5 ms·

The Carver Challenge (1985)

59 points by anonymousab 6y ago

loph 6y ago
Stereophile magazine has never been known for science, mostly pseudo-scientific, unsubstantiable claims. They still insist that double-blind testing is not suitable for audio. I used to subscribe to the magazine, but would get infuriated at the "reviews," especially at the unabashed glowing reports of what is obvious snake oil. OTOH, I have owned a Carver magnetic field power amplifier, and I liked it very much. Bob Carver is a audio genius.
- milesward 6y ago
  Bob is completely an audio genius: I have his Sunfire HRS monitors and one of the super cool tiny Carver 400 cubes and I can literally peel the paint off my walls with stuff smaller than your average boombox. #gameon
  - kjs3 6y ago
    My fraternity in college (an engineering school) had pretty much all Carver amps. The folks that picked them were electrical engineers focusing on audio, and beside Marshall Leach, Carver was considered a god. I vividly remember the Carver Powercube could rattle windows halfway across campus.
- PaulDavisThe1st 6y ago
  > They still insist that double-blind testing That's at least a step forward from 1985, it would seem: > We made no effort to do A/B testing, since we feel it does not replicate normal listening conditions, and there is still insubstantial evidence that A/B testing reveals small differences as well as does prolonged listening to each unit under test. So, in 1985, not even non-blind A/B testing! These people are delusional.
reason-mr 6y ago
I believe, as the article is implying, that much of what stereophiles perceive as quality is merely signal color of one sort or another, once you reach beyond the basics of clean signal paths and input sources. I worked my way though college by sound engineering/DJing in a major european city. The signal paths in studios at that time were complex meandering things all adding minor or not-so-minor levels of color, and now can all be substantially replaced by something like a "Universal Audio" DSP box, which is capable of reproducing 99% of the sonic/tonal qualities of the classic equipment. I can't, however, shake the assertion that old, analog, recordings have a certain quality and warmth to them that to my ears sounds amazing, and we have moved so far from this with crappy compression algorithms and equipment which mostly does not match 90's HiFi, unless you spend a lot. Particularly, anything processed at CD quality, seems tinny to my ears. Recording at 192KHz seems to be set to overcome this however.
- ghaff 6y ago
  We've sacrificed quality for convenience in a lot of domains. MP3s are an obvious example. (Although many of us realistically can't tell the difference.) And many/most listen to music through cheap earbuds rather than expensive speakers/headphones. Or take phone calls. Some may remember Sprint's hearing a pin drop commercials to advertise the quality of its network. Now, many of us don't even have landlines and just deal with the drops and other problems of cellular phones and IP video calls.
  - reason-mr 6y ago
    Truth. Mp3's sound horrid IMO.
    - PaulDavisThe1st 6y ago
      New truth: at sensible bit rates, most people cannot differentiate mp3s and wav in double blind tests. New truth: at very high bit rates, almost nobody can.
      - 6y ago
W-Stool 6y ago
Bob Carver was the real deal back in the day, his designs were based on no-bullshit performance objectives. Audio Science Review (audiosciencereview.com) is an interesting counterpoint to all this huffing and puffing about what sounds "good" that has historically held the audiophile industry hostage. The guy has some state of the art test equipment and thoroughly tests equipment that people send in to be tested. Some of the results are really suprising, like a $14K DAC that was, from a performance standpoint, just garbage. He'll test almost anything, including the "audiophile network switch" that (surprise!) didn't do anything. If you're into this space his tests are almost always interesting.
m0zg 6y ago
They should re-do the test with recent PA amps from e.g. Crown or QSC. Those have now reached ridiculous levels of technological sophistication. They're light, powerful, indestructible, and can carry any load you plug into them. And in a blind test with good speakers they will sound better than anything "high end". Oh and they're almost always under $1K, with brownout inducing 2KW+ units below $2K. If it's high fidelity sound reproduction you're after (rather than just "pleasant" coloration), today's upscale studio and live gear can't be beat IMO.
delgaudm 6y ago
As a high schooler and Stereophile subscriber at the time this article was published I was a big fan of Mr. Carver's work, though I never got to own one of the products. A nearby hi-fi store would indulge me and let me listen to the Carver Amazing Loudspeaker, which I coveted ever since.
- W-Stool 6y ago
  Anyone here remember the Tech Hi-Fi chain? Amazing gear they sold, they were a chain that started in the MIT neighborhood as I recall. Advent, Crown, all the good stuff way back in the day.
Animats 6y ago
What's so funny is that Carver came out with the compatible amplifier as a product. But it didn't sell. So then he build the Carver Silver 7, as something of a joke.[1] It has fourteen tubes per channel. The power supply is on a separate chassis. All wire is silver, soldered with silver solder. It costs $17,500. Per channel. Here's a picture of a pair of them.[2] It sold quite well. Versions of it are still selling. [1] https://www.stereophile.com/content/carver-silver-seven-t-monoblock-power-amplifier https://www.stereophile.com/content/carver-silver-seven-t-mo... [2] https://www.underwoodhifi.com/sites/default/files/Carver%20Silver%207.jpg https://www.underwoodhifi.com/sites/default/files/Carver%20S...
- m463 6y ago
  wow that is hilarious. I think it reminds me of the Saturday Night Live spoof of zenith system 3. There was an advertisement: https://youtu.be/VhRu8aWHchY https://youtu.be/VhRu8aWHchY "the quality goes in before the name goes on" and SNL had a spoof called Horizon System 12 where "The parts go in before the name goes on" With parts flying in like in the zenith ad, but an enormous number of parts... can't find a clip, but I found references: http://www.snlarchives.net/Commercials/?198003153 http://www.snlarchives.net/Commercials/?198003153 http://www.snlarchives.net/Episodes/?19800315 http://www.snlarchives.net/Episodes/?19800315 p.s. for a long time all I could think about were two cube amps, one for each (stereo) speaker. Could never afford them. :)

59 points by anonymousab 6y ago

loph 6y ago

Stereophile magazine has never been known for science, mostly pseudo-scientific, unsubstantiable claims. They still insist that double-blind testing is not suitable for audio. I used to subscribe to the magazine, but would get infuriated at the "reviews," especially at the unabashed glowing reports of what is obvious snake oil. OTOH, I have owned a Carver magnetic field power amplifier, and I liked it very much. Bob Carver is a audio genius.

milesward 6y ago
Bob is completely an audio genius: I have his Sunfire HRS monitors and one of the super cool tiny Carver 400 cubes and I can literally peel the paint off my walls with stuff smaller than your average boombox. #gameon
- kjs3 6y ago
  My fraternity in college (an engineering school) had pretty much all Carver amps. The folks that picked them were electrical engineers focusing on audio, and beside Marshall Leach, Carver was considered a god. I vividly remember the Carver Powercube could rattle windows halfway across campus.
PaulDavisThe1st 6y ago
> They still insist that double-blind testing That's at least a step forward from 1985, it would seem: > We made no effort to do A/B testing, since we feel it does not replicate normal listening conditions, and there is still insubstantial evidence that A/B testing reveals small differences as well as does prolonged listening to each unit under test. So, in 1985, not even non-blind A/B testing! These people are delusional.

reason-mr 6y ago

I believe, as the article is implying, that much of what stereophiles perceive as quality is merely signal color of one sort or another, once you reach beyond the basics of clean signal paths and input sources. I worked my way though college by sound engineering/DJing in a major european city. The signal paths in studios at that time were complex meandering things all adding minor or not-so-minor levels of color, and now can all be substantially replaced by something like a "Universal Audio" DSP box, which is capable of reproducing 99% of the sonic/tonal qualities of the classic equipment. I can't, however, shake the assertion that old, analog, recordings have a certain quality and warmth to them that to my ears sounds amazing, and we have moved so far from this with crappy compression algorithms and equipment which mostly does not match 90's HiFi, unless you spend a lot. Particularly, anything processed at CD quality, seems tinny to my ears. Recording at 192KHz seems to be set to overcome this however.

ghaff 6y ago
We've sacrificed quality for convenience in a lot of domains. MP3s are an obvious example. (Although many of us realistically can't tell the difference.) And many/most listen to music through cheap earbuds rather than expensive speakers/headphones. Or take phone calls. Some may remember Sprint's hearing a pin drop commercials to advertise the quality of its network. Now, many of us don't even have landlines and just deal with the drops and other problems of cellular phones and IP video calls.
- reason-mr 6y ago
  Truth. Mp3's sound horrid IMO.
  - PaulDavisThe1st 6y ago
    New truth: at sensible bit rates, most people cannot differentiate mp3s and wav in double blind tests. New truth: at very high bit rates, almost nobody can.
    - 6y ago

W-Stool 6y ago

Bob Carver was the real deal back in the day, his designs were based on no-bullshit performance objectives. Audio Science Review (audiosciencereview.com) is an interesting counterpoint to all this huffing and puffing about what sounds "good" that has historically held the audiophile industry hostage. The guy has some state of the art test equipment and thoroughly tests equipment that people send in to be tested. Some of the results are really suprising, like a $14K DAC that was, from a performance standpoint, just garbage. He'll test almost anything, including the "audiophile network switch" that (surprise!) didn't do anything. If you're into this space his tests are almost always interesting.

m0zg 6y ago

They should re-do the test with recent PA amps from e.g. Crown or QSC. Those have now reached ridiculous levels of technological sophistication. They're light, powerful, indestructible, and can carry any load you plug into them. And in a blind test with good speakers they will sound better than anything "high end". Oh and they're almost always under $1K, with brownout inducing 2KW+ units below $2K. If it's high fidelity sound reproduction you're after (rather than just "pleasant" coloration), today's upscale studio and live gear can't be beat IMO.

delgaudm 6y ago

As a high schooler and Stereophile subscriber at the time this article was published I was a big fan of Mr. Carver's work, though I never got to own one of the products. A nearby hi-fi store would indulge me and let me listen to the Carver Amazing Loudspeaker, which I coveted ever since.

W-Stool 6y ago
Anyone here remember the Tech Hi-Fi chain? Amazing gear they sold, they were a chain that started in the MIT neighborhood as I recall. Advent, Crown, all the good stuff way back in the day.

Animats 6y ago

What's so funny is that Carver came out with the compatible amplifier as a product. But it didn't sell. So then he build the Carver Silver 7, as something of a joke.[1] It has fourteen tubes per channel. The power supply is on a separate chassis. All wire is silver, soldered with silver solder. It costs $17,500. Per channel. Here's a picture of a pair of them.[2] It sold quite well. Versions of it are still selling. [1] https://www.stereophile.com/content/carver-silver-seven-t-monoblock-power-amplifier https://www.stereophile.com/content/carver-silver-seven-t-mo... [2] https://www.underwoodhifi.com/sites/default/files/Carver%20Silver%207.jpg https://www.underwoodhifi.com/sites/default/files/Carver%20S...

m463 6y ago
wow that is hilarious. I think it reminds me of the Saturday Night Live spoof of zenith system 3. There was an advertisement: https://youtu.be/VhRu8aWHchY https://youtu.be/VhRu8aWHchY "the quality goes in before the name goes on" and SNL had a spoof called Horizon System 12 where "The parts go in before the name goes on" With parts flying in like in the zenith ad, but an enormous number of parts... can't find a clip, but I found references: http://www.snlarchives.net/Commercials/?198003153 http://www.snlarchives.net/Commercials/?198003153 http://www.snlarchives.net/Episodes/?19800315 http://www.snlarchives.net/Episodes/?19800315 p.s. for a long time all I could think about were two cube amps, one for each (stereo) speaker. Could never afford them. :)