NetNews Usenet Archive 1992 #31/NN_1992_31.iso/spool/rec/audio/17375

Internet Message Format | 1992-12-27 | 3.6 KB

Path: sparky!uunet!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!ames!agate!dog.ee.lbl.gov!network.ucsd.edu!munnari.oz.au!ariel.ucs.unimelb.EDU.AU!ucsvc.ucs.unimelb.edu.au!lugb!news
Newsgroups: rec.audio
Subject: Re: Carver and the FAQ
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
From: [e-mail] (BYRNES,Graham)
Date: Sun, 27 Dec 1992 05:58:49 GMT
Sender: [e-mail] (USENET News System)
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
Organization: La Trobe University
In-Reply-To: [e-mail]'s message of Wed, 23 Dec 1992 20:22:04 GMT
X-News-Reader: VMS NEWS 1.24
Lines: 70

In <[e-mail]> [e-mail] writes:

> In article <[e-mail]>, Youngjoon Kwon     [phone] <[e-mail]> writes:
> |> Please challenge me if I am wrong!
>
> [pulls out white glove and slaps Youngjoon with it]  I challenge
> you.
>
> |> 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.
I read somewhere that Carver's version of transfer function equalisation
is to connect the two amps across a speaker, and twiddle until no sound
comes out. The amps are then declared to sound the same. If this is really
it, it's B-S. In the situation described, both amps have the same signal,
but no current is flowing. So in other words the two amps have the same
transfer function provided they are connected to a speaker that draws no
current. Such speakers are rather rare.

Please correct me if I'm wrong.
Graham B
>
> Firstly, Stereophile is hardly and underground mag.  Snobby?  Well ok,
> it might be snobby, but not underground.
>
> Does Sterophile hate Carver?  Who cares if they do or not.
>
> I was not a fan of Carver long before picking up my first copy of
> a high end mag.  I used to like Carver until I started to compare
> it to other amps in the same price range.  I found so many others
> that sounded much better to my ears.  Carver makes a much better
> amp than Sony or Pioneer, but not near as good as Hafler or
> Parasound (to my ears anyway).
>
> |> By the way, I read all about this in the "audio update"
> |> column of the "Radio Electronics" magazine.
> |> For me, personally; I think Carver's sound just fine...
>
> Then you have found the right amp for yourself.
>
> |> And, I can't find any reason why Carver stuffs should
> |> be bashed among the audiophiles...
>
> I think a lot of it is that Carver keeps claiming that they
> can beat any amp at any price.  They make an Ok amp in their
> price range and that's fine.  However, they run around telling
> everyone that their $700 amp can beat any $10,000 amp.  That's
> an attitude that pisses off peole who know better.
>
> If his <$1000 amp is so good, why does he make a pair of tube
> monoblocks for $20,000?
>
> Not only does it piss off a lot of people that he has this
> attitude, but that he convinces so many other people of it.
> He convinces them so well that they won't even listen to
> other amps.  They see him as kind of a con man.
>
> --
> William R. Nau
> Supercomputer Systems Engineering and Services Company (SSESCO)
> 511 11th Avenue South, Suite 216
> Minneapolis, Minnesota 55415-1536
> [phone]
>
> [e-mail]