimed it
>this amp, turned the distortion all the way up and played a chord. This
>amp sounds like CRAP!!!!!
I do feel for your situation, but let me ask one question. Did you go to any m
usic stores first and try out this amp before you bought it? This is the big p
roblem of buying through mail order. I would never, ever buy something through
the mail without trying it first. So, perhaps Carvin isn't totally at fault h
ere. I think you just learned the first lesson as a consumer in the music trad
e; when it comes to advertisement, sounds are better than words. Someone else'
s idea of "richness, warmth and sustain" may be totally different than yours.
So when you go looking for that new amp of yours, be sure to take your guitar a
long to several stores, try out new amps, compare prices, and then decide if yo
u can get it cheaper through mail order. Good luck.
Bill Thomas
>have to pay their reviewers more to insure a good review ... people can't
>test drive after all. BTW, if you don't think that companies buy good
>reviews, then you are crazy. It is usually done twice, once for
>advertising and once directly to the person writing the review.
No doubt that a guitar magazine publisher has to bite his lip before
running a negative story about an advertiser, but the respected ones do
it. That's how they get readers, and the number of readers appeals to
the advertisers. Smart publishers understand all sides of this.
As for your assertion that reviewers get paid by the companies whose
products they review, I say:
Prove it.
Christoph W. Borst
A few thoughts on Carvin:
Well, first of all, I was curious enough about them to order a guitar to
try out. If I don't love it, I'll send it back and buy something I know
I will like. I figure it's worth the shipping charge if it gives me a piece
of mind. Before ordering it, I made sure all the neck dimensions, etc were
what I was looking for.
Anyways, first of all Carvin is not *that* cheap afterall. Sure, they
eliminate the "middleman", but in effect they themselves ARE the middleman:
They spend lots of money on catalogs, salespeople, etc, and they do in fact
run a few showrooms. That's not to say they're as expensive as most retailers
-- but they ARE no better than a typical mail order distributor.
Also, when you consider their winning the guitar shootout in guitar
player - remember two things: 1) The price limit for the review was
$750, and Carvin was judged by their factory price while others were judged
by (or close to) their retail price. Everyone knows that you can get things a
lot lower than retail from some big mail order houses, so maybe the Carvin
should have competed with guitars that cost $750 via mail-order. Or better
yet, they should compare the Carvins with guitars that have a retail price
of what Carvin claims is a retail price for a "comparable" guitar from
another manufacturer. Also, realize that the Carvin was all the way at the
edge of the $750 limit while some of the others had a ways to go.
2) Carvin got to choose and set up the guitar themselves, knowing that
Guitar PLayer would review it ... and then they made excuses for the little
details that Guitar Player didn't like. What i wanna know is what is the
average quality of a Carvin DC127, not what is the quality of that particular
one -- same with all reviews, they should look for consistent quality.
What if I get my Carvin and there's a fretput on there a little akwardly?
Are they gonna say "We've fixed it in our new design?" that doesn't help me.
Finally, about getting ripped off by shipping charges, I'll say this:
It's perfectly fair for them to expect you to pay the shipping for a test
run; however, if there is a problem with the guitar or if it is not at
all what they advertise, then they outta pay it themselves. Like in the
catalog they keep repeating that they have the lowest action of anything
available without string buzz, so if I can find a guitar with lower action and
no string buzz, then they outta pay for their lie. In other words, they need
to make sure that their catalog is not misrepresenting their product, instead
of just saying anything to sell a guitar.
My Carvin ships at the end of August. I'll tell you guys then what I think
of it. Maybe it'll be awesome, maybe it'll suck. When dealing with
guitars that cost near $1K, I'm willing to lose $30 to find out.
Michael Miller
I purchased the Carvin 50 watt tube combo amp with 1 12" speaker about
a year ago, and I would reccomend it as an excellent buy. The 50 watts of
tube power are more than enough and the sound is classic. When I first got
it I was a little depressed because I tried the manual's suggestions for various
tones, but they just weren't there. However, after tweaking for a while I was
able to get a nice AC/DC-like tone, as well as your basic chunky rhythm sound.
The clean channel impressed me, and combined with the graphic-eq I could find
that chimey-Hendrix clean sound. I use a Les Paul and an Ibanez RG770 (or
something), and I find the sound of the Paul to be a bit smoother through
the dirty channel.
The only problem I have is cosmetic. My hands sweat a lot, and I really have
trouble pulling out the knobs for channel changing or bright-boost. My
solution to this (if anybody else has the same problems) is to cut a small strip
of grip-tape (for a skateboard) and put that on the knob. Tremendous difference!
--Mike Miller
Rob Davis
KLH...@psuvm.psu.edu (Karl Houseknecht @ Penn State University) writes:
<someone's extremely negative comments on Carvin SX amps deleted>
>I do feel for your situation, but let me ask one question. Did you go to any
>music stores first and try out this amp before you bought it? This is the big
>problem of buying through mail order. I would never, ever buy something
>through the mail without trying it first. So, perhaps Carvin isn't totally
>at fault...
Umm, Carvin products are NOT sold in music stores, only from their factory
in Escondido, Calif., and a nearby outlet store if I'm not mistaken, so I
think he's got a point with not being satisfied with the ad's claim. Most
stores I have dealt with don't even mess with used Carvin's, if that's worth
anything. I personally have no experience with Carvin amps, but I did play a
DC something electric in Koa wood that my friend has and it's a nice guitar.
-Rob
Victor Eijkhout
Finally, about getting ripped off by shipping charges, I'll say this:
One thought that I haven't seen in this thread: we don't all live
in the big cities. When I wanted a guitar I had a pretty good idea
what I wanted (either a PRS or a Steinberger), and I simply could not
get that in Knoxville. So I had to drive to Atlanta, which cost me the
gas both ways and a place for the night (ok, I stayed with a friend, hi Jim!
but I bought him dinner). Consider that to be the equivalent of
shipping charges...
--
Victor Eijkhout .................. `A new scientific truth does not triumph
Department of Computer Science ..... by convincing its opponents and making
University of Tennessee ........ them see the light, but rather because its
Knoxville TN 37996 ......... opponents eventually die, and a new generation
+1 615 974 9829 .......... grows up that is familiar with it' (Planck 1949)
ceca...@miavx1.acs.muohio.edu
even though there weren't any really big names playing Carvin. This past
December I bought an LB76 six-string bass with transparent emerald green
quilted maple finish, gold hardware, "super strap", and strap locks. I have to
say that I have been more than pleased with my bass. It has a really nice tone
to it, and the action on the 6-string makes it easier to play than any other
4-string I have ever tried! Slapping, popping, string-bends, harmonics, and
tapping seem to be a lot easier on this bass than they are on others, even with
the added low B and high C. The Sperzel locking tuners are great... it's so
easy to change strings now when all you have to do is stick them through a
hole, turn a knob, and then twist the peg a few times. I was never really
interested in getting a Carvin amp, so I bought a used GK400RB, which I'm very
happy with. I've heard their bass amps sound to cold, and their graphic EQ
starts at 75Hz, which, to quote a review, WAY too high for bass. Doesn't
matter, I love my LB76... if I hadn't have gotten all of my little extras, then
the bass would have been under $800, which is phenominal for a 6-string bass
with active electronics.
I'd also like to say that their "Super Strap" or whatever it's called is great.
It makes my 6-string feel lighter than my 4-string, which has a normal webbed
strap. For $13, it's a great deal. I'm going to get one for my latest
purchase, a fretless Kramer aluminum-neck 4-string.... it's really heavy!
All in all, Carvin makes good basses, probably makes good guitars, but I would
never buy an amp sight-unseen. Later,
-Chris Carman
-ceca...@miavx1.acs.muohio.edu
Victor Ortega
amps SUCK!!!!! David L. Campbell@timshe (1641)
> >That's what I was
> >bitching about, the fact that what they say in the catalog is a bunch of
> >garbage and that trying out the amp wasn't worth the $60 I had to pay
> >for shipping.
> So just what the heck are you bitching about then?!?
I don't think I need to repeat myself. The answer is right there.
Excerpts from netnews.alt.guitar: 27-Jul-93 Re: Carvin SX amps SUCK!!!!!
David L. Campbell@timshe (1641)
> >Also, I never said that I wasn't aware of Carvin's policy on returns.
> >Yes, their policy *is* clearly stated in their catalog, and I understood
> >it perfectly.
> In that case, the subject of this clearly shouldn't be that *Carvin*
sucks....
You're right, and it isn't. The subject is [was, read further] that the
SX amps suck, and that what Carvin says about the SX amps having the
warmth etc. of tubes is far from the real thing. The amp is no more
tube-sounding than your average solid state amp.
Excerpts from netnews.alt.guitar: 28-Jul-93 Re: Fwd: Re: Carvin SX
amps.. Nathan F. Janette@laplac (1378)
> > Here's a message that Jack Zucker sent me, and with his permission I'm
> > forwarding them to the net.
> Are you so insecure in your opinion you have to try and offer someone
> else's opinion as an attempt at proof?
No. I forwarded the message to the net because Jack mentioned he tried
to post that message, but something was wrong with the news server.
Excerpts from netnews.alt.guitar: 28-Jul-93 Re: Fwd: Re: Carvin SX
amps.. Nathan F. Janette@laplac (1378)
> I know a guitarist that is just as equally enthralled by the sound of that
> same Carvin amp model. Lot's of people like his sound. Big deal. Do you
> think he care's what you or Jaz thinks about the amp? Hell no.
That's fine, he can like the sound, but that doesn't mean the amp sounds
like a tube. For instance, I like the sound of Crate amps, but I don't
claim that they sound like tubes. So, instead of saying that the SX
amps suck, let's just say that they don't sound like tubes and leave it
at that.
Can we put an end to these flames? My original intent was to let others
know that SX amps don't have the acclaimed tube sound. I apologize for
taking that too far on my original post, and now realize that I
shouldn't have done so. Maybe I should have said something like, "I
just recently bought an SX amp, but I don't think it sounds like a tube.
Yet Carvin claims that it sounds like a tube. What do you guys think?"
Maybe THEN we would have had a decent thread on the net.
Victor