CARVER amplifier advice
huy t do
little about CARVER products, but I heard that they are very good, though.
The amplifier model is 1.0t (?), I don't remember exactly at the moment,
it produces about 200 watts at 8 ohms and about 400 watts at 4 ohms.
Any advice would be appreciated.
--
Huy T. Do University of New York at Buffalo
v055...@ubvms.bitnet * d...@acsu.buffalo.edu * CompuServe: 71477,1356
---- "Imagination is more important than knowledge." -- Albert Einstein --
Eric Hansen
>I have a chance to buy a CARVER amplifier from a friend and I know very
>little about CARVER products, but I heard that they are very good, though.
My first question to you is what kind of equipment are you currently using?
If you'd be using the same equipment with the Carver, you must decide if
the components are of 'equal' quality. One thing I can say for Carver is
that they're sold in discount and department stores. Not that this is bad,
but it unquestionably says that their product is 'mass produced' and this
carries its own implications. Their CD players, for instance are made by
a Japanese company - Yamaha, I think - again, mass produced. I have
seen/heard Carver amps that sound good in specific contexts with specific
speakers, but if the relative 'quality' of your speakers surpasses the
amp, you might not be happy. I used to own an SAE amp, which, although
not as well known, is made by a similar type company as Carver. When I
purchased my present speakers (Apogee), I was less happy than I had been
my previous speakers (dbx, also mass-market.) The better speakers revealed
many undesirable qualities which were not as pronounced with my older
speakers. I think you will experience the same problem with Carver amps
costing under $1000 new. (Note that their 'audiophile' quality amps are
not available at department stores, only through high-fi stores...)
The bottom line is always to audition the equipment (amp) with
the equipment you intend to use it with. Try to get a couple other amps
to compare it to. I have never used Carver products in my home, but have
spoken with several salesman who have not been too complimentary. Keep
your eyes open - you may be able to find better equipment for around the
same price. Other brands to keep in mind (which are similar cost new, but I
think are better quality) are B & K, Adcom, NAD, Acurus.
- Eric
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Eric Hansen * Senior, University of Rochester, NY *
* Email: er...@psych.rochester.edu * Cognitive Science, Psychology *
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
William Kucharski
d...@acsu.buffalo.edu (huy t do) said the following:
>I have a chance to buy a CARVER amplifier from a friend and I know very
>little about CARVER products, but I heard that they are very good, though.
>
>The amplifier model is 1.0t (?), I don't remember exactly at the moment,
>it produces about 200 watts at 8 ohms and about 400 watts at 4 ohms.
>
>Any advice would be appreciated.
Unless he'll sell it to you REAL cheap, don't do it if you're considering
other amps. Carvers are noisy (both mechanically and due to hum from the
speaker outputs) and not very musical, but do an OK job of putting out lots
of power on the cheap. Basically, if you're looking around at different
components, go Adcom in that same price range; if you currently use a Sansui
receiver then the Carver will be a sonic improvement.
My $0.02 only; I had a M1.5t a few years ago...
--
| William Kucharski, Solbourne Computer, Inc. | Opinions expressed above
| Internet: kuch...@solbourne.com Ham: N0OKQ | are MINE alone, not those
| uucp: ...!{boulder,sun,uunet}!stan!kucharsk | of Solbourne...
| Snail Mail: 1900 Pike Road, Longmont, CO 80501 | "It's Night 9 With D2 Dave!"
Seth Bradley
>Unless he'll sell it to you REAL cheap, don't do it if you're considering
>other amps. Carvers are noisy (both mechanically and due to hum from the
>speaker outputs) and not very musical, but do an OK job of putting out lots
>of power on the cheap. Basically, if you're looking around at different
>components, go Adcom in that same price range; if you currently use a Sansui
I would agree with this, except I would consider Parasound, B&K or NAD
over Adcom. IMHO, Adcom is overrated. They also have an enormous
advertising budget. If I were personally getting a new amp, I'd prefer
that my money went almost entirely for the amp (and dealer profit, of
course) rather than for advertising.
Just another Adcom basher,
--
Seth J. Bradley
Internet: sbra...@iwarp.intel.com
UUCP: uunet!iwarp.intel.com!sbradley
William Kucharski
sbra...@iwarp.intel.com (Seth Bradley) said the following:
>In article <1991Oct21....@solbourne.com> kuch...@solbourne.com (William Kucharski) writes:
>>Unless he'll sell it to you REAL cheap, don't do it if you're considering
>>other amps. Carvers are noisy (both mechanically and due to hum from the
>>speaker outputs) and not very musical, but do an OK job of putting out lots
>>of power on the cheap. Basically, if you're looking around at different
>>components, go Adcom in that same price range; if you currently use a Sansui
>
>I would agree with this, except I would consider Parasound, B&K or NAD
>over Adcom. IMHO, Adcom is overrated. They also have an enormous
>advertising budget. If I were personally getting a new amp, I'd prefer
>that my money went almost entirely for the amp (and dealer profit, of
>course) rather than for advertising.
You want money going almost entirely for the amp and you recommend NAD? IMHO
(and many others' HOs) NAD is incredibly overpriced for what you get. A lot
of NAD's money goes into styling rather than the product. Personally, I'd
recommend Adcom over NAD any day. As far as Parasound and B&K, I never really
liked the way Parasounds sounded (!) and B&K amps always struck me as sounding
a bit dark (actually, quite like the new Adcom GFA-555II!).
One other nice thing about Adcom, though, is that they DO have quite a good
rep and as such their resale value used is quite high -- something to consider
if you're going to (inevitably!) trade up someday...
(And if you want large advertising budgets, let's return to Carver for a
minute...)
Don Cohrac
>I have a chance to buy a CARVER amplifier from a friend and I know very
>little about CARVER products, but I heard that they are very good, though.
I had an original Carver Receiver, 120 w/ch, FM noise-reduction
circuitry. It was pretty good, but ultimately I sold it.
I replaced a Hafler DH200 amp with the Carver, and after several
months regretted it. The Carver wasn;t bad, it just wasn't
real good. Although it puts out the power, it seems to be
lacking in real guts (for the bass), and clarity (for the high
range). The FM tuner noise reduction was good.
I replaced the Carver with an Accoustat TnT200. That was about
four years ago.
-------------------------------
Don Cohrac do...@novell.com
Tony Berke
Path: xn.ll.mit.edu!micro-heart-of-gold.mit.edu!wupost!spool.mu.edu!uunet!ogicse!iWarp.intel.com|sbradley
In article <1991Oct21....@solbourne.com> kuch...@solbourne.com (William Kucharski) writes:
>>Unless he'll sell it to you REAL cheap, don't do it if you're considering
>>other amps. Carvers are noisy (both mechanically and due to hum from the
>>speaker outputs) and not very musical, but do an OK job of putting out lots
>>of power on the cheap...
I have a bit of experience with Carver's wares, and would have to agree with
these criticisms, with some caveats. First of all, the early-generation
Carver's (M400t, M200t) were a little too cute for thier own good -- the
power supply, heatsinking, and cabinet were all a bit whimpy. I've had
a number of failures of M200t's, all due to power supply meltdowns. These
units definately don't have quite enough meat to them. I have an M0.5t,
however, and it seems to show that Carver can learn (slowly) from his mistakes.
Although the M0.5t is (I think) only rated at 140WPC, vs the M200t's 120WPC,
it weighs almost twice as much, with a lot more case volume, heatsinking,
and mechanical integrity. It isn't noisy (electrically *or* mechanically),
and I have a gut feeling that it won't melt, either.
As for the "musicality" of Carver amps, I think it depends quite a bit on
the specific application. First of all, their tricky power supply seems
to make them somewhat more sensitive to the quality of the mains power that
they're fed. By "quality", I'm talking about resistance, nothing exotic!
The power supply has dinky little capacitors, and musical peaks of any
duration at all cause the amp to ask for serious current from the wall.
If it isn't there, tough cookies.
I've had nice results from Carvers by using them for midrange and
tweeter amplification in a 4-way amplified system. On occasion I've
pressed my spare M200t into service as a midbass or subwoofer amp.
The results have been quite poor, especially with the subwoofers. -- I
don't know what the M200t's damping factor is, but it seems to be much
lower than the Crown DC300s that I usually use in that role. The M200t
also tends to clip quite a bit more often (and audibly) than the DC300,
despite the fact that a DC300 is only rated at 150 watts into 8 ohms,
which should be insignificantly more than the Carver's 120WPC.
>I would agree with this, except I would consider Parasound, B&K or NAD
>over Adcom. IMHO, Adcom is overrated. They also have an enormous
>advertising budget. If I were personally getting a new amp, I'd prefer
>that my money went almost entirely for the amp (and dealer profit, of
>course) rather than for advertising.
Actually, there's nothing wrong with spending money on advertising.
What you should care about is the quality of the end product. If you
insist on pouring over a company's balance sheets before buying their
product, what you might want to look at is the *percentage* of money
that is spent on R&D and manufacturing, vs. overhead items like
advertising and potted plants in the corporate headquarters.
I'd like to point out that *no* commercially viable piece of
manufactured goods has a price that goes "almost entirely" towards the
building of said goods -- the company wouldn't exist for long if that
were the case. If a manufacturer increases sales through advertising
and plays its cards right afterwards, it should be able to amortize
some fixed overhead costs (such as engineering and executive yachts)
over a larger number of units. We would all be happy if that extra
profit went straight back into R&D or better materials, but if it gets
spent on more advertising instead, does that make the original product
any worse?
I'd like to close by saying that the preceeding oversimplified economics
lecture should not be taken as a defense by me of the practices of any
particular manufacturer. Frankly, I would never buy a new piece of
Carver gear -- I've gotten all mine used. I think the stuff is grossly
overpriced, and I think Bob Carver, as talented as he is, has caved in
to some seriously overzealous marketing hypesterism and doesn't deserve
our money.
Tony Berke (to...@juliet.ll.mit.edu)
Tony Berke
forgot to give any actual advice! Here it is:
Use recent-generation Carver amps for the top end of a biamped
systems, and you'll probably be quite happy. IMHO, Most of the
"harshness", "midrange glare", "grit", etc, that people complain about
with these amplifiers is probably caused by their relative unhappiness
reproducing sustained bass notes. If you don't ask the poor thing to
do something it doesn't enjoy, it will do a fine job with the rest of
the music.
Tony
Show-Jyi Lin
How about the good old Hafler XL-280 power amp? It was deleted from Audiophile
recommended recently. I heart somewhere that it was commented as a "perfect"
power amp. Currently I have a Denon 2400A power amp, but the sound is detailed
enough and sometime even feel "cool" from it even with my old JBL Radiance
Tower. I wonder if Hafler would give some warm feeling in sound.
show Lin
Don Cohrac
>Use recent-generation Carver amps for the top end of a biamped
>systems, and you'll probably be quite happy. IMHO, Most of the
>"harshness", "midrange glare", "grit", etc, that people complain about
>with these amplifiers is probably caused by their relative unhappiness
>reproducing sustained bass notes. If you don't ask the poor thing to
>do something it doesn't enjoy, it will do a fine job with the rest of
>the music.
Great! One only has to buy two amps ( one bad, one good) to do the
job of one good amp! Sheer marketing genius! (Plus more cables and
speakers)
-------------------------
Don Cohrac
Tony Berke
I'm not sure if I'm being made fun of or not, but I must say that if
you were buying a system new and had the choice between laying out
$600 for a Carver or the same amount of $$$ for a better amp, you`d
probably be better off buying something "real".
Bi- (or more) amping has some very real advantages, however, and it
isn't quite accurate to say that the combination of "one bad, one good"
amp is doing the job of one good amp. It's a different job.
My rickety pile of old Crowns and Carvers (in combination with a
couple of very tweakable electronic crossovers) that would be
exceptionally difficult to accomplish with a single amplifier, no
matter how big or good. If I could only keep everything running!
This is slightly off the original thread, but note that in pro sound,
weight is a very real issue, and the Carver pro-series amplifiers are
justifiably popular because they put out a lot of bang-per-pound.
I've noticed a distinct trend in the amp racks of bands that I see,
however. There are frequently one or two P-M1.5's running the
mid-bass and high-end (and sometimes the monitors), but there's always
something else, such as a Crest, Crown Macro-Tech, or AB Systems amp
running the bass. I've *never* seen an all-Carver amp rack in a
serious PA system. That, combined with my own experience, is why I
consistently recommend against using them for deep bass applications.
If you have a signal with a low duty cycle but large peak amplitudes
(midrange, for example), it's reasonable to take advantage of Carver's
trick power supply, which will give you lots of clean output in that
situation. The nicest thing about his products is that they have a
lousy resale value, so they represent a good buy if you have an
application that they'll work well in.
Tony
Keith M. Ryan
ah, but it sure makes a hefty profit does it not?
--
Like the fallings sands in an hour || For those who art about to read my posts
glass, so are the days of our lives|| I pity thee for even trying to understand
-So-crates <philosophizer type dude|| me. -Wolphgang AROoOOooOOoooOOoooOOoo
Tony Berke
[stuff deleted, including prose with missing phrases...]
>situation. The nicest thing about his products is that they have a
>lousy resale value, so they represent a good buy if you have an
>application that they'll work well in.
> Tony
Uh, that should read:
"so when purchased *used* they represent a good buy..."
Tony
Don Cohrac
>>>systems, and you'll probably be quite happy. IMHO, Most of the
>>>"harshness", "midrange glare", "grit", etc, that people complain about
>>>with these amplifiers is probably caused by their relative unhappiness
>>>reproducing sustained bass notes. If you don't ask the poor thing to
>>>do something it doesn't enjoy, it will do a fine job with the rest of
>>>the music.
>
>>Great! One only has to buy two amps ( one bad, one good) to do the
>>job of one good amp! Sheer marketing genius! (Plus more cables and
>>speakers)
>>-------------------------
>>Don Cohrac
>
>you were buying a system new and had the choice between laying out
>$600 for a Carver or the same amount of $$$ for a better amp, you`d
>probably be better off buying something "real".
>
>Tony
But if you spend the $600 for the Carver, you still must buy another
"good" amp. And spend lots of time putting the system together.
I would say the moral here is "if you can have only one amp, don't
make it a Carver" :-)
--------------------------
Don Cohrac
Scott Burke
Sound. I includes three channels of amplification for the rear and center
speakers, of from 15 to 40W per channel. Of course, those speakers are _not_
used for sustained bass response (the function of my subwoofer) and I make use
of Polk speakers. All in all, the match between the Carver and the Polk sounds
good.
Scott.
sc...@sparcom.com