NAD vs Carver Quality - (Opinions Wanted!!)
Adam Farkas
range, to drive Magenplanar SMGs, and I think i've narrowed down the only
two remaining possibilites: NAD and Carver. (There are various japanese
brands, but i'm not entirely sure how they stack up.)
I keep hearing wonderful things about the 'NAD sound' -- and absolutely
atrocious things about the reliability of many of their devices.
Is this true of all their new stuff, even their solid state components?
As for Carver, I know their products are supposed to be reliable -- but how
do they sound? I keep hearing murmurs over in audio.high-end that Carver
*really sucks*, but no one ever really says why its so bad... years ago
their reputation was supposed to be quite good; why such animosity now?
Again, any opinions would be welcome -- I'm really confused as to which to
purchase. Thanks.
Adam Farkas
Blue J
writes:
>Again, any opinions would be welcome -- I'm really confused as to which
to
>purchase. Thanks.
I don't have any information about the long term reliability of either
product but my observation was that the Carver seemed to be much better
built and of a higher quality construction than NAD componets. I was
considering both those brand and I went with the Carver.
Jonathan Bird
Gene
> As for Carver, I know their products are supposed to be reliable -- but
> how do they sound? I keep hearing murmurs over in audio.high-end that
> Carver *really sucks*, but no one ever really says why its so bad...
> years ago their reputation was supposed to be quite good; why such
> animosity now?
>
The high-end folk have it in for Carver products, because Bob Carver was
able to make his amplifiers sound like tube amplifiers costing many times
the price. You will find that mid-priced audio products all sound pretty
much alike, and you can buy them pretty much on features alone. Carver has
some interesting features in their tuners, though, and this product line
is worth consideration.
Peace,
Gene
Edward D. Berger
ge...@aol.com (Gene) writes:
> The high-end folk have it in for Carver products, because Bob Carver was
> able to make his amplifiers sound like tube amplifiers costing many times
> the price.
Actually, high-end folk just haven't liked the resultant sound quality when
Carver mid-priced products were inserted into their audio systems instead
of their favored items from other manufacturers. They disliked Carver
equipment since the beginning with the C4000 preamplifier and the M400
amplifier. The dislike is not a new phenomenon caused by 'making his
amplifiers sound like tube amplifiers costing many times the price' even
if folks like Gene seem to want to spread this nonsense.
> You will find that mid-priced audio products all sound pretty
> much alike, and you can buy them pretty much on features alone.
Since this is rec.audio.opinion, I choose to disagree, though features are
very important in this area of the audio marketplace.
> Carver has
> some interesting features in their tuners, though, and this product line
> is worth consideration.
Of course, one should consider all the product lines available to them
through the dealers in their area.
> Peace,
> Gene
-Ed Berger
eb...@andrew.cmu.edu
Rakesh Malik
: I've been looking into receivers with remotes in the $500-$600 dollar
: Adam Farkas
If sound quality is of interest, I would say NAD. My ex-roommate has a Carver
135 wpc receiver, w/ Sonic Holography, and it sucks. It is slow, which makes
it sound underpowerd, and noisy, has little bass, and harsh high-end. It is
so bad that its equalizer is audible, in that you can set the eq flat, and
hear the difference when it is set to "cd-direct" mode, by the reduced noise
level. It is also lacking in detail.
NAD, on the other hand, sounds powerful, clean, and undistorted. It does not
screw with the music, and it has fast enough response to lose no detail. It
also has a very low noise level, and large enough headroom for almost any
transient you ask of it. It is also cheaper, making it much the better buy.
You might want to look into Harman/Kardon also.
-Rakesh
Gene
<eb...@andrew.cmu.edu> writes:
> Actually, high-end folk just haven't liked the resultant sound quality
> when Carver mid-priced products were inserted into their audio systems
> instead of their favored items from other manufacturers.
Edward this is an issue of politics, rather than of sound. You'll find
that, aside from the t-moded Carver amplifiers, they don't sound
especially different from other amplifiers in their price range. You can
believe otherwise, but controlled tests have always borne this out.
Peace,
Gene
Todd Samost
I disagree somewhat. yes, indeed, "fashion" conscious audiophiles will
probably not admit to liking Carver for the shoot-out with Stereophile a
few years back. I have found that I like some Carver products, but
predominantly just the tuners. I agree w/the gent who said that Carver
amps sounded slow and had a rougher high frequency response.
I DO think Carver is built consistently a little better than NAD. Despite
what I consider better sound, NAD has had some quality problems, having
farmed out production overseas. May be under control, who knows.
I think a lot of what happens w/Carver is that, yes, Bob himself can make
his amp sound like the (was it a Conrad-Johnson ?) tube amp, but the
PRODUCTION units don't benefit from the same personal attention, and end up
losing something in sound quality.
One last suggestion on my part: Rotel. I have owned power and (currently
own) integrated amps by them. Good value for the money; You won't get as
many features as the Carver pieces, and probably not the NAD, but I think
the sound is better than either of them. A little weaker in the bass,
perhaps.....
My inflated two cents.....
Todd.
Gene
Todd_...@vos.stratus.com (Todd Samost) writes:
> I disagree somewhat. yes, indeed, "fashion" conscious audiophiles will
> probably not admit to liking Carver for the shoot-out with Stereophile a
> few years back. I have found that I like some Carver products, but
> predominantly just the tuners. I agree w/the gent who said that Carver
> amps sounded slow and had a rougher high frequency response.
You did a test of this to determine that the high frequencies were
rougher? I doubt it. Most modern amplifiers have a pretty smooth frequency
response.
> I think a lot of what happens w/Carver is that, yes, Bob himself can
> make his amp sound like the (was it a Conrad-Johnson ?) tube amp, but
> the PRODUCTION units don't benefit from the same personal attention, and
> end up losing something in sound quality.
The Audio Critic did a null test against an earlier Carver t-mod
production amplifier, the M1.5t, which was patterned after a Mark Levinson
amplifier. The magazine found that the amplifiers met their design
criterion, and I have no doubt (despite the political comments in
Stereophile to the contrary) that Carver was equally able to produce a
production amplifier that matched the original Conrad-Johnson.
Peace,
Gene
Todd Samost
> You did a test of this to determine that the high frequencies were
> rougher? I doubt it. Most modern amplifiers have a pretty smooth frequency
> response.
>
Therefore, I MUST be wrong !!! <--- laiden with sarcasm
Yes, I DID test. Subjectively, with my ears, and music. The way MOST
people listen to stereo equipment..... :)
And Peace To You,
Todd.
Gene
writes:
> You bet! I'm pretty frigging astonished, too, to find *any*, let alone
> rather substantial audible frequency response differences in "most
> modern amplifiers", but the differences are there. I'd certainly expect
> to find that all modern amps sound alike, but they don't.
>
> (Hmmm. Gene *expects* all amps to sound the same. I don't suppose that
> expectation could influence his perception in blind listening tests.)
Kindly do not misquote me. I don't say all amplifiers sound the same. I
say many sound remarkably alike when used within their linear range. And
where a difference is heard, there is some measurable factor that creates
a difference. It's not done with mirrors.
This is the traditional audio viewpoint, that of cause and effect.
Some folks waste time trying to claim that we are claiming all equipment
sounds the same--not even Julian Hirsch of Stereo Review says that. Take a
little time to read and understand what is really being said and maybe
you'd get a better picture before you create a strawman to knock down.
Peace,
Gene
Charlie Hand
You bet! I'm pretty frigging astonished, too, to find *any*, let alone
rather substantial audible frequency response differences in "most modern
amplifiers", but the differences are there. I'd certainly expect to find
that all modern amps sound alike, but they don't.
(Hmmm. Gene *expects* all amps to sound the same. I don't suppose that
expectation could influence his perception in blind listening tests.)
Some problems which sound like frequency response problems are
actually stability problems, especially in amps with large amounts of
feedback. I designed a power amp once which measured very flat and
distortion-free, but it sounded bright. I discovered that complex
waveforms would occationally make it break into low-amplitude
oscillation for a few miliseconds. (I suppose you could think of that
amp as a musical instrument :) )
--
/ - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - \
| Charlie Hand | "You should all JUMP UP AND DOWN FOR TWO |
| ch...@netcom.com | HOURS while I decide on a NEW CAREER" |
| | Zip |
\ - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - /
Todd Samost
>
> Kindly do not misquote me. I don't say all amplifiers sound the same. I
> say many sound remarkably alike when used within their linear range.
Didn't sound like he said this to my ears. He said somthing to the effect
that most modern amplifiers sound similar in regards to frequency
response.....
> And
> where a difference is heard, there is some measurable factor that creates
> a difference.
I partially disagree. Yes, the differences are caused by SOMETHING, but we
don't always know WHAT, or may not have the appropriate equipment to
measure the 'WHAT'.... And by the way, the 'WHAT' may also be organic.
IE, people are different, with different hearing functionality, brains, and
personal preferences. That's the whole idea behind LISTENING. It's done
by people, not machines that measure
>
> This is the traditional audio viewpoint, that of cause and effect.
Too bad it's not the traditional MUSICAL viewpoint :)
> Some folks waste time trying to claim that we are claiming all equipment
> sounds the same--not even Julian Hirsch of Stereo Review says that.
Good point, probably true. But he seems to be so lame as to not say
anything TOO discouraging, lest he slightly earn a manufacturer's (or,
heaven forbid, an ADVERTISER's) ire.
> Take a
> little time to read and understand what is really being said and maybe
> you'd get a better picture before you create a strawman to knock down.
Please say it a little clearer.....
"Edward this is an issue of politics, rather than of sound. You'll find
that, aside from the t-moded Carver amplifiers, they don't sound
especially different from other amplifiers in their price range. You can
believe otherwise, but controlled tests have always borne this out."
>
> Peace,
> Gene
This does not sound like a man looking for peace :D
Poking fun at all (myself included !),
Todd.
Douglas Pratt
: amplifier. The dislike is not a new phenomenon caused by 'making his
: amplifiers sound like tube amplifiers costing many times the price' even
: if folks like Gene seem to want to spread this nonsense.
Actually, isn't it the case that Bob Carver has nothing to do with Carver
anymore? In fact, I believe there's been some litigation back an forth.
Gene
Pratt) writes:
> Actually, isn't it the case that Bob Carver has nothing to do with
> Carver anymore? In fact, I believe there's been some litigation back
> an forth.
Yes it is true Bob isn't working for Carver Corporation anymore. I don't
know the status of the litigation issue. Bob has a new company, Zeus
Audio. But none of this, of course, has anything to do with the quality of
existing Carver products.
Peace,
Gene