gordonl@microsoft.UUCP (Gordon Letwin) (08/28/84)
I've been reading a lot of stuff lately about this-and-that amplifier, how they sound (lots of extremely subjective and meaningless words), etc. I've just purchased a Carver M-1.5t which came with an interesting article, the gist of which I'd like to share: Basically, Carver claimed that the differences between "super wonderful" amplifiers and any other high-quality amp (like his M-1.5) were minor, having to do with small frequency response changes, degress of phase distortion, etc. He claimed that given any particular "golden ear favorite" he could quickly "tweak" the M-1.5 to sound exactly like it. How "exact"? Well, both ampllfiers are to be driven from the same sources (pink noise, music, test records, etc.) and each drives identical speakers (which are kept in an isolated room). You then take the "+" leads for the right channel from each amp (do the left channel later) and hook them to the terminals of a very sensitive speaker. This speaker will play the DIFFERENCE between the two amplifiers. When the difference speaker is silent, the amplifiers are identical. The golden ears selected the Mark Levison ML-2 as their challenge. THis honker costs $6300 for a stereo pair, and produces a gut-shaking 35 watts. (Yes, not enough power for a true hi-fi system, but I guess golden ears are sensitive ears). After 48 hours of tweaking gain, adjusting capacitor values, adjusting feedback, etc., Carver made his M-1.5 null against the ML-2 down to -74 db! No active components were changed, and no circut board changes were made. To quote from the article, "We are also aware that this article will create tremendous antagonism in certain high-end audio circles, whereever there is a financially or emotionally vested interest in very high- priced equipment in general and Mark Levinson components in particular. That cannot be helped; we are merely reporting certain irreversible facts of life. But for heaven's sake, let no one make an ass of himself by indignantly declaring that the ML-2 does SO sound better than the M-1.5t. The two have been proved sonically equal with the same rigor as two triangles are proved congruent in plane geometry." Carver has propigated the mods to his M-1.5 production units, which are now the M-1.5t units. Each one, as it rolls off the line, is nulled against a pair of Mark Levinson ML-2's right before being boxed up. Since the ML-2 is $6300 for 35 watts (!!) and the Carver is $750 for 600 watts, this means the end the great amplifier controversy. One can buy a super-powerful Mark Levison for very cheap; what more is there to say? As I see it, the golden ears have only two things to do: 1) say that the ML-2 itself sounds bad, and try to argue that Carver was "lucky" in being given such a poor amplifier to duplicate 2) say "its not true, its not true" over and over again. Pls advise, golden ears! Gordon Letwin decvax!microsoft (but speaking for himself) P.S. - the article is from Issue 10 of "The Audio Critic" (Winter 82-83)
greg@olivej.UUCP (Greg Paley) (08/29/84)
I can't help but feel there is something fundamentally wrong with the idea of designing a piece of equipment with the goal of making it sound like another piece of equipment. If Carver really wants to impress us, let him design an amp that reproduces the music itself more closely than the Levinson, not one that emulates the Levinson. - Greg Paley
spoo@utcsrgv.UUCP (Suk Lee) (08/31/84)
<____________>
Yeah! Go Carver!
--
From the pooped paws of:
Suk Lee
..!{decvax,linus,allegra,ihnp4}!utcsrgv!spoobill@apl-uw.UUCP (Bill Hanot) (08/31/84)
Greg says let Carver design an amp that more closely reproduces the
music, not one that emulates another design (the Levinson).
I think what Carver was trying to accomplish was more in line with
merchandising than technical excellence. To me, Carver is saying
"the Levinson amp costs so much it must be good, but you can buy
my amp (which sounds *identical*) for 20% of the price and get
15 times the power to boot."
To *most* people shopping for an amp, that is truly impressive indeed!
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Bill Hanot {allegra,decvax,ucbvax!lbl-csam}!uw-beaver!apl-uw!bill
(206) 543-1300 ext. 1341
"love Seattle weather...10 million slugs can't be wrong!"rs55611@ihuxk.UUCP (Robert E. Schleicher) (08/31/84)
The article on "nulling" a Carver amp against a Mark Levinson amp was very interesting, both for Carver's technical approach, and for what I feel is a very smart marketing approach. There was on critical set of information missing, however. To determine whether the two amps are really identical, it is necessary to know what the total set of input signals that were applied during the nulling process was. For example, if the nulling was done only with steady-state sine waves, frequency range of sine waves applied, impulse signals applied (if any), tone bursts, etc. I'm not trying to imply that this wasn't done; just that I would want to see this information before fully accepting that a true "nulling" was accomplished. (Of course, the whole question is academic to me, anyway, as even the Carver amp is more money than I've got to spend on an amp!) Was this info included in the original article sent with the Carver amp? Bob Schleicher ihuxk!rs55611
dmmartindale@watcgl.UUCP (Dave Martindale) (09/01/84)
From: greg@olivej.UUCP (Greg Paley) I can't help but feel there is something fundamentally wrong with the idea of designing a piece of equipment with the goal of making it sound like another piece of equipment. If Carver really wants to impress us, let him design an amp that reproduces the music itself more closely than the Levinson, not one that emulates the Levinson. Well, yes and no. People have been building amplifiers for a long time with that goal in mind, but where amplifiers are different someone can always be found to like one better than another and thus pronouce it "better" at reproducing music. If Carver was to claim that his amplifier was somehow "better" than the Levinson, someone would inevitably dispute him. However, what he has done is to build an amplifier which is indistinguishable in sound from the Levinson - much more effective at silencing the critics. However, having proved that he can do it, and that any differences between his original product and the Levinson are relatively minor, the decision to actually build his amplifiers to sound like Levinsons seems like pure marketing rather than good engineering. I bet it sells a lot of amplifiers though.
phil@amd.UUCP (Phil Ngai) (09/03/84)
> Greg says let Carver design an amp that more closely reproduces the > music, not one that emulates another design (the Levinson). Carver did design an amp to accurately reproduce the music. It turned out that people would rather have an amp that sounds like the Levinson, so he modified the original design to make the customer happy. I think the way he is able to mimic another amplifier so easily shows that he really knows how to make an amplifier do what he wants. If he says his original design does what an amp should do, he's probably right. But people wanted the Mark Levinson sound. It's pretty funny, I think. -- Nerds of the world unite! Phil Ngai (408) 982-6554 UUCPnet: {ucbvax,decwrl,ihnp4,allegra,intelca}!amd!phil ARPAnet: amd!phil@decwrl.ARPA
rcd@opus.UUCP (Dick Dunn) (09/07/84)
> I can't help but feel there is something fundamentally wrong > with the idea of designing a piece of equipment with the goal > of making it sound like another piece of equipment. If Carver > really wants to impress us, let him design an amp that reproduces > the music itself more closely than the Levinson, not one that > emulates the Levinson. On the surface, this is a fair request. However, the fact is (and I'm sure Bob Carver knows it) that above a certain level of quality in the electronics, there are differences which CAN be perceived but which AREN'T really differences in quality; they're only slight differences in character. These become perceived as differences in quality only after some people listen and look at nameplates. I don't think that Carver is trying to impress us, nor is he trying to undercut ML. I DO think he's trying to educate us. -- Dick Dunn {hao,ucbvax,allegra}!nbires!rcd (303)444-5710 x3086 ...I'm not cynical - just experienced.