From: palane@iastate.edu (Paul A. Lane)
Subject: Re: Carver and the FAQ
Organization: Iowa State University, Ames IA
Date: Wed, 23 Dec 1992 06:57:19 GMT

In <92357.185145YKWON@SLACVM.SLAC.STANFORD.EDU> Youngjoon Kwon     (415)926-2761 <YKWON@SLACVM.SLAC.STANFORD.EDU> writes:

>Please challenge me if I am wrong!

>To my best knowledge, the reason "high-end" people do not
>like Carver product is they are not well-received by such
>underground magazines as Stereophile.  And the reason
>Stereophile hates Carver (product?) is becasue of the
>Carver challenge, in which Carver claimed and demonstrated
>that he can imitate the sound characteristic of any very
>expensive power amps by adjusting the "transfer functions"
>using his <$1000 power amp.

Yes and no. I've read the original Stereophile article and they
were quite surprised and hoped that the production line amps
would hold up. When they reviewed the production amp (I think
it was the M1.0 or M1.5), they considered it a decent amp but
not equivalent to the one in the challenge.

Bob Carver became quite upset. He flew out to Stereophile's head
office and demanded a rematch, in which an editor succeeded in
telling the difference between the two. Carver claimed that this
was because the original (tubed) amp had changed in the intervening
time.

In his manufacturer's comments, Carver tore into Stereophile. It
is not the original challenge where the bad blood originates, but
the revisited challenge and its aftermath. After his comments,
Stereophile stated it would refuse further advertising and test no
products from Carver.

By the way, the amplifier in question received a recommendation in
Stereophile's Recommended Components issue for about a year or so.
Carver's original TX-11a tuner was also recommended for quite some
time.

There are also interesting stories about Stereophile and the Carver
Amazing Loudspeaker. Basically, Bob attempted to modify the speaker
during the testing period. The overall conclusion was that this is
an interesting product, but not yet recommended.

It is also worth noting that Carver gear had long been suspect as
it was believed that Carver relied upon "gimmicks" and slick adver-
tising rather than solid engineering. The various names he's attached
to his circuits serve as an example of what the "high-end" hates.

>By the way, I read all about this in the "audio update"
>column of the "Radio Electronics" magazine.

This ignores the attitude of The Absolute Sound, which was rather smug
about the whole matter (as they seem to be about everything). TAS has
never liked Carver's mainline consumer products.

One last little bit. Bob has become enamoured of high-end tubed gear of
late. The Silver Seven amplifier (one pair for the price of a good car)
has been followed by a second amplifier and a preamplifier. The Silver
Seven has received raves in Audio and, yes, TAS. Stereophile never tested
it. I doubt that Bob would let them get their hands on one.

I think Bob's efforts are two-fold in this direction. High-end approval of
his products benefits the lower-end line by association and Bob has some-
thing to prove (that he can design with the best of them). Personally, I
like the Carver gear (particularly the S/DA-490t CD player) and would con-
sider it if I needed the power and could afford it.

>For me, personally; I think Carver's sound just fine...
>And, I can't find any reason why Carver stuffs should
>be bashed among the audiophiles...

>-Youngjoon

And now you know the rest of the story...

Paul