Carver Raven 350 Review (Tube Amp)

[SuicideSquid]

Unless the circuits are patented, you can copy them freely.

You know, I was going to put an asterisk on that comment, and then was like "whatever, doesn't really matter, I said 'can', not 'will'"

I should trust the ASR community to be pedantic ;-)

 

[SIY]

I also think there is greater longevity with JAN tubes. I don’t think a consumer GE 6550a is necessarily different than a JAN GE 6550a in sound, but I think you are more likely to find JAN tubes in more consistent condition due to how they were stored before surplused.

Are you saying that you think the EL34 and 6550a sound the same? Since they can be biased differently I do think there's a difference in sound. I do think there is a difference in sound depending how you bias the tubes even if you didn't change it.

I don't have a good way to test amplifiers, but am willing to measure my SFS-80 with JAN GE 6550a and JAN Sylvania 6DJ8's since any digital ADC should be more than adequate to show that it's better than this amp (if it is indeed better) at the 1 to 5W range

Is there any actual evidence that an EL34 based amp sounds any different than a similar 6550a based amp, or is this just audiophile legend?

 

[tomtoo]

5

Well I'm a guitarist, and always on the lookout for the best 'dirty' tube sound.

Maybe alone not dirty enough. But 600W dynamic power on 4*12inch is some force.

 

[GXAlan]

Is there any actual evidence that an EL34 based amp sounds any different than a similar 6550a based amp, or is this just audiophile legend?

Hard to know -- it's where it would make sense to test.

The EL34 and 6550a are identical sockets, so you can use the same exact amp and just swap tubes. If you ran both tubes at the lower EL34 bias or both tubes at the higher 6550a bias, the question is if there is the same sound quality? Maybe. But if the EL34 wears out faster because you are running too much current through it, then it's going to change the sound and then it's like comparing a worn out tube versus a new tube.

Is there a difference in sound between worn out and not worn out tubes? definitely. Some of it is as simple as gain/volume.
Is this difference slow/steady or a cliff? Not sure.

 

[tomtoo]

 

[SIY]

Hard to know -- it's where it would make sense to test.

The EL34 and 6550a are identical sockets, so you can use the same exact amp and just swap tubes. If you ran both tubes at the lower EL34 bias or both tubes at the higher 6550a bias, the question is if there is the same sound quality? Maybe. But if the EL34 wears out faster because you are running too much current through it, then it's going to change the sound and then it's like comparing a worn out tube versus a new tube.

Is there a difference in sound between worn out and not worn out tubes? definitely. Some of it is as simple as gain/volume.
Is this difference slow/steady or a cliff? Not sure.

It puzzles me why someone would want to put an incorrect tube into an amp, misadjust it, let it burn out, then discuss the “sound differences.”

 

[DonR]

It puzzles me why someone would want to put an incorrect tube into an amp, misadjust it, let it burn out, then discuss the “sound differences.”

"It hasn't fully burned in until it has burned out."

 

[SIY]

"It hasn't fully burned in until it has burned out."

“If you haven’t broken it, you haven’t tested it.”

 

[DonR]

@amirm what did you make of this amp's party trick of speaker/room interaction? Carver has some strange claims for it.

 

[AudioSceptic]

I think you've taken the wrong lesson from this Stereophile story.

What it goes to show is that the writers of Stereophile are lunatics.

I particularly liked this bit:

"The possibility of Carver's manufacturing his modified amplifier raises some very knotty questions concerning morality and legality. Does an amplifier manufacturer who designs something from scratch, coming up with a sound unique to that product, have the exclusive right to that sound? In other words, is it dishonest or even illegal for someone to use a technique such as Carver's transfer function analysis to duplicate that "unique" sound, without having done all the usual homework involved in designing an amplifier from scratch?"

No, this does not raise any "knotty questions" around legality. There is nothing in law that would give you any intellectual property over a "sound". The only way you're running afoul of IP law is if you literally reverse engineer and directly copy the circuits.

Didn't Carver sell versions of his amps shortly after that with a "t" suffix, meaning that their transfer functions were emulating those of the "high end" reference amps in the Stereophile challenge? Did he do this because at the time the identity of the reference was secret, or would he have done it anyway?

 

[amirm]

@amirm what did you make of this amp's party trick of speaker/room interaction? Carver has some strange claims for it.

It makes no sense.

 

[norcalscott]

Seriously though, who buys this sh!te?

IMO this is just another money grab off of Bob Carver's name, and nothing more. The 275 was aimed at the "lower end" of the audiophile market and this unit is aimed at the "higher tier" of folks who have more money to spend on boutique looking products. I'm sure two of these look cool in a doctor's/lawyer's/CEO's audio rack in the recreation room with an expensive pool table and other odds and ends of things to look at and play with.

 

[DonR]

It makes no sense.

Thanks, I was trying to wrap my head around the claims. Looks like I was trying too hard.

 

[KEFCarver]

Didn't Carver sell versions of his amps shortly after that with a "t" suffix, meaning that their transfer functions were emulating those of the "high end" reference amps in the Stereophile challenge? Did he do this because at the time the identity of the reference was secret, or would he have done it anyway?

Yes- "t" meant Tube transfer function if I remember correctly

 

[caught gesture]

When do the new member, one thread participants arrive to educate us?

 

[SuicideSquid]

Didn't Carver sell versions of his amps shortly after that with a "t" suffix, meaning that their transfer functions were emulating those of the "high end" reference amps in the Stereophile challenge? Did he do this because at the time the identity of the reference was secret, or would he have done it anyway?

IP law actually would be engaged there - Carver wouldn't be able to use the name of the reference amp in the model number, and would have to be very careful about the way he used the name in advertising materials, or he could run afoul of trademark laws. Easier to just be cagey.

 

[fpitas]

It’s as if someone made a cinema amplifier from the 60s or 50s.

This belongs in a museum or some sort of exhibition.

Those amps worked better. Somebody boned this poor thing badly.

 

[Deleted member 50971]

It is for setting the bias of the tubes. Useful feature as tubes change specs over time and for tube-swappers.

Who is going trust a VU meter to set the bias on their tube amp? I guess it could get you in the ballpark though, but I’d still be afraid it would be off.

 

[fpitas]

Who is going trust a VU meter to set the bias on their tube amp? I guess it could get you in the ballpark though, but I’d still be afraid it would be off.

Screams "gimmick".

 

[Deleted member 50971]

Well, they have a more budget friendly version.

View attachment 225172

That kind of reminds me of the old flip over styli on a console, or other record player. One side for 33, and the other side for 45 or 78.