So I have a story. Many years ago I had a Kenwood KA3500 integrated amp and enjoyed it for about 10 years. For some reason I decided I needed more power and read a Stereophile Article that favorably compared a Carver amp against a very expensive tube amp. After reading the article I decided to buy the amp on Sterophile's review and it was also on their list of recommended components. I hooked it up and listened and was sort of disappointed. Especially with the bass (a little flabby). Then I decided that because I was using the preamp output from the Kenwood, I needed a dedicated preamp. SO I bought a Rotel preamp. I don't remember hearing much difference. I know this isn't exactly DIY, but I am just curious if anyone else has had a similar experience. It was a rather expensive lesson. (buying something based on a review in a magazine).
Flabby bass is likely the output transformer and perhaps damping factor at low bass. Preamp can't fix a power amp.
What speakers do you have?
What speakers do you have?
I have DIY speakers now but had Bose 901s in the 80s and 90s. Bass wasn't flabby with the Kenwood amp but was with the Carver amp. Both were solid state. Kenwood was 40 watts and Carver was 200+ watts. Everything is gone now, got rid of it.
The last time that amp was produced was in the 1990s. I looked up the old "Carver challenge" Stereophile review and that was from 1985! For its time the amp was good and produced plenty of power - I owned on back in the 1990s - but these days there are much better options. Your M1.0t likely needs a tune up and service just to perform anywhere near as good as it did when new, so be prepared to invest in that. It is the case for pretty much any electronic equipment that is getting old and parts are likely past end of life. This might explain your complaints about "flabby" bass. But IIRC even a new M1.0-t had the reputation of rather "lean" or "weak" bass reproduction.
FYI recently there was a review on the M1.5t (the higher power version of the M1.0-t) over at audiosciencereview.com that you might read through and then decide if it is really worth it to continue:
https://www.audiosciencereview.com/forum/index.php?threads/carver-m-1-5t-review-vintage-amp.30983/
There are techs who offer full service for the M1.0-t on Ebay that you might want to seek out.
FYI recently there was a review on the M1.5t (the higher power version of the M1.0-t) over at audiosciencereview.com that you might read through and then decide if it is really worth it to continue:
https://www.audiosciencereview.com/forum/index.php?threads/carver-m-1-5t-review-vintage-amp.30983/
There are techs who offer full service for the M1.0-t on Ebay that you might want to seek out.
Last edited:
https://www.hifiengine.com/manual_library/carver/m-10t.shtml
Much newer than the ones i heard and played with were crap. NAD 3020 smoked it, both in sonics and in real power output
Chris/Anatech has some considerable tweaks to make them less obnoxious.
dave
Much newer than the ones i heard and played with were crap. NAD 3020 smoked it, both in sonics and in real power output
Chris/Anatech has some considerable tweaks to make them less obnoxious.
dave
Specs say DF is only 8 so not surprised bass authority was lacking.
The cube seems to be a pretty high tech amp, even by today’s standards from reading the description.
https://www.hifinews.com/content/carver-m-400-cube
The cube seems to be a pretty high tech amp, even by today’s standards from reading the description.
https://www.hifinews.com/content/carver-m-400-cube
Actually, Stereophile article ("The Carver challenge") from 1985 was about the specially modified prototype of Carver M1.0 - they couldn't tell the difference between the sound of this solid-state amplifier and the all-tube Conrad-Johnson Premier Five amp. After that, Carver M1.0t ("t' for "Transfer function") was marketed as "identical to the challenge winner". But it was not identical, according to Stereophile measurements of Carver M1.0t amp in 1987.
However, Carver proved his point - it is possible to build a solid-state amplifier with the sound identical to any tube amplifier.
Yes I had a reprint of the Stereophile article and that was the main reason I bought it. I thought hey I can get a 5000 dollar tube amp sound for (I think) what was about 600 dollars. Anyway it was a lesson learned. Carver also tried to do an Apogee Speaker on the cheap which I heard didn't sound anything like an Apogee, but resembled it. That Carver amp brings me back to the point of doing a DIY amp. Solid build practices, quality parts and rock solid linear power supply and I probably can't go wrong. And if something goes wrong I built it and know how to fix it. Not to mention the savings$$$$.
Last edited by a moderator:
If memory serves me there is a large resistor in series with the output to mimic the output Z of a tube amp.Remove the resistor,short it, and the bass response with improve somewhat..Cheers.
I remember that amp, which did not impress me. The bass wasn't exactly anemic but it also wasn't compelling. Indeed, the amp was rather two-dimensional. I did fall prey to Bob Carver's marketing hype (that he could design and sell components at a fraction of the cost of comparably-sounding competitive units) by buying his TX-11 tuner sometime in the mid-80's. That honeymoon lasted maybe a week before I realized I'd been duped -- the Carver TX-11 tuner sounded awful. I sold it soon afterwards at a loss and saved up to buy a Magnum Dynalab FT-101, a vastly superior product.
Maybe Carver has had some great-sounding products over the years. Maybe. But I haven't heard them.
Regards.
Maybe Carver has had some great-sounding products over the years. Maybe. But I haven't heard them.
Regards.
Solution is easy. Advertise it and sell it. Buy/build a better device. Solved.
Timing is essential, it works best to do so days/weeks and maximum a few months from buying the device as it still has reasonably high value. Keeping and using such a device for years is sadomasochism.
Timing is essential, it works best to do so days/weeks and maximum a few months from buying the device as it still has reasonably high value. Keeping and using such a device for years is sadomasochism.
Last edited:
Only somewhat. It still has the most anemic power supply in its class - the weird power transformer and control circuit, little bitty reservoir caps run right at their voltage rating. Junk power transistors with squat for gain. 24 gauge wire for the power and speaker connections. Looks like a damn boom box inside. Phase Linears were better. Yeah, there is nothing inherently wrong with H-class amplifiers but there is such a thing as taking it too far.
I agree with JP - if you don’t like it sell it. There are people that will buy them.
I was just posting a story from my past. Amp is long gone -- sold 20 years ago. As far as Carver products -- My guess is that his engineering unit had the desired sonic characteristics but the production versions had some corners cut to hit a price point. Another part of the story is that I listened to a friend's set up which was 2 Macintosh tube mono blocks at 20 watts per channel and I heard what bass should sound like. Much better than the Carver even though the Carver was supposed to have 10 times the power. Carver has been in the business a long long time, so I am sure he has some good products, I just don't think the M1.0t was one of them.
Oh then it is OK. I think many of us have disappointing experiences with some brands/types. In my case I receive new devices every few weeks and most of the stuff also leaves within 2 weeks 🙂 Benefit is that one does not get attached to any brand but give more attention on type number and IMHO that is quite good. The thing that a brand stood for a certain high quality is almost gone. Brand awareness or how it is called is an invention of clever marketing people just to get your money. Today brand A can produce both a wonderful streamer and a mediocre amplifier at the same time. It is not my cup of tea to run after brands/designers and think all they introduce is the best thing since sliced bread. That is "pushed assumption". Some even wear clothing with the brand advertised on it which seems pathetic.
Add the recent mediocre Far East quality of things with the nice known brand logo on it to that. Everything is replaceable and the device that does not perform optimally in your home may be liked by someone else. It may not be the most green solution but since the devices are produced anyway.... In the forest of mediocre devices some flowers stand out however, those are the flowers we look for.
Add the recent mediocre Far East quality of things with the nice known brand logo on it to that. Everything is replaceable and the device that does not perform optimally in your home may be liked by someone else. It may not be the most green solution but since the devices are produced anyway.... In the forest of mediocre devices some flowers stand out however, those are the flowers we look for.
Last edited:
I have an original KA-3500. Bought it in 1976. With the matching KT-5300 tuner.
It doesn't have a preamp output.
BTW, mine was fully rebuilt three years ago, it may have only a 40 watt rating but it has a heavy power supply...
Last edited: