Carver Crimson 275 Review (Tube Amp)

[Travis]

Incorrect.
One does not have to put a CE marker on the device BUT all electronic devices intended for consumers DO need to comply to CE norms.
This amp may well comply to class-II. It would have to be tested for this and must comply to CE standards when sold to consumers in the EU.
It does not have the proper IEC inlets for that, there is no class-II symbol on it. The used IEC plug suggests it is a class-I product but is NOT a class-I product simply because safety ground is not connected to the chassis (metal parts that can be touched).

As far as we know NO such test reports are available and likely have not been done either.

The fact that Bob offers to have the ground pin connected on request says enough as well...


The amp may well be safe to use though and might even be 'properly grounded' when connected using RCA plugs. That does not take away the fact that the used 'method' of providing ground lift is not correct.
When ground lift were the goal the IEC pin should have been connected to the chassis and audio ground should not have been tied to the chassis.
Would you agree with this or do you have a different opinion ?

I respectfully disagree. However, I think it is because of the very narrow points I am trying to make with regard to products sold in the US may have confused things for everyone. You are making assumptions that it was sold in the EU, I haven't seen anything to suggest that. A US domestic product doesn't need to comply with CE standards. US products do not need to comply with CE norms, only those intended for sale or shipped to EU. It's not relevant to whether the amp is "safe" or not safe in the US. (Based on the informed opinions in this thread, and the fact that they are offering to "fix it" I don't think it is safe, but what I think doesn't matter). "You couldn't sell that in the EU, or China, or Timbuktu" has no bearing on the issue at hand. It doesn't violate any laws in the US.

If a product such as that did injure someone or cause a fire, the issue in a civil court would be whether it was "defective" in either design or as built. If you prove the product is defective, the manufacturer is strictly liable for all foreseeable damages. Evidence that it was defective would come from design engineers in that field, probably EEs, who would testify to what is "reasonable and customary" engineering practice for similar products in the US. The plaintiffs' experts would testify why it falls below a reasonable standard, the defendant would find people to say why it is reasonable. A jury would decide. Neither side would be able to put in evidence of what the EU requires, what a CE certification would have done/not done, or even a UL certification. If there was a government standard for that specific product (US autos for example) that could be relevant, but there doesn't appear to be. What would be relevant is what the reasonable engineering standard is in the US for similar products and why the product either does, or does not meet that standard.

This amp may well comply to class-II. That would be relevant and the defense would be asserting that if they had an expert and evidence to support that. If "Class II is a term of art limited to CE/EU" it wouldn't be that term, but it would be that is an normal accepted design practice in the US. A good defense expert would evaluate the design and test exemplar products.

It would have to be tested for this and must comply to CE standards when sold to consumers in the EU. Completely irrelevant to this discussion, or in court if it injured the purchaser in the US (or any end user, privity of contract isn't required).

It does not have the proper IEC inlets for that, there is no class-II symbol on it. The used IEC plug suggests it is a class-I product but is NOT a class-I product simply because safety ground is not connected to the chassis (metal parts that can be touched). I'm sure the Plaintiff would be hammering this home with qualified experts. It is relevant for purposes of this discussion and in court.

When ground lift were the goal the IEC pin should have been connected to the chassis and audio ground should not have been tied to the chassis.
Would you agree with this or do you have a different opinion ? I'm not qualified to give an opinion on that. I'm just a country lawyer (who had about 50 Mr. Coffee fire case in the late 1980s). However, based on some of the opinions by electrical engineers in this thread, and product designers, I would say that is probably true. Like you said, the fact that they offered to fix it, and that it is no longer available speaks volumes. Amir tested the 350W amp, and would like to know how they grounded that. But again, trying to say it is defective because it would be required for CE is a red herring. Just not germane to the discussion, just like UL certification wasn't. It would be important to the people who love DIY amps, design and build them. There are two sides to every story, I think a lot of the grounding issue discussion was in response to what Bob Carver said about it. I would like to hear an electrical engineer who works in the field of designing audio related type products take on it, not the 3 prong/2 prong, but the way it was tied to chassis, relied on RCA connections. I would be very interested if that was the norm/std back in 60s, 70s with audio equipment that that things have evolved.

As of yesterday, people were still posting that electrical codes (at least they got that right) required that "household appliances" be UL rated. That's demonstrably false and it is a dangerous belief for people to come away with. Thinking that everything you plug into the wall in your home (in the US) has been independently tested and certified for safety is a very, very bad assumption, and I would think the last thing that a science/engineering-based forum would want to go unaddressed. A lot of people have that assumption, I did until I started looking at the backs of my audio equipment, then kitchen appliances, laptops, desktops, etc.

Objective evaluation and analysis of products like this is the purpose of this forum (at least my understanding) and a byproduct of that is clearing the smoke and snake oil. The specs pretty much sealed the fate of that, and from glancing at the 350 Amp review from last August, didn't really cause me to feel any better about their specs. The three prong IEC going to two prong and the way it was grounded should have been pointed out in the review (a the loose screw), and glad it was. However, for it to generate the opinions that used CE and UL in support of the opinions that it wasn't to "standard" a "violation" or other similar terms were doing way more harm than good. For those that live in the UK/EU I guess they can breathe a sigh of relief that it would never be certified or shipped into their country the way it was. For us here in the US, we need to remain ever-vigilant (except for toys and children's clothes).

 

[Travis]

The topic of this thread is designed in a way that violates a basic electrical safety issue. That is it.

If you want long discussions about intricacies of UL ratings I suggest starting a thread on this topic. Continuing here it's just obscuring the issue on the Carver 275.

I don't want any discussions about it, only responded when it was first raised as proof it was "defective" when this all started. Apparently many continue to believe that the lack of a UL rating is a "violation" or shows "proof positive" it is defective. I addressed why I think it's relevant and important for this Forum in the response just before this.

It's a specific part of the review of this product that it didn't have any stickers. The conclusions about that in this thread have been all over the map, and some clearly wrong. Assuming Amir continues to note (as he should) whether a product has any rating sticker, it's an issue that may rear up again, who knows.

 

[Travis]

I wonder ....... could that be intentional?

Jim

Intentional that people keep stating incorrect and false information about the significance of no UL rating, that it is a red herring, no idea, you would have to ask them. Intentional that I think it is important that if someone says "any/all electical/electronic devices you plug into the wall at home have to be UL approved" needs to be corrected, absolutely intentional on my part. To obsure the "discussion" on the review (which noted it had no rating/safety stickers), absolutely not. I thought everything that could be said about that amp and the company could be said until an apologist showed up, who is apparently long gone. For whatever reason people who responded to him thought the UL/CE thing somehow proves the case they want to make. It doesn't.

 

[Mart68]

Intentional that people keep stating incorrect and false information about the significance of no UL rating, that it is a red herring, no idea, you would have to ask them. Intentional that I think it is important that if someone says "any/all electical/electronic devices you plug into the wall at home have to be UL approved" needs to be corrected, absolutely intentional on my part. To obsure the "discussion" on the review (which noted it had no rating/safety stickers), absolutely not. I thought everything that could be said about that amp and the company could be said until an apologist showed up, who is apparently long gone. For whatever reason people who responded to him thought the UL/CE thing somehow proves the case they want to make. It doesn't.

Wasn't the point being made that if the device conformed to UL or CE regulations then it would not be potentially unsafe?

 

[Mart68]

Apropos of nothing an EE did once tell me that - in his opinion - no tube amp could pass CE certification.

 

[Travis]

They most definitely do. Here is the safety compliance page from manual:
Safety
Product: Audio Amplifier, Audio Equipment, Stereo Audio Amplifier
Model: AHB2
Part Number: 500-18000-xx0
Parameters:
 Rated Input Voltage: 100-120 Vac; 220-240 Vac
 Rated Frequency: 50/60 Hz
 Rated Input Current: 8A
 Protection Class: I
Tested according to:
 CAN/CSA C22.2 60065/A1:2006
 UL 60065:2007
 EN60065/A12:2011
Certification Mark:


Ul600065 is precisely for home electronics. Above certification was performed by TUV NA as NRTL.

It's spliting hairs (on my part, not yours), but they don't have a UL rating, they have a TUV rating (which is equilivent under the NEC). I looked on the back of mine, didn't see a silver UL sticker, and when I ran Benchmark on my UL database, nothing.

I stand corrected, just one more sign of the great quality and design of benchmark amps, the seal of approval from an NRTL.

 

[Travis]

Wasn't the point being made that if the device conformed to UL or CE regulations then it would not be potentially unsafe?

If it was, then I sincerely apologize, but my distinct recollection was in the first 20 pages people were saying that no UL rating was a violation. that because it didn't have a rating it spoke volumes about the amp in a negative way. That the "design" was a violation. Yesterday someone posted that an amplifier was an "appliance" per UL and that the NEC required that all ac appliances be UL-approved. That's a misconception that was more common than I thought, and one that should be addressed because it is easy to check out.

No disagreement from me that an NRTL rating, like UL, TUV, CTA (Canadian equiv.) would show that it is safe in the way it is designed and built. My only point was that it doesn't work in reverse. That fact that a product doesn't have a NRTL sticker doesn't mean anything.

 

[atmasphere]

If it was, then I sincerely apologize, but my distinct recollection was in the first 20 pages people were saying that no UL rating was a violation.

It was https://audiosciencereview.com/foru...rimson-275-review-tube-amp.29971/post-1051352,
seen in the first word of the post.
Apology accepted on my behalf only (I can't speak for others). Here in the US, on account of the Wild West problem I mentioned earlier, your best defence from lawsuits is to do the AC power correctly (fuse the hot side of the line, place the power switch after the fuses, ground the chassis, that sort of thing). That anyone in this day and age would see fit to stare down the barrels of the litigation shotgun by doing otherwise makes no sense to me. That, and not the UL thing, is why the grounding scheme (or lack of it) was such a big deal.

 

[solderdude]

A US domestic product doesn't need to comply with CE standards.

No it isn't.

You are making assumptions that it was sold in the EU, I haven't seen anything to suggest that.

It can be shipped to the EU.

It's not relevant to whether the amp is "safe" or not safe in the US.

safe is safe... there are regulations for class-I and class-II devices.
There is no evidence provided by Bob Carver that it is safe.

I'm not qualified to give an opinion on that.

That much is obvious.

I would like to hear an electrical engineer who works in the field of designing audio related type products take on it, not the 3 prong/2 prong, but the way it was tied to chassis, relied on RCA connections.

I already told you and am an electrical engineer who works in the field of designing audio and railway related type products.

 

[atmasphere]

I would like to hear an electrical engineer who works in the field of designing audio related type products take on it, not the 3 prong/2 prong, but the way it was tied to chassis, relied on RCA connections. I would be very interested if that was the norm/std back in 60s, 70s with audio equipment that that things have evolved.

OK. I've been working in the field of audio as a audio equipment designer for nearly 50 years. Back in the 1970s you could get away with a 2-prong plug simply because safety grounds in homes were not widespread. Then they were much more widespread in the 80s and it became possible to prevent someone from dying if they were standing barefoot on a basement floor and touched a product whose power switch had been damaged and was shorted to chassis (or other similar issue). The safety ground allowed for a fuse to blow as soon as such a unit was plugged in.

Nowadays things are different- grounded outlets are everywhere. BTW, People like to not die by electrocution (and they didn't in the 1970s and before, just for the record). So there is a safety ground.

The problem is audio designers then had to figure out how to make the amp or preamp or whatever work when it uses RCA connections and not have a ground loop (buzz) problem. Turns out that as crazily complex that grounding really is, the solution is really simple: ground the chassis to the green wire of the power cord. Do not allow RCA connections or audio circuit grounds to contact the chassis. Often this means a $0.20 nylon washer or the like. Place a resistance/impedance of your choice between the chassis and the audio ground such that the audio circuit floats at chassis potential, but is a high enough resistance that ground loop currents are inconsequential.

If you do this right, the circuit will actually be lower noise/lower distortion (since you'll get less intermodulations), simply because the chassis is shielding in a way that it could not before. Lower distortion/lower noise often equates to 'sounds better' so this should be an absolute no-brainer as a thing to do since it satisfies the audiophile and safety/legal concerns all at the same time.

And might cost 20 cents.

 

[restorer-john]

Turns out that as crazily complex that grounding really is, the solution is really simple: ground the chassis to the green wire of the power cord. Do not allow RCA connections or audio circuit grounds to contact the chassis. Often this means a $0.20 nylon washer or the like. Place a resistance/impedance of your choice between the chassis and the audio ground such that the audio circuit floats at chassis potential, but is a high enough resistance that ground loop currents are inconsequential.

If you do this right, the circuit will actually be lower noise/lower distortion (since you'll get less intermodulations), simply because the chassis is shielding in a way that it could not before. Lower distortion/lower noise often equates to 'sounds better' so this should be an absolute no-brainer as a thing to do since it satisfies the audiophile and safety/legal concerns all at the same time.

And might cost 20 cents.

Except all it takes is a tuner connected to a masthead amplifier, or a cable box or sometimes even just a turntable ground to render your 'resistors' from RCA outer to chassis smoking ruins and an almighty hum in the system from a (now) floating input.

We all did the 'resistor' to input chassis RCAs back in the day when building (or attempting to) build hum-free amps. I haven't seen it done for decades on commercial offerings- mainly because they all gave up and went to so-called double insulated products.

The argument about this Carver was simply that the 3 pin IEC chassis socket which was fitted, had no functional earth connected to the pin. AFAIK, that is is contravention of just about every safety code. Not only that, the wiring was dreadful, exposed and looked like it was done by a 7 year old with his 'My First Soldering Iron'. Nothing would qualify as double insulated, it had a steel chassis and was a mess inside.

 

[mhardy6647]

Everybody loves a train wreck.

I'm still readin'...

 

[Blumlein 88]

Here is a good accessory for any Carver 275 owners. Or owners of old 1970s and earlier tube amps. GFCI extension cord. $25 or so in the states anyway.

 

[Travis]

It was posts like this one by @TunaBug trying to correct the total crap that was being posted who was responding to @sarumbear who had referred to Carter, et al as a "felon". I too was excited to see that there were regulations in the United States that applied to grounding and amps. The only post I had made to this point was helping out on the secretary of state information I pulled up in Washington and Illinois about the Bob Carver Corporation to help someone try and figure out who was behind the company (that was later figured out pretty well).

I got excited when I read that post, because in spite of many people posting on this thread claiming that the amp's existence is illegal, there has been a scarcity of references to actual laws or regulations.

Because I like to search before asking, I went and read your 25 posts on this thread. In https://www.audiosciencereview.com/...75-review-tube-amp.29971/page-46#post-1057236 you posted a link, but that is for a regulation from the Department of Homeland Security that pertains specifically to electrical equipment for small passenger vessels (i.e. boats). So that regulation doesn't apply unless the manufacturer or dealer are marketing this for my boat.

I've tried googling for this myself, but my search-fu is lacking. I mostly get rules/reasons to provide proper grounding in my house wiring, but not anything about manufacturing and selling consumer electronics. I don't doubt its out there, I'm just not finding it.

While I'm mostly interested in U.S. laws or regulations on this, I'd be curious in pointers for other countries as well.

I'm not a technical expert, never ever claimed to be. I'm here to learn, that's it. In the extremely rare instances where I can chime in about "law" like regulations, etc., correct misconceptions, myths, and total fabrications, I am happy to do it, just like @TunaBug did and jbilller did at the time (11 months ago).

Carver Crimson 275 Review (Tube Amp)

This has nothing to do with being an expert on tube amps, though being a tube amp, the potential voltages are even higher. UL/CE or not, there is still the electrical code. I am not debating that there are high voltages involved.

audiosciencereview.com

 

[Travis]

Mr. Carver no longer is involved with any company that bears his name. Calling him a felon, when he bears no shame of conviction against his name, is in fact slander.

It would be best for you to stick with what you know personally from experience rather than try to impose your esteemed knowledge of how things work in the UK upon us here in the US. We may share the same language, but we are very different when it comes to how things get done.

This should sound familiar? @solderdude this is true in Holland, there may be "regulations" there on Class I and II devices, but no one has ever posted any in this thread that applies in the US to an amp manufacturer (except referring to the NEC in general).

 

[Travis]

It was https://audiosciencereview.com/foru...rimson-275-review-tube-amp.29971/post-1051352,
seen in the first word of the post.
Apology accepted on my behalf only (I can't speak for others). Here in the US, on account of the Wild West problem I mentioned earlier, your best defence from lawsuits is to do the AC power correctly (fuse the hot side of the line, place the power switch after the fuses, ground the chassis, that sort of thing). That anyone in this day and age would see fit to stare down the barrels of the litigation shotgun by doing otherwise makes no sense to me. That, and not the UL thing, is why the grounding scheme (or lack of it) was such a big deal.

Looked at the post, you were responding to someone that asked if there were regulations/certification requirements in the US, you responded "No" and that certification was expensive. Best practice is to do it right. I agree 100%, you are a manufacturer in the US and know, yet this comes up again and again in this thread. I never responded to this person, your response obviously covered it perfectly.

The point being made (as you originally asked) over and over again after you clearly laid it out, was a lack of UL rating or CE certification.

 

[Travis]

It can be shipped to the EU.

safe is safe... there are regulations for class-I and class-II devices.
There is no evidence provided by Bob Carver that it is safe.

Well this is troubling. It appears you are so intent on proving yourself right, and others (me) wrong that you are talking past everyone, and are willing to rely on anything (factual or not, relevant or not) to prove a point. You do realize that:

1. That's not the same amp that we are talking about here (I won't get into the details about it probably won't let you complete the sale out of the USA it's not necessary in light of No. 2:

2. That website didn't exist at the time this amp was reviewed, it was announced it was coming a couple of months later when Bob Carver "took over" the company from the Frank guy, and Jim Clark became head of sales. The press release stated that it would be a restructured company, only sold through the website "in the USA" no longer any dealers. I think the website finally went live many months later but I am not sure on that.

3. The amp that Amir tested was purchased from a dealer in California by @paulbottlehead (aka Bottle, well never mind) so it could be tested to eliminate the factor build/Carver Camp build issues that Clark was spewing on the Carver forums. It was returned for a full refund, long before that website was created or went live.

All of the above information was straight out of posts in this thread starting last January. No one has ever posted anything, like I said, that the 275 we are talking about here was ever marketed outside the USA.

Keep trying.

safe is safe... there are regulations for class-I and class-II devices.

You keep saying this, this was addressed by others long before I got involved on this issue, there may be regulations on Class I and Class II devices in Holland, or the UK, there are none here (except maybe on boats), at least none that anyone can point to.

Is it safe? No. Many knowledgeable people responded (Post 362) over and over again about why it wasn't safe. They did so without even mentioning CE requirements, "regulations" and other things that don't exist in the USA, and people were asking, what's the law in the USA.

I already told you and am an electrical engineer who works in the field of designing audio and railway related type products.

That's okay, @atmasphere already covered it, and also covered the UL issue back in January. It was @atmasphere and @SIY and @audio2design and other knowledgeable people with clear expertise that I was referring to earlier that led me to conclude this was a very dangerous situation. They were engineers, technical experts, and manufacturers in the USA that painted a very clear picture of why it was dangerous. @SIY posted a very basic safety guide that was very helpful and left little doubt.

We should start a pool on how soon it will be before someone posts again about how UL this, or CE that, somehow pertains to whether this amp was safe, or not safe. To me, anyone with a high school electronics class, and certainly engineering students, would know that this isn't safe.

By the way, @Blumlein 88 the document you posted that explains CE certification and grounding back in January was very, very helpful, thank you for that. It was from a university course.

 

[Travis]

Apropos of nothing an EE did once tell me that - in his opinion - no tube amp could pass CE certification.

I think it is apropos and would be interested why he or she thought that. I have McIntosh dual mono amps with one side tube amplification that is CE certified (but not UL or other NRTL).

There has to be some UK manufacturers making valve amps that have a CE? No.?

 

[amirm]

Years ago, most audio products were sold by major brands which could ill afford not being compliant with regulatory standards/requirements. That has gone away in high-end audio, replaced with tons of smaller brands. These companies seem to routinely take shortcuts by not getting any certification. And worse yet, as is the case here, build questionable products. If these products were cheap, maybe there would be an excuse. But they are actually quite expensive. So they get no break from me. They need and must get their products tested by third-parties for both safety and emissions. The latter is funny because so many audiophiles are worried about "EMI" interference but go right ahead and buy products that lack certification that they have low emissions!

So I am going to continue to flat what is unsafe in my opinion in hopes of industry changing their ways and buyers asking for such measures.

BTW, I used to manage engineering for broadcast/pro video equipment. We sold small volumes (hundreds of units) yet we still applied for and suffered through the process of UL/CE/FCC regulations. Often times products were held up from release, redesigned, etc. until we could get full certification. We would not sell them otherwise. If we could do this, these companies can too.

 

[Mart68]

I think it is apropos and would be interested why he or she thought that. I have McIntosh dual mono amps with one side tube amplification that is CE certified (but not UL or other NRTL).

There has to be some UK manufacturers making valve amps that have a CE? No.?

yes I have seen valve amplifiers with CE marking - but my understanding is that, like most boutique electronics, these are self-certified by the manufacturer, they are not sent away for testing and certification by a third party. So a device may not actually conform to CE even if it has the CE mark. There have also been cases of Chinese manufactured tube amps with the CE mark that were demonstrably unsafe, but were sold to the UK.

CE does not appear to be actively policed and the only comeback on a manufacturer fudging their self certification would be a Court judgement following injury or death.

My understanding is that in the UK, following the withdrawal from the EU, CE will, at some point, be replaced by some manner of British safety standard. So enforcement practice may change with that (although I doubt it will).