Carver Raven 350 Review (Tube Amp)

[DonR]

I get that. I hope he’s a better dentist than he he is a student of electronics. That said Schiit stuff is nowhere near $9k for a pair of amps. But your point is well taken. Someone must have told him Schiit was good. Not like he got talked into it at Best Buy. Ask him how he heard of them next time you get your teeth cleaned.

Unfortunately he isn't a great dentist either. He took over the practice from my previous one recently. I will probably look for another one soon. My point was that just because people are "into" hi-fi and call themselves audiophiles doesn't necessarily mean they know that much about it. Carver amp purchasers may be just as clueless.

 

[B&WTube]

That's why it's named Audio Science Review and I mentally separate the technical review from the comment section. The forum members can quibble about it how it sounds and the subjective elements people prefer.

Yes, but there has to be enough humility of the people looking at the science to realize that this hasn't been all figured out. We need to increase the use of science, but surely the goal should be to address subjective observations with scientific explanation.

Here’s the problem, there’s absolutely no information that I could find about testing, and just because someone gets the idea in their head that it’s an improvement, doesn’t mean it’s going to be.

I agree that better specs and measurements should be more available across all audio gear.
VTA Amp has much larger and better built transformers, and if you understand tube amp design at all- the transformers are the most critical part. The voltage is higher on the VTA, and when coupled with the a far bigger quad cap and choke- bass response is going to greatly improve and it is going to be faster overall. All of the components are better spec (tighter tolerance) than the original- which as still a budget amp. Furthermore, the VTA board has individual bias pots, uses 3 tubes better tubes which adds a tube which is the initial voltage amplifier, before going to the individual channel's signal tubes (significantly better design). Also, you are able to ditch the the old budget 7199's, you can run several better tubes. Even the whole things has better wiring.

So, the VTA-70 is the 2022 Tundra, and you have the ST-70. Both great, but are you really going to argue that objectively yours is better than the new one? AudioscienceReview is arguing that the ST-70 is better, and I would love to see this go over to the Dynaco forum and argue that the ST-70 is technically better- because it is so obvious that the VTA is a much stronger and cleaner amp.

All that to still say that what Amir does at ASR is EXTREMELY VALUABLE, much needed, and measurements are well done. I am just convinced there is a good bit more to learn, understand, and measure to really understand how to best reproduce sound. In order to do this, there has to be people smarter than me trying to figure out how to quantify this, but that will not happen until it is admitted everything is not known and understood about audio.

 

[Mnyb]

Unfortunately he isn't a great dentist either. He took over the practice from my previous one recently. I will probably look for another one soon. My point was that just because people are "into" hi-fi and call themselves audiophiles doesn't necessarily mean they know that much about it. Carver amp purchasers may be just as clueless.

The whole hobby is a dunning kruger effect bonanza spending decades of bying expensive and weird audio equipment that you usually don't even setup correctly.
The typical audiophile is clueless and I include myself during most of the time i've had this hobby.
I never seen a hobby where so few of the participants actually knows what they are doing.

Thanks for sites like ASR that makes the effort to teach us how sh*t works , that should have been the audio rags works , but they test power cords instead

 

[DMill]

Unfortunately he isn't a great dentist either. He took over the practice from my previous one recently. I will probably look for another one soon. My point was that just because people are "into" hi-fi and call themselves audiophiles doesn't necessarily mean they know that much about it. Carver amp purchasers may be just as clueless.

I’d say ask him if he’s ever heard of Carver while you’re at it but if he buys a pair your cost for healthy teeth might go up.

 

[DMill]

The whole hobby is a dunning kruger effect bonanza spending decades of bying expensive and weird audio equipment that you usually don't even setup correctly.
The typical audiophile is clueless and I include myself during most of the time i've had this hobby.
I never seen a hobby where so few of the participants actually knows what they are doing.

Thanks for sites like ASR that makes the effort to teach us how sh*t works , that should have been the audio rags works , but they test power cords instead

I agree. I’ve also spent a long time in the dark until sites like this. I’m not an engineer and depended on Hifi shops and magazines for information. Stereophile was all I was using as a source for measurements and they were extremely hard to understand as there was never any context or comparison of the results. Just JA at the ended summing it up with something like “it measures respectably”. With the wealth of information out there now though, I rarely feel too bad for someone not willing to do a little research before making a $9k amp purchase. Hell, I spent 3 days researching the last $200 vacuum I bought. But that’s just me

 

[DonR]

I’d say ask him if he’s ever heard of Carver while you’re at it but if he buys a pair your cost for healthy teeth might go up.

I had a previous one that used to boast about skiing in Japan. I dumped him too.

 

[hvbias]

In order to do this, there has to be people smarter than me trying to figure out how to quantify this, but that will not happen until it is admitted everything is not known and understood about audio.

That's the great thing about science, any real scientist will tell you we're always learning and gaining more insight into things At least a handful of times a year I send off cases to a major academic center because I simply don't know even though I'm a subspecialist.

 

[Deleted member 50971]

Yes, but there has to be enough humility of the people looking at the science to realize that this hasn't been all figured out. We need to increase the use of science, but surely the goal should be to address subjective observations with scientific explanation.

I agree that better specs and measurements should be more available across all audio gear.
VTA Amp has much larger and better built transformers, and if you understand tube amp design at all- the transformers are the most critical part. The voltage is higher on the VTA, and when coupled with the a far bigger quad cap and choke- bass response is going to greatly improve and it is going to be faster overall. All of the components are better spec (tighter tolerance) than the original- which as still a budget amp. Furthermore, the VTA board has individual bias pots, uses 3 tubes better tubes which adds a tube which is the initial voltage amplifier, before going to the individual channel's signal tubes (significantly better design). Also, you are able to ditch the the old budget 7199's, you can run several better tubes. Even the whole things has better wiring.

So, the VTA-70 is the 2022 Tundra, and you have the ST-70. Both great, but are you really going to argue that objectively yours is better than the new one? AudioscienceReview is arguing that the ST-70 is better, and I would love to see this go over to the Dynaco forum and argue that the ST-70 is technically better- because it is so obvious that the VTA is a much stronger and cleaner amp.

All that to still say that what Amir does at ASR is EXTREMELY VALUABLE, much needed, and measurements are well done. I am just convinced there is a good bit more to learn, understand, and measure to really understand how to best reproduce sound. In order to do this, there has to be people smarter than me trying to figure out how to quantify this, but that will not happen until it is admitted everything is not known and understood about audio.

Hi, I agree with some of that, but just because someone puts bigger better transformers in, and add some tubes doesn’t mean it’s going to perform any better. As witnessed by the measurements that Amir did, the original ST 70 measured better.

What about my preamp that Bob supposedly turned into a super preamp? Was it necessary? Is it more transparent than mine? Where’s the data to back it up, or is it just part of a sea of online folklore? Here it is in black-and-white, if you’re going to claim bigger better stronger faster show me the specs.

Maybe Bobs preamp measures better than my stock SP-14 but I seriously doubt it, and I seriously doubt it sounds any better. That’s the extent of my knowledge, and does my SP 14 that Roy Mottram built sound any better because I opted for the best capacitors he had to offer, the NOS tubes, The XLR inputs and outputs, and a couple other things that were upgraded? I’ll bet in a double blind test no one was picking mine out over the less expensive version.

Everybody hears differences… When they’re sighted. If you go on Audiogon there is more opinions than there is gear out there, and for the most part it’s all money based… Spend more money get better quality. Untrue, and unless something is engineered properly it could cost $20,000 and sound no better, possibly worse, and possibly measure worse. That’s my two cents, although I get what you’re saying and theoretically it should all work out. Don’t forget that they had tube amps pretty perfected for the most part especially by the 1960s, so decades of design goes out the window with these many of these new pieces in my opinion.

Not to disagree with you entirely, I do get what you’re saying.

 

[DonR]

All that to still say that what Amir does at ASR is EXTREMELY VALUABLE, much needed, and measurements are well done. I am just convinced there is a good bit more to learn, understand, and measure to really understand how to best reproduce sound. In order to do this, there has to be people smarter than me trying to figure out how to quantify this, but that will not happen until it is admitted everything is not known and understood about audio.

The science has been settled on that for many decades. Most of what remains is in the realm of psychoacoustics and human psychology.

 

[Deleted member 50971]

^^^Or i could have just said that

 

[DonR]

From Ethan Winer's site:

 

[Ken Tajalli]

Hi, I agree with some of that, but just because someone puts bigger better transformers in, and add some tubes doesn’t mean it’s going to perform any better. As witnessed by the measurements that Amir did, the original ST 70 measured better.

What about my preamp that Bob supposedly turned into a super preamp? Was it necessary? Is it more transparent than mine? Where’s the data to back it up, or is it just part of a sea of online folklore? Here it is in black-and-white, if you’re going to claim bigger better stronger faster show me the specs.

Maybe Bobs preamp measures better than my stock SP-14 but I seriously doubt it, and I seriously doubt it sounds any better. That’s the extent of my knowledge, and does my SP 14 that Roy Mottram built sound any better because I opted for the best capacitors he had to offer, the NOS tubes, The XLR inputs and outputs, and a couple other things that were upgraded? I’ll bet in a double blind test no one was picking mine out over the less expensive version.

Everybody hears differences… When they’re sighted. If you go on Audiogon there is more opinions than there is gear out there, and for the most part it’s all money based… Spend more money get better quality. Untrue, and unless something is engineered properly it could cost $20,000 and sound no better, possibly worse, and possibly measure worse. That’s my two cents, although I get what you’re saying and theoretically it should all work out. Don’t forget that they had tube amps pretty perfected for the most part especially by the 1960s, so decades of design goes out the window with these many of these new pieces in my opinion.

Not to disagree with you entirely, I do get what you’re saying.

And I have built output transformer less (OTL) monoblocks, with a 600VA mains transformer, four Powersupplies , lots of charge storage and two chokes, giving me only about 50 W a channel.
Sounds pretty good, weighs a ton each.
But I wouldn't say it sounds any better than my Meridian 556 amp (100W). not on the whole!
But somehow, it sounds more powerful, even though it has half the power.
BTW , it has 4 double triodes at power section, one double triode input/voltage amplifier, and two double triodes driver section, per side. can't get much more elaborate than that.
And yet .....

 

[Deleted member 50971]

And I have built output transformer less (OTL) monoblocks, with a 600VA mains transformer, four Powersupplies , lots of charge storage and two chokes, giving me only about 50 W a channel.
Sounds pretty good, weighs a ton each.
But I wouldn't say it sounds any better than my Meridian 556 amp (100W). not on the whole!
But somehow, it sounds more powerful, even though it has half the power.
BTW , it has 4 double triodes at power section, one double triode input/voltage amplifier, and two double triodes driver section, per side. can't get much more elaborate than that.
And yet .....

It sounds great, and someday I may go for a tube amp, but I have to see the specs, or see published specs.

I was always under the assumption that the Mac tube amps were more show than go, but I’ve learned today that they actually measure very well and sound great. looks like a minimum of $5000 for a decent one and they go for as high as $10,000. Umm I’ll keep my Pascal based class D amps and just enjoy transparency rather than spend that kind of money. For nostalgia I have a 30 year old pair of amps also, as well as a Fisher integrated tube amp. I get the tube fascination, and they are fun at times.

 

[Billy Budapest]

picture below is from the Carver website.

View attachment 225498

Looks like the neutral pin is not connected to a chassis ground, answering my earlier question. I would not take my chances with this amp.

 

[Mnyb]

And I have built output transformer less (OTL) monoblocks, with a 600VA mains transformer, four Powersupplies , lots of charge storage and two chokes, giving me only about 50 W a channel.
Sounds pretty good, weighs a ton each.
But I wouldn't say it sounds any better than my Meridian 556 amp (100W). not on the whole!
But somehow, it sounds more powerful, even though it has half the power.
BTW , it has 4 double triodes at power section, one double triode input/voltage amplifier, and two double triodes driver section, per side. can't get much more elaborate than that.
And yet .....

An OTL can have quite high output impedance ? so with most speakers the frequency response will be slightly modified , it might possibly be in such way that it's sounds "richer"

 

[Billy Budapest]

I was always under the assumption that the Mac tube amps were more show than go, but I’ve learned today that they actually measure very well and sound great.

Frank McIntosh, Gordon Gow, and Sidney Corderman were REAL engineers. Among the three, we are talking MIT, DoD, Bell Labs, the whole nine yards.

 

[caught gesture]

Yes, but there has to be enough humility of the people looking at the science to realize that this hasn't been all figured out. We need to increase the use of science, but surely the goal should be to address subjective observations with scientific explanation.

In order to do this, there has to be people smarter than me trying to figure out how to quantify this, but that will not happen until it is admitted everything is not known and understood about audio.

There is plenty of science addressing your subjective observations. It’s the research into cognitive biases. There’s mountains of the stuff.

No one is claiming that everything is known but a great deal is. You seem to want to call into question what is known by claiming that some future science will discredit the present science. Perhaps that is not your inference, but it is a common challenge in the audiophile community especially when trying to justify cognitive bias without admitting that it exists.

 

[Mnyb]

MacIntosh as brand is not what it once was ,as so many hifi brands that's just husk of what they really where .

back in the day when they mattered , they where legit .

 

[Asmodeus2112]

I would love an explanation of how this works...

Another significant feature of Bob’s design is its ability to “listen to the room,” sometimes referred to as the ‘speaker-microphone effect.’ Facilitated by a special current feedback loop, it allows the amplifier to ‘hear’ the room's reverb, along with its unique sonic signature. Each room plays its own tune, and this amp uses the speaker as a microphone by using the speaker in reverse (the theorem of reciprocity) to ‘listen to the room,’ thereby allowing a portion of the room acoustic to be expressed through the main speakers. Think of it this way, the room becomes an integral part of the music in a way no other amplifier allows. The sound is more majestic, more realistic, and the soundstage is larger and more compelling than it would be without this unique, spooky and strange ability. To be sure, all tube amps do this in small, almost miniscule amounts (Harry Pearson noted this long ago), but this amplifier does it to a great extent and in a rather complex manner by very intentional and special design. This phenomenon is impossible to achieve with normal solid-state amplifier designs, whose low source (output) impedance effectively shorts out the speaker’s ability to accomplish this feat.

 

[Purité Audio]

April the 1st already?
Keith