• WANTED: Happy members who like to discuss audio and other topics related to our interest. Desire to learn and share knowledge of science required. There are many reviews of audio hardware and expert members to help answer your questions. Click here to have your audio equipment measured for free!

Carver Raven 350 Review (Tube Amp)

Rate this amplifier:

  • 1. Poor (headless panther)

    Votes: 269 82.8%
  • 2. Not terrible (postman panther)

    Votes: 29 8.9%
  • 3. Fine (happy panther)

    Votes: 17 5.2%
  • 4. Great (golfing panther)

    Votes: 10 3.1%

  • Total voters
    325

solderdude

Grand Contributor
Joined
Jul 21, 2018
Messages
15,891
Likes
35,912
Location
The Neitherlands
Now we are getting into "this amp has multiple flaws" territory.

It does so it already was in that territory.
You only mentioned something and responded to it.
There was no mentioning of Hitler nor anyone else in the part I quoted.
 
Last edited:

Ken Tajalli

Major Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Sep 8, 2021
Messages
1,995
Likes
1,772
Location
London UK
It does so it already was in that territory.
You only mentioned something and responded to it.
There was no mentioning of Hitler nor anyone else in the part I quoted.
1661435135694.png

With respect, be good. :)
 

Loomynarty

Member
Joined
Nov 27, 2021
Messages
31
Likes
26
Location
Canada
I see!
And that @solderdude and @Blumlein 88 have liked it, interesting.
So here is a question to everyone:
- the worst case scenario (on the worst channel) is a slow rise to 0.6dB at 10kHz to about 1.2dB at 18kHz. Regardless of other failings of this amp, what demographic can even detect such a HF rise? Or benefit from it, to the point of buying it? (that was the point, if I recall)
I still say a demographic with very very good hearing! don't believe me? dial a 1.2dB parametric equaliser setting at 18Khz (Q possibly 0.2), and test it for yourself.
I am not saying it is beyond audibility! we are talking demographic of people with good or poor hearing.

This amp has multiple serious flaws! this minor, zoomed in FR discrepancy is neither here nor there.
It's like having a go at Hitler, because he was short!
Much like @solderdude stated, this FR discrepancy will only be enhanced by a speaker load, not reduced. The HF difference will likely be a few dB more than what the 4 ohm resistive load is causing. HF hearing loss is different for most people but, let's look at 12 khz as an example; we can see that with a 4 ohm resistive load the peak to peak difference is about 0.8 dB. Assuming we're using a speaker load, this difference will likely be around 1 dB or greater. 12-15 khz is a very sensitive area of our hearing as equal-loudness contours would suggest - if you've tested your own hearing you likely know there is a region above 10 khz which is more sensitive than above or below. Any increase in SPL in this region would cause the amp to sound brighter than an amp with flat FR regardless of hearing ability. In the case of someone who is just starting to experience HF hearing loss, this would more than likely cause the amp to sound closer to neutral as opposed to rolled off.

Alas, this is all moot if you're suggesting that the demographic which buys these amps have untrained ears.
 

Postlan

Active Member
Joined
Dec 29, 2020
Messages
112
Likes
72
Higher order harmonic distortion is way too high for "subjectively" good sounding tube amp.
 

Ashoka

Member
Joined
Jul 1, 2018
Messages
15
Likes
4
Wasteful product: what is the amount of watts/h it requires to generate such a copious distortion? Like many other myths, it banks on the idea that the past was better than the present, and we deviated from some golden era when we went “solid state”. I own a pair of Dynaco ST-35 (one original, one clone): the enjoyment of Music is superior with my old Krell 300i, and light years ahead with any of the Hypex class D amplifiers. A complex Symphony like Mahler’s Third does benefit from the low noise and low distortion of modern amp design and their higher dynamic range.
confusing!!!! do you mean to say Dynaco is good? or Krell is better or Hypex is best?? (sorry, English is not my strength or I may not high in grey matters)
 

AndreaT

Addicted to Fun and Learning
Forum Donor
Joined
Jul 19, 2020
Messages
613
Likes
1,182
Location
Commonwealth of Massachusetts
confusing!!!! do you mean to say Dynaco is good? or Krell is better or Hypex is best?? (sorry, English is not my strength or I may not high in grey matters)
Ok, Dynaco was one of the first stepping stone at a time in my life when most of my peers were listening to 45 rpm with a piezo needle and 0.5 W 5 cm diameter speakers. My very first sound system was the one in the picture, Christmas 1972. I began improving its sound with a 6 W mono kit amplifier from a company named GBC, now defunct. The Philips 2203 had a line output I put to use. Five years later I was gifted the Dynaco ST-35/PAS 3x from the living room: it landed in my bedroom driving a pair of AR 4x. Among many other stepping stones in the past half century, the Krell KAV-300i was a memorable upgrade, and the Hypex NC400 based mono blocks a very significant one. Yes, I enjoy very much my main present set-up to the point I do not think I will further try to improve it. I wished to point out that I have experienced tube sound, enjoyed it, and moved on.
 

Attachments

  • 6D844242-10D1-4325-A359-7CF8C8820530.png
    6D844242-10D1-4325-A359-7CF8C8820530.png
    178.3 KB · Views: 40
Last edited:

davidc

Active Member
Forum Donor
Joined
Nov 24, 2019
Messages
239
Likes
93
Which cars are those?
there are plenty of cars with big engines that also have straight line performance. That isn't the same thing as not being good cars.
I think he's referring to all American muscle cars from the 60's and early 70's. When I got interested in those in my early teens, I remember my dad telling me that anyone can put a big powerful engine in a car, but my little TR6 will run circles around them on the track.
 

Jimster480

Major Contributor
Joined
Jan 26, 2018
Messages
2,880
Likes
2,032
Location
Tampa Bay
I think he's referring to all American muscle cars from the 60's and early 70's. When I got interested in those in my early teens, I remember my dad telling me that anyone can put a big powerful engine in a car, but my little TR6 will run circles around them on the track.
Yea it depends on what sells... Old school muscle cars weren't the fastest around the track. But the corvette was also fast and had a big engine.
 

fpitas

Master Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Jul 7, 2022
Messages
9,885
Likes
14,191
Location
Northern Virginia, USA
Why is there more power at 8 ohms than at 4 ohms?
At a guess, the output transformer gets less efficient the greater the transformation ratio from the anodes to the speaker.
 

fpitas

Master Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Jul 7, 2022
Messages
9,885
Likes
14,191
Location
Northern Virginia, USA

Killingbeans

Major Contributor
Joined
Oct 23, 2018
Messages
4,089
Likes
7,547
Location
Bjerringbro, Denmark.
why you didn't make listening test?
 

milosz

Addicted to Fun and Learning
Forum Donor
Joined
Mar 27, 2019
Messages
583
Likes
1,643
Location
Chicago
I think part of the confusion here arises from how badly the human ear can tell the difference between transparent electronics and amplifiers, DACs, etc that are imperfect and compromising the signal.

I think that many music listeners wouldn't be able to tell the difference between listening to a DAC with a SINAD of 75 dB and one with a SINAD of 110 dB, or a DAC with only 12 bits of linearity vs one with accuracy down to 22 bits, or an amplifier with a SINAD of 50 dB vs one with a SINAD of 85 dB or better. So they can't understand why the gear that measures so poorly actually sounds OK to them... it takes training and practice to be able to hear these things, and using pure tones to listen can often tell you more about the transparency of a gain stage or DAC process than listening to music can. All the signals and their harmonics in music can mask an awful lot of nonlinearity.

The value of making measurements is to find which gear actually adds the least to the music, the minimum amount of artifact. One may not be able to hear the difference - but at least if you are using electronics which have been shown to be changing the audio signal as little as possible, you can have some assurance that what you are listening to is actually in the recording, and not added ( or subtracted ) by your playback chain.

I provided some of the Audio-GD DACs and headphone amps to Amirm for testing that was reported here. And, frankly, when I listened to them on music I didn't hear the horrors that the testing showed. I got rid of the Audio-GD DACs and got a Topping E-50 and a Schiit Modius DAC for my various playback setups. I can't say that I heard any difference - note that I did not A/B these newer DACs against the Audio-GD units - but at any rate I now feel some confidence that my DACs are neutral and transparent.

I've done a lot of casual A/B blind testing of various DACs and amplifiers, I've done A/B between Red Book 44.1 / 16 vs "HD" 96 / 24 tracks and I found that I just could not tell any difference, either using my Stealth 'phones or my Quad ESL 57 speakers.

In the end, if you want to listen to equipment that measures poorly but you believe sounds great - that's your choice. You are responding to your BELIEF about the sound, not to the sound itself. Hearing is subjective, ears are not microphones and the brain doesn't know how to be objective. Chances are few -if any - of us can ACTUALLY hear much difference between a lot of these different amps and DACs. Some folks, with training, can hear differences which would not be apparent to most of us. And it's been shown that, in general, those that have the training and experience prefer the equipment that measures well over the stuff that doesn't make the numbers.

The other reason to measure equipment has nothing to do with how it sounds playing music, but is a measure of the HONESTY of the manufacturer. If the manufacturer says an amplifier can put out 150 watts into 8 ohms with distortion products down 80 dB ( that is THD below 0.01% ) and we measure that amplifier and it hits 1% distortion at 75 watts and gets worse from there on up - well, now we have found that the manufacturer is not being truthful with us. Should we reward manufacturers who lie to the public by spending our hard-earned dollars on their products? I would say, no we should not.
 

fpitas

Master Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Jul 7, 2022
Messages
9,885
Likes
14,191
Location
Northern Virginia, USA
If someone was looking for a special tube sound, you might just hear the garbage erm, I mean euphonic high-end sound of this amp.

On a serious note. Those power tubes seem awfully close together. If I had to own this thing I'd get some airflow through there.
 

sergeauckland

Major Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Mar 16, 2016
Messages
3,440
Likes
9,100
Location
Suffolk UK
The other reason to measure equipment has nothing to do with how it sounds playing music, but is a measure of the HONESTY of the manufacturer. If the manufacturer says an amplifier can put out 150 watts into 8 ohms with distortion products down 80 dB ( that is THD below 0.01% ) and we measure that amplifier and it hits 1% distortion at 75 watts and gets worse from there on up - well, now we have found that the manufacturer is not being truthful with us. Should we reward manufacturers who lie to the public by spending our hard-earned dollars on their products? I would say, no we should not.

In general, I agree with you, specs should be honest, indeed conservative. However, it seems to me that the reality of today's mainly on-line sales is that stuff has got cheaper and cheaper (except the 'High End') and specs have become worthy of the Booker Prize for Fiction. Whoever offers the most power for the least money gets the sale.

Consequently, my approach is to buy on a combination of discounted specs and price, then make my own measurements. If the numbers I get are adequate for the job I need doing, then the item stays, if not, it goes back. I've sent back a few ADC/DAC combinations that distorted heavily above -6dBFS, I've kept some cheap amplifiers that claimed silly amounts of power, but gave a perfectly clean 20 watts into 8 ohms, which is all I needed, for very little money.

I accept that not everyone buying amps etc on-line has the ability to make their own measurements, or even understand what the specs mean, but as long as sales are done at the lowest price, on-line, with no independent advice but with cheap and easy returns, I can't see the situation changing, as much as I would like it to.

S.
 

fpitas

Master Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Jul 7, 2022
Messages
9,885
Likes
14,191
Location
Northern Virginia, USA
In general, I agree with you, specs should be honest, indeed conservative. However, it seems to me that the reality of today's mainly on-line sales is that stuff has got cheaper and cheaper (except the 'High End') and specs have become worthy of the Booker Prize for Fiction. Whoever offers the most power for the least money gets the sale.

Consequently, my approach is to buy on a combination of discounted specs and price, then make my own measurements. If the numbers I get are adequate for the job I need doing, then the item stays, if not, it goes back. I've sent back a few ADC/DAC combinations that distorted heavily above -6dBFS, I've kept some cheap amplifiers that claimed silly amounts of power, but gave a perfectly clean 20 watts into 8 ohms, which is all I needed, for very little money.

I accept that not everyone buying amps etc on-line has the ability to make their own measurements, or even understand what the specs mean, but as long as sales are done at the lowest price, on-line, with no independent advice but with cheap and easy returns, I can't see the situation changing, as much as I would like it to.

S.
Caveat emptor. Amplifier manufacturers have been lying as long as I remember. At one point some listed a "Peak Power" that could only be (briefly) achieved if you shorted the power supply. They aren't alone; car sub specs are usually complete fabrications, too.
 
Top Bottom