gordonl@microsoft.UUCP (Gordon Letwin) (09/08/84)
The issue isn't whether or not its "wrong" to design an amp to exactly mimic another, thats not what Carver did. His point was that he claimed that all quality amps sound nearly identical(ly?) and that the major differences the golden eared critics heard were at most minor differences in frequency response (within 1/2 db in some areas) and other minor differences that vary just as much between individual units of the same product as between competing products labeled "good" and "bad" by critics. To prove his contention he offered to "tweak" his ALREADY DESIGNED AND PRODUCED Carver M1.5 to sound like any amplifier that the golden ear critics claimed was superior. They chose the Mark Levinson, he proved his point by tweaking the M1.5 into the M1.5t, an exact Mark Levinson duplicate. The article I mentioned takes the attitude that the Levinson was far superior to the original Carver M1.5 and that he was "won over" to their viewpoint and thus sells the M1.5t. Another possible interpretation is that Carver hears no meaningful difference between the M1.5 and the M1.5t, he produces the M1.5t because of the marketing plus of offering a "Mark Levinson" at N times the power and 1/N the cost. Since I don't know him personally, I can't say. In any case, we'd be debating how good the "M1.5" was; since Carver only offers the "M1.5t" its moot... this is an amplifier that nulls against one of the most impractical (and thus most desirable) golden-ear amplifier. Gordon Letwin