minn_male42 Posted March 16, 2003 Share Posted March 16, 2003 ok...i know...i know...everyone says tube amps for our beloved klipsch... but i have a carver M-400t running my KLF-30's right now and the sound is simply amazing.... always the one looking for an upgrade.....anyone else out there using carver with their klipsch???... which amp are you using???? i'm in the mood to upgrade....are their better carver amps out there???? not just more power...i have plenty of power at 200 watts per channel...looking for better sound...... any opinions would be appreciated... oh..lets keep it at a realistic price point....(i love my kids but i hate the child suppport!!) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jt1stcav Posted March 17, 2003 Share Posted March 17, 2003 I used a 1984 M-400t for a short time when I first got my dad's Cornwalls, and then tried a 1996 TFM-35x...both amps sounded great with the Cornwalls; there was no marked improvement with the TFM-35x over the M-400t. There are other better Carver amps out there, but they're all more powerfull and more expensive, and all are overkill for your efficient KLF-30s. Last year I even used a 200WPC McIntosh MC7200 (originally bought for my Magnepans), but again, it was a waste of power on my Cornwalls (still sounded great though). Carver did make tube monoblocks, the Silver Nines, I think. But they're outrageously expensive, and still more power than is required for Klipsch. I don't think any other Carver amp will sound any better than what you're using now, and they're all more powerfull. Even if you bought a Sunfire stereo amp, I doubt whether you'd hear any major difference. Don't get me wrong...I love Carver components (see my system on Odds and Mods Forum), and if I had kept my Maggies, I'd still be using Carver. But if you're thinking of upgrading to a better amp for your Klipsch, then you're really better off spending your money on vacuum tube amps, IMHO. BTW, the very first time I heard Klipschorns was at a friend's house in 1980; he had 4 Klipschorns in each corner of his massive music room, each pair powered by two Carver M-500t Magnetic Field power amps...beautiful! I'll never forget how magical that system sounded. His Carver/Klipsch audio system was the most realistic sounding system I have ever heard...his source back then were only two Nakamichi 680ZX cassette decks (no vinyl, and CDs hadn't been introduced to the public yet). And his system was the very reason why I bought Carver components several years later (my dad's Cornwalls...mine now...are what introduced him to Klipsch. But he could afford four brand new Klipschorns!). Enjoy your Carver amp! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chickey Posted March 17, 2003 Share Posted March 17, 2003 If you look at my signature, you'll see I've got Carver amps powering my entire system. I used to have M1.0ts powering the system, but those old Magnetic Field amps could be very noisy (hummmm.....) with ultra sensitive Klipsch. I then upgraded the system to TFM 35x's (not a mag field design) in an attempt to weed out the noise and get a more tube-like sound from the system. The 35x's were designed to emulate the legendary Carver Lightstar amp at a more down to earth price. Last year, I had the opportunity to purchase one of the 77 Lightstars ever produced, and it sounds superb with my Klipsch. Forget the specs -- I'll never use the 300 WPC or come anywhere close -- but the neutral sound, total absence of noise, and dynamic quality of the amp is outstanding. None of the harshness you'd typically associate with a powerful solid state are present in the Lightstar. I now have the 35x's powering the centers and surrounds. I have to tell you, they really do a teriffic job of emulating the Lightstar (they were built to sound like the Lightstar, but didn't employ as sophisticated circuitry, and hence retailed for about quarter of the Lightstar's MSRP). They are quiet and very smooth -- most notably in the midrange -- and have a very pleasing top-end. Any harshness that existed in the system before has since been eradicated. I really enjoy both Carver products. And yes, even though Carver has gone through bankruptcy, you can still get them serviced through Sunfire. Like many, I've had all kinds of amps in and out of my system since my first Klipsch purchase. But I'm keeping these. Perhaps one day, when time and money permit, and the little one is older, I'll set-up a 2 channel system based on a tube amp. But for those of us who can't devote the resources to the proper care and feeding of a tube amp, the Carver solid states I've referenced sound awfully good (dare I say tube-like??) My 2 cents, FWIW.... C Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chuckears Posted March 17, 2003 Share Posted March 17, 2003 I ran the Carver M200t (with the C2 preamp) with my Fortes for the first several years after I bought them... the sound was good, but not incredible. When I swapped the Carver set-up for McCormack (DNA-1 and TLC1), it was as if my Fortes (then over 10-years old) were completely different speakers. I nearly cried when hearing some music with which I was familiar for (apparently) the first time. Klipsch speakers LOVE quality amp\pre-amp feeding. Not to denigrate your own system, but I would have to characterize the Carver set-up I had (admittedly the lower-powered of the line) as sounding "pedestrian". You can find the McCormack DNA .5 used for under $800, and the TLC1 passive preamp for about half that amount. Many have rated the McCormack amps as near-tube quality; I wouldn't know, not being a tubie myself (or even listening to someone elses, for that matter). I can say that upgrading offered me a renewed interest in music, and now home theater (much to my wife's chagrin, but hey, at least I'm home!). You'll notice on my signature that the McCormack components are no longer in my system... as part of a home theater upgrade path, I went slightly backwards in amplifier quality to obtain 5-channel balance. The Rotel I have now is nice, but with another $1K to spend, I would have most definitely gone with the McCormack 5-channel HT5... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mighty Favog Posted March 18, 2003 Share Posted March 18, 2003 If any of you guys are interested in a C-1 preamp or an MX-150 Receiver(the 150 has an issue) just let me know. I've had them in storage for two years and decided I don't need them anymore. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sax Posted March 19, 2003 Share Posted March 19, 2003 ---------------- On 3/16/2003 11:46:24 PM minn_male42 wrote: ok...i know...i know...everyone says tube amps for our beloved klipsch... but i have a carver M-400t running my KLF-30's right now and the sound is simply amazing.... always the one looking for an upgrade.....anyone else out there using carver with their klipsch???... which amp are you using???? i'm in the mood to upgrade....are their better carver amps out there???? not just more power...i have plenty of power at 200 watts per channel...looking for better sound...... any opinions would be appreciated... oh..lets keep it at a realistic price point....(i love my kids but i hate the child suppport!!) ---------------- minn_male42, I purchased my KSP-400's in '97' and first powered them with my "Carver Receiver" (130w.X2) at the time. I loved this receiver, and was always intrigued with the whole Carver concept. The story doesn't stop there, though. While showing them off to my "Klipsch Budds", (crankin them up, bangin on the drums etc.) the Carver went up in smoke and took my cd player with it, and the variable output of my XBR/2, as well. It was a horrible experience. The damage was inconclusive toward determining which piece was the initial culprit. The good news though, no damage to the Klipsch. Next, I went to a used Adcom tuner/pre-amp processor (prologic) with a new Adcom 3-channel (200w,X3) high current amp. I immediately heard a great improvement, particularly in the bass. Deeper, tighter with much more control. This surprised me, because the speakers each have a 200watt, 15inch sub built in, and I'm feeding them via the speaker level input. I recently upgraded to digital with a Denon AVR-3803, 110w, X7. (This is one slick receiver) So, the test was to run all channels from within first, then the front three channels with the Adcom. As good as the Denon is, the bass improved again, much in the same way as with the Carver/Adcom comparison before. Because the Klipsch are so efficient, 110watts will drive them to crazy levels, but more power with better "damping" characteristics (control) really is the answer. I should note that my 2-channel listening is just as, if not more important to me than the surround. (Although, I'm enjoying the heck out of DVDs now, a whole new world.) Another note, I'm using my old JBL L-36's for the rear which work great, but now I wish I had bought the matching KSP-S6 surrounds in '97' but didn't have the cash or the need at the time. I can only conclude, that as much as I enjoyed my Carver, and as efficient as the Klipsch are, they will always sound there best with a 200watt (or more) traditional "high current" power amp, because of the increased control. I have witnessed this with LaScala's and K-horns as well. Oh! One more thing. I too, can truly appreciate the warm sound of a good tube amp, but still prefer a good high current MOS-FET amp for their dynamics and control. If the amp is heavy to pick up, youre on the right path. Good luck. Sax Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Colin Posted March 19, 2003 Share Posted March 19, 2003 Every time the issue of Carver amplifiers with super-sensitive horns appears, I just have to chime in. There are a few amps that I feel are NOT a good match for the super-efficient models of Klipsch (95 dB/w/m or more). Carver is one. What Carver did with Class D amplifiers and small, powered sub-woofers is remarkable. He virtually created the concept of the small subwoofer (and help propel multi-channel theaters in the home). Yet, his older style amplifiers are not a good match with big old horns. Once upon a time, in a land cold and gray, I lived with a blue-gray solid state Carver M1.5t amplifier, capable of 750-watt peaks per channel! This amplifier drove my Cornwall Is to thunderous levels. They rattled the windows and shook the 150-year-old floorboards. Dust, which had not seen the light of day for decades, flew into the air. It was much like sticking a car engine on a go-cart. Lots of raw power. Every once in awhile, we would tempt fate and turn up the volume in my small 150 year old New England home. The live digital cannon shots on Telarcs 1812 Overture smacked the floor, tickled the toes, nervously rattled windows, impressed teenagers and created a tsunami big enough to scare Tokyo. You could feel it all right. Plenty of bass control. Even with out a sub-woofer, my Cornwalls had no problems with this unusual musical piece. The long-term combination of the two components however, did not make music. The noisy THD of the amplifier wore out my ears at normal listening levels and eventually, over a period of time, music listening lost its pleasure and stereos fell to the bottom of my hobby list. As impressively accurate as impedance control of such solid-state behemoths can be over the dips of the woofer, in the long run this does not seem to be as important as the type of distortion the SS amplifiers create. The SS form of Total Harmonic Distortion, albeit it quite measurably low, is not as nice to enjoy as the more natural, instrument-like, albeit measurably high levels of THD, created by tube powered amplifiers. There is a reason why HORNS LOVE TUBES. The critical first watt of power upon which most of their music reproduction takes place is apparently quite revealing of the type of THD generated. Though brief 750-watt peaks are not too much for the Klipsch loudspeakers to handle; Carver amplifiers are too much for my ears to handle. If you love the Carver, then I would consider really good radiator cone style speakers, such as the very well regarded PSB line in Canada or the B&W copies (Swan) from Diva, or even electrostatics (though I do not know how this combination stacks up). I realize that what I seek in a movie and music reproduction system is not what many, if not most, people are looking for. Soundstage and imaging are very important to me, for example. Plenty of bass is important too. The big SS amplifiers can provide bass punch better than the tube ones do. But in the long run, the Carver SS amplifier wore out my ears. While my flea-powered Bottlehead 2A3 Paramours need active subwoofer support to beef up the bottom-end of music and movies, they make most super-sensitive loudspeakers (horns and cones) sound quick, dynamic, sweet, delicate, detailed, textured, real and live. They dont wear out my ears. They encourage music listening and movie viewing. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chickey Posted March 19, 2003 Share Posted March 19, 2003 Colin, Colin, Colin, Your hands must be getting tired cutting and pasting that same old Carver story. In defense of Carver products, the M series (200T, 400T, 1.0t, 1.5t, etc.) are all old magnetic field designs. They were tremendous engineering achievements for their time, but c'mon, they are 20 year old designs. Paired with Klipsch, they may or may not make music. They will make noise, as the magnetic field designs were always known for transformer hum (which our good old Klipsch will faithfully reproduce). Jim Croft led a design in the early 90's which radically altered the engineering topology of Carver amps. Most of the breakthroughs came as the team engineered the legendary Lightstar amp. The Lightstar was based on the principle of a tracking power supply, which provided high current and could drive almost any load. Carver had tried to build such an amp in the 70's and 80's, but eventually gave up and opted for the mag field design instead. The result of Croft's work was the Carver Lightstar, which every reviewer who auditioned it remarked at how absolutely neutral it was. The problem with the Lightstar was that it had to be built by hand, and employed some very sophisticated circuitry in order to achieve a signal tracking voltage that is infinitely variable. The result carried a price tag of $4,000, which took it out of mass market reach. Croft and his team took the learnings from the Lightstar and created a series of Carver amps that utilized a similar topology to the Lightstar, but with design tradeoffs to cut cost. The biggest tradeoff was the application of three discrete rail voltages as opposed to an infinitely variable implementation. The result, as many reviewers observed, was an amp that was very smooth, could drive difficult loads, and sounded remarkably like the Lightstar. The TFM 35x and 55x amps are based on this design, as are the later A-series amps. By this point, Bob Carver had left Carver and founded Sunfire (actually, the board booted old Bob and then proceeded to run the company into bankruptcy). Bob took the original Lightstar design and created Sunfire. The Sunfire amps also feature tracking power supplies. As a matter of fact, the tracking power supply is at the core of Sunfire's subwoofers as well...they are the reason why such prodigious power can emanate from such a small footprint. Bob stated that he "voiced" the Sunfire amps on the side of being slightly warmer than the Lightstar (I believe through the insertion of 1 ohm resistors at the output stages). The Lightstar, on the other hand, has been touted as dead on neutral (nothing added, nothing subtracted). Tube-o-philes who have heard it are amazed at how...shudder to saw..."tubelike" it sounds. Enough of the history lesson. I always chuckle when folks denigrate the old Carvers and then tout their Sunfires. They're all a product of continuous engineering evolution. But as Colin and others have pointed out repeatedly, it's how it sounds at the end of the day that really matters. If a particular solid state sounds good with your Klipsch, go for it. If a tube amp is a better combo with your beloved PWKs, congratulations as well. But don't dismiss a product because of the name on the faceplate until you've actually heard it with your set-up. You might just be surprised. My 2 cents, FWIW... Colin (the other one) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
artto Posted March 19, 2003 Share Posted March 19, 2003 First, for those of you who have the Klipsch Dope From Hope papers, Id like to refer you to the one titled The Ultimate LSH, & specifically the footnotes on the back/bottom of the page. Bob Carver apparently made some pretty stupid statements in Audio Magazine way back in 1972. PWKs Ultimate LSH Loudspeaker was published in the Journal of the Audio Engineering Society. Its a spoof on Carvers dumb comments regarding speaker design. As you might have guessed by now, Im not a big Carver fan. Even going all the way back to the Phase Linear stuff. The amps like the 1.5ts spent probably no more than 5 or 10 minutes in my system. For a long time Carver claimed he could make any solid state amp sound like any tube amp. I never heard it. By the way, Im not anti-solid state. I use SS gear much of the time. Just not sure I can trust one from a guy who doesnt understand things like the laws of physics. But, as chickey has pointed out, those designs are over 20 years old (has it really been that long already? LoL). And apparently they have someone else designing things now. I like to keep an open mind. So maybe its time to revisit. They sure look nice. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Greenway Posted March 19, 2003 Share Posted March 19, 2003 I am running a M500t powering my KLF-30's. It sounds amazing. I used to run my Heresy's since the middle 80's with the M500t dong the 2-channel thing. I would get another cube (one for each speaker). We used a cube to run a pair of Lascalas in mid 80's. My old roommate used to DJ for parties. Wow what a amp! Had the police called on us a lot. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Colin Posted March 21, 2003 Share Posted March 21, 2003 Nah, it is not so much work as you would think: I re-write it each time. It does seems as if such bold claims need valid proof. Thanks for the history lesson, guess I wasnt talking about the man, but the amplifier. Colin, the original one. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
johnnyp Posted March 21, 2003 Share Posted March 21, 2003 My experience with Carver Magnetic Field amps is similar to artto and Colin. I remember being all excited when I met someone "in the business" who got me a great deal on a Carver. Now, I don't even remember the model number. I do remember thinking "Gee, for an amp that is capable of 375 watts/channel it sure doesn't weigh much. Maybe this is the future of amplifier design?" I hooked it up to my brother' s Klipschorns with great expectation only to be disappointed. The music would play clean and loud without distortion but it was lifeless and uninvolving. I disconnected it within the week and sold it within a month. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pineapplesweat Posted June 5, 2023 Share Posted June 5, 2023 (edited) I run heresy ii with Bob Crite upgraded crossovers and diaphragms on a Bob Carver m 1.0t and I love it!  Not so much bass but wonderful for my 1500 sq ft studio. I added a pair of Klipsch old school Rb3s as monitors which filled in the bass nicely.  Hell I even rocked a block party in Brooklyn with this set up.  I use a custom Rane Mp24 as my mixer.  I added a Carver C-1 hifi control console and it’s fabulous!  Edited June 5, 2023 by pineapplesweat Update 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
the real Duke Spinner Posted June 17, 2023 Share Posted June 17, 2023 Carver was made to a price point A " warm" sound" Not bad, not great ...Bob Carver really laid on the marketing bullchidt. 😀 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.