Carver Crimson 275 Review (Tube Amp)

[jjptkd]

As for the amp in question I think it’s odd that it fails it’s published specs by such a wide margin and that said failure to meet specs was not investigated until now, despite the number of units sold. There’s obviously a lot of variables as to why this would be so, from the bias of Carver fanboyism to the perception of distortions to the efficiency of speakers the average buyer if such an amp would have paired it with.

Because this thing didn’t just graze the published specs it whiffed entirely.

This is the 7th tube amp I've owned-- I've owned probably 50 or more solid state amps. Out of all the tube amps I've owned; 3 EL-84 based 20wpc, 2 EL-34 based 35wpc and a KT-88 based 60wpc the 275 seems to be closer to the 60wpc amp in perceived power output. The 20wpc amps sounded good up to about half volume or a little more than they just fall flat on their face. the 35wpc amps never really sounded that good to me too much midrange bloom overexaggerated IMO with flabby bass and rolled off highs. They get a little louder than the 20wpc amps as expected but I could still run them out of gas. The 275 can crank out the tunes to pretty extreme levels and never seems to waver in the slightest.

 

[Greg P]

I can tell you personally as a Carver 275 owner that despite being rated so poorly here it is one of the best sounding amplifiers I have ever owned-- that tells me that there is something off with the rating system. I will not defend the short comings or misrepresentation of the amplifier but obviously there is more to the story when it comes to sound quality. I sincerely hope that the folks at Carver use this as an opportunity to correct things moving forward.

The "rating system" looks to see how closely what comes out is to what is put in and whether the performance claims made by the manufacturer are reasonably accurate. What is "off" with the rating system is that it does not (and cannot) reflect what various elements of your sensory system impose upon the mix. That may or may not have anything to do with "sound quality."

 

[traderitch]

Nothing has been settled. Spec is still the same on the website misleading future customers:

View attachment 181632

Safety issues are not resolved in production either.

A promise of money back is not sufficient to settle these issues. Responses from representatives have not at all addressed the specific technical issues identified by me and others. So other than some progress on people getting money back, we are still where we were.

Rather than speculating, I reached out directly to some of the people involved in the production and distribution of this amplifier.

There was a very small supply of these units available for the past several quarters. Very few were in inventory across the distribution chain.
Most purchases were drop shipped. That is the principal reason that the amp is listed as "unavailable" on retail sites, not related to the
thread.

The specs are in the process of being updated.

@amirm

- I would suggest you contact Bob directly. As was mentioned by Jim Clark, he doesn't spend a lot of time on the internet.

- Despite the fact that both threads have gone off-rail too frequently , I appreciate that your site was able to highlight some
of the issues regarding the 275.

 

[JayGilb]

The specs are in the process of being updated.

Do you know what the corrected specs are ?

 

[traderitch]

Do you know what the corrected specs are ?

I do not.

 

[tomelex]

Yes, I believe spec's are important but not the whole story. I ordered a Topping PA5 the #2 rated amp on this site I plan on comparing to the Carver 275. I already have a Topping DX-7 Pro DAC that I enjoy so it should be interesting.

Your personal preference is the whole story, and we here agree with that already!

We are a science based, engineering based site, and we also know that your personal preference is absolute, and we don't touch that.

If you want to wax on about how things sounds this is not a predominate theme here, I said predominate, it is discussed but once you say you like something then oh well, good for you, then let's move back on to the science. Most science here is electrical engineering related and measurement related, and some theory on hearing etc, but personal preferences really just do not mean much here.

Just thought as a new site member we might get this out of the way, makes further posting more enjoyable for all of us when one knows what the site is trying to accomplish.

We are, IMO, interested in the why and how, not so much the who.

 

[searay_89]

New to the forum. I've spent some time on ASR in the past, mostly for the very complete reviews of "lower end" DACs and the like. Thanks for the reviews.
I've been following this thread since early on. I appreciate the detail. I admittedly know nothing about tube amps. Reading this thread has proven to be very educational. I will certainly spend more time here. Considering a tube amp purchase in the near future.
I signed up so I could comment on a few posts. It took a while to get verified. I apologize for going back a few days to comment on one post in particular. My post here is a bit off topic, I hope not totally out-of-line.

I have direct experience with exactly two Carver designed amplifiers. One was a Carver stereo receiver that my father bought circa 1996 (maybe earlier?), the other my (now dead) Sunfire Cinema Grand, bought in 1997. Both had ground loop hum that I could never eliminate. My only functional solution for the Sunfire were increasingly less sensitive speakers. My ET LFT8b were pretty much dead silent but are 83db. A set of B&W Matrix 803 at 91db (I think) were horrible. I came to the conclusion that ground loop hum was a Carver design spec.

I have repaired 40-50 vintage SS amps. Many of them Carver products of the mid 80s. I can not speak to receivers. All amp designs have certain hum/hiss/buzz characteristics specific to that design. Some designs are certainly more susceptible to ground loops. I doubt anyone cares for specific amp detail here......
I recently got bored with the amps I'm familiar with and purchased a Sunfire Cinema Grand 5 channel amp. This is an early model as it came with a "Preliminary Users Manual". After repairing this amp, I find it to be the quietest unit I've experienced on my bench. No exceptions. My test setup includes a pair of JBL 4311, which I believe have specified sensitivity of around 91dB.
I don't know if @audioholic63 experience is more typical of the Sunfire amps? Perhaps? I just wanted to note that my limited experience is just the opposite.

Thanks.

 

[Blumlein 88]

New to the forum. I've spent some time on ASR in the past, mostly for the very complete reviews of "lower end" DACs and the like. Thanks for the reviews.
I've been following this thread since early on. I appreciate the detail. I admittedly know nothing about tube amps. Reading this thread has proven to be very educational. I will certainly spend more time here. Considering a tube amp purchase in the near future.
I signed up so I could comment on a few posts. It took a while to get verified. I apologize for going back a few days to comment on one post in particular. My post here is a bit off topic, I hope not totally out-of-line.



I have repaired 40-50 vintage SS amps. Many of them Carver products of the mid 80s. I can not speak to receivers. All amp designs have certain hum/hiss/buzz characteristics specific to that design. Some designs are certainly more susceptible to ground loops. I doubt anyone cares for specific amp detail here......
I recently got bored with the amps I'm familiar with and purchased a Sunfire Cinema Grand 5 channel amp. This is an early model as it came with a "Preliminary Users Manual". After repairing this amp, I find it to be the quietest unit I've experienced on my bench. No exceptions. My test setup includes a pair of JBL 4311, which I believe have specified sensitivity of around 91dB.
I don't know if @audioholic63 experience is more typical of the Sunfire amps? Perhaps? I just wanted to note that my limited experience is just the opposite.

Thanks.

I've heard lots of people complaining of the Receiver noise. I had one of the very first versions. It was very quiet. I was using a moving coil cartridge and it had an MC input. Even that was very quiet. Mine didn't have the Magnetic field amp, EQ, or built in Sonic Holography so maybe later versions were noisier.

 

[atmasphere]

I am sure we could build a solid state amp, put it below the tubes in this amp and have the tubes do nothing. Everyone will continue to rave about how good the "tube sound" is.

The reason tubes are still around after all these years is because this statement is more false than true. You might get away with that initially, but in due time things would get sorted out without looking inside the amp. The predominant distortion product of a tube amp is either the 2nd or the 3rd (the latter if the amp if fully balanced from input to output). It is those two harmonics which give tube amps the sonic 'warmth'. The other issue is overload- a tube amp has a softer clipping character (unless there is a bug in the design) and this too is easily heard. That is why tubes are preferred in guitar amps. Most guitar amps are not built to hifi standards but a few are- notably the Marshall Major and the Ampeg V4.

IME working on our class D project for the last 5 years its apparent that the 2nd and 3rd play a valuable role to tube amplifiers. As you know, they make more higher ordered harmonic distortion than most solid state amps, and its the higher ordered harmonics that the ear uses to sense sound pressure and the ear assigns a tonality to all forms of distortion. Yet the tube amps sound smoother than a lot of solid state amps because those prodigious lower harmonics apparently mask the higher orders. If you had the same distortion signature in a solid state amp it would work the same way. There have been a few such amps over the years- back in the late 1960s Sunn made an early solid state amp that to this day is recognized for its 'body' and 'tone' being similar to tube amps (and so this Sunn amp has a following). Its topology was entirely single-ended and mostly zero feedback FET until a driver transformer converted to push-pull to drive the output transistors; this amp made a lot of 2nd harmonic.

This is the 7th tube amp I've owned-- I've owned probably 50 or more solid state amps. Out of all the tube amps I've owned; 3 EL-84 based 20wpc, 2 EL-34 based 35wpc and a KT-88 based 60wpc the 275 seems to be closer to the 60wpc amp in perceived power output. The 20wpc amps sounded good up to about half volume or a little more than they just fall flat on their face. the 35wpc amps never really sounded that good to me too much midrange bloom overexaggerated IMO with flabby bass and rolled off highs. They get a little louder than the 20wpc amps as expected but I could still run them out of gas. The 275 can crank out the tunes to pretty extreme levels and never seems to waver in the slightest.

If the amp is making excess higher ordered harmonics, your ear will tell you that its louder than it really is. You can winnow this out easily enough using a sound pressure level meter- it does not respond to higher ordered harmonics the way our ears do.

 

[audioholic63]

New to the forum. I've spent some time on ASR in the past, mostly for the very complete reviews of "lower end" DACs and the like. Thanks for the reviews.
I've been following this thread since early on. I appreciate the detail. I admittedly know nothing about tube amps. Reading this thread has proven to be very educational. I will certainly spend more time here. Considering a tube amp purchase in the near future.
I signed up so I could comment on a few posts. It took a while to get verified. I apologize for going back a few days to comment on one post in particular. My post here is a bit off topic, I hope not totally out-of-line.



I have repaired 40-50 vintage SS amps. Many of them Carver products of the mid 80s. I can not speak to receivers. All amp designs have certain hum/hiss/buzz characteristics specific to that design. Some designs are certainly more susceptible to ground loops. I doubt anyone cares for specific amp detail here......
I recently got bored with the amps I'm familiar with and purchased a Sunfire Cinema Grand 5 channel amp. This is an early model as it came with a "Preliminary Users Manual". After repairing this amp, I find it to be the quietest unit I've experienced on my bench. No exceptions. My test setup includes a pair of JBL 4311, which I believe have specified sensitivity of around 91dB.
I don't know if @audioholic63 experience is more typical of the Sunfire amps? Perhaps? I just wanted to note that my limited experience is just the opposite.

Thanks.

My comment on ground loop hum being a design feature was admittedly a bit tongue in cheek. Two anecdotal experiences are just that.

I am curious to know just how broken the CG was that you repaired. I had contacted Bill Flannery as the last man standing still working on these but he has no parts. My local tech (who supports my tube issues) backed off as he could spend a lot of time on it with no guaranty of reliability (or safety). I cannot bring myself to take the darn thing to the dump. Any interest in trying another.

 

[LTig]

So then, with that efficiency, the wattage of the amp would mean quite less to you than it would me, with speakers at 86 db/watt. A 15wpc amp is quite capable of driving those without anything near the distortion it would exhibit getting my speakers to the same volume.

That's quite an understatement. To get the same SPL with your speakers as @jjptkd can get with his speakers at 15 W you'd need 750W (17 dB difference in power is a factor of 50).

 

[JohnVF]

That's quite an understatement. To get the same SPL with your speakers as @jjptkd can get with his speakers at 15 W you'd need 750W (17 dB difference in power is a factor of 50).

I once had a pair of speakers that I think were around 87db/w, The two amps I had at the time were a 400wpc Mark Levinson 432, and a 35wpc(ish) Dynaco Stereo 70. It was interesting how much they sounded alike on certain music, the 'pretty girl playing guitar' stuff. And then how different they sounded when things got more dramatic. But not in the way that I think a lot of people would assume, just reading about such things. You could get subjectively 'more' bass in the Dynaco 70, with its low damping factor, the distortion colorations, and the way that dynamic compression would take hold. The Levinson had a leaner sound (sorry if these terms irk some, I know they're not ya'll's thing). Bass was less subjectively apparently but easier to track, easier to follow, and transients would be a bit more surprising, less rounded off. All of these squishy words I'm using have parallels in measurable things, it just makes talking about them easier.

I bet some would have preferred the Dynaco. I much preferred the Levinson, and in fact it was part of my transition from more subjective-based tube systems to something that both measured better and subjectively sounded better to me.

That Dynaco had different distortion characteristics to the Carver unit, but there's probably a lot of the same apparent things in how it would sound driving speakers. I personally don't like how tubes distort, anymore, unless I'm playing guitar. But I did at one time especially in comparison to some of the ancient solid state I had before that Levinson.

 

[SIY]

The reason tubes are still around after all these years is because this statement is more false than true. You might get away with that initially, but in due time things would get sorted out without looking inside the amp. The predominant distortion product of a tube amp is either the 2nd or the 3rd (the latter if the amp if fully balanced from input to output). It is those two harmonics which give tube amps the sonic 'warmth'. The other issue is overload- a tube amp has a softer clipping character (unless there is a bug in the design) and this too is easily heard. That is why tubes are preferred in guitar amps. Most guitar amps are not built to hifi standards but a few are- notably the Marshall Major and the Ampeg V4.

IME working on our class D project for the last 5 years its apparent that the 2nd and 3rd play a valuable role to tube amplifiers. As you know, they make more higher ordered harmonic distortion than most solid state amps, and its the higher ordered harmonics that the ear uses to sense sound pressure and the ear assigns a tonality to all forms of distortion. Yet the tube amps sound smoother than a lot of solid state amps because those prodigious lower harmonics apparently mask the higher orders. If you had the same distortion signature in a solid state amp it would work the same way. There have been a few such amps over the years- back in the late 1960s Sunn made an early solid state amp that to this day is recognized for its 'body' and 'tone' being similar to tube amps (and so this Sunn amp has a following). Its topology was entirely single-ended and mostly zero feedback FET until a driver transformer converted to push-pull to drive the output transistors; this amp made a lot of 2nd harmonic.


If the amp is making excess higher ordered harmonics, your ear will tell you that its louder than it really is. You can winnow this out easily enough using a sound pressure level meter- it does not respond to higher ordered harmonics the way our ears do.

Serious question: if all harmonics are below any reasonable audible threshold (which is the case for modern amplifiers), what needs to be "masked"?

 

[JohnVF]

The reason tubes are still around after all these years is because this statement is more false than true. You might get away with that initially, but in due time things would get sorted out without looking inside the amp. The predominant distortion product of a tube amp is either the 2nd or the 3rd (the latter if the amp if fully balanced from input to output). It is those two harmonics which give tube amps the sonic 'warmth'. The other issue is overload- a tube amp has a softer clipping character (unless there is a bug in the design) and this too is easily heard. That is why tubes are preferred in guitar amps. Most guitar amps are not built to hifi standards but a few are- notably the Marshall Major and the Ampeg V4.

IME working on our class D project for the last 5 years its apparent that the 2nd and 3rd play a valuable role to tube amplifiers. As you know, they make more higher ordered harmonic distortion than most solid state amps, and its the higher ordered harmonics that the ear uses to sense sound pressure and the ear assigns a tonality to all forms of distortion. Yet the tube amps sound smoother than a lot of solid state amps because those prodigious lower harmonics apparently mask the higher orders. If you had the same distortion signature in a solid state amp it would work the same way. There have been a few such amps over the years- back in the late 1960s Sunn made an early solid state amp that to this day is recognized for its 'body' and 'tone' being similar to tube amps (and so this Sunn amp has a following). Its topology was entirely single-ended and mostly zero feedback FET until a driver transformer converted to push-pull to drive the output transistors; this amp made a lot of 2nd harmonic.


If the amp is making excess higher ordered harmonics, your ear will tell you that its louder than it really is. You can winnow this out easily enough using a sound pressure level meter- it does not respond to higher ordered harmonics the way our ears do.

What an interesting post. I don't know if you'd know the answer but would that Sunn amp be similar to my Pass Aleph 30, which also is single ended solid state and low/zero feedback? I ask as it is, of all the solid state amps I've heard, the one that reminds me most of how tube amps sound. It would certainly not measure in the top of amps here but its an enjoyable thing (to me) to throw in a system every once in awhile here.

 

[searay_89]

My comment on ground loop hum being a design feature was admittedly a bit tongue in cheek. Two anecdotal experiences are just that.

I am curious to know just how broken the CG was that you repaired. I had contacted Bill Flannery as the last man standing still working on these but he has no parts. My local tech (who supports my tube issues) backed off as he could spend a lot of time on it with no guaranty of reliability (or safety). I cannot bring myself to take the darn thing to the dump. Any interest in trying another.

I understand the reluctance of your tech. I'd guess Flannery is the only one with a full set of schematics for these things. The info I have is just a bit more detailed than a block diagram. Schematic bits and pieces for a much newer Sunfire unit. If the tracking power supply section had issues, I'd be challenged to fix it. The amp stage is fairly straight-forward. I had hum in one of the five channels and one completely blown channel. The hum was caused by several cap failures. The blown amp was in tough shape, and (of course) the most difficult of the 5 to access. Complete disassembly was necessary to remove blown output transistors, small signal transistors, and blown emitter resistors ... 6-7 hours total. I have a few old Carver parts units and was able to use take-outs.
Always interested in working on broken amps .... it's a curse.

 

[audioholic63]

I understand the reluctance of your tech. I'd guess Flannery is the only one with a full set of schematics for these things. The info I have is just a bit more detailed than a block diagram. Schematic bits and pieces for a much newer Sunfire unit. If the tracking power supply section had issues, I'd be challenged to fix it. The amp stage is fairly straight-forward. I had hum in one of the five channels and one completely blown channel. The hum was caused by several cap failures. The blown amp was in tough shape, and (of course) the most difficult of the 5 to access. Complete disassembly was necessary to remove blown output transistors, small signal transistors, and blown emitter resistors ... 6-7 hours total. I have a few old Carver parts units and was able to use take-outs.
Always interested in working on broken amps .... it's a curse.

My tech's summary statement from July. I should probably just send it to e-waste heaven...

"...one channel has shorted outputs, unfortunately it damaged everything behind them even burnt the board. They don't short collector to base very often but it's a good thing they did otherwise your speaker would have gotten the rail voltage."

 

[caught gesture]

Rather than speculating, I reached out directly to some of the people involved in the production and distribution of this amplifier.

It’s a shame the same people are not reaching out directly to this forum and answering the specific questions about the actual power output and safety concerns. All we have got are platitudes and some audiophile speak.

 

[traderitch]

It’s a shame the same people are not reaching out directly to this forum and answering the specific questions about the actual power output and safety concerns. All we have got are platitudes and some audiophile speak.

I may be wrong, but I believe the primary responsibility is to those who actually own the amplifier.

Tell me @caught gesture - is there anything that Bob, or anyone associated with this amplifier, could post on
this forum that would entice you to purchase a unit?

 

[Xulonn]

I think that's down to valve amplifiers being bought by those who don't buy by the measurements, but by a combination of looks, perceived sound, manufacturers' reputation and other intangibles.

Although I was initially attracted to the looks of the Carver Crimson amplifier, it never made my short list because of a low perceived price/value. I believe that this YarLand amp will prove to be a much better price/performance value, and have started a thread here at ASR to document my journey with this, likely my last "exotic" amplifier. (I cross-posted and edited some segments of this comment in the YarLand thread.)

I look forward basking in the glow of the tubes as I listen to my collection of high bit-rate VBR MP3's, which includes the 63 album collection of the Chicago Symphony Orchestra from the Fritz Reiner era of the 1950's and 60's. I was an usher for the CSO during my high school days in 1957-58, so some of those albums are from performances for which I was an usher.

I have rational reasons (including nostalgia and manufacturer reputation) for buying this amplifier, which is on its way to me in Panama from China via Miami. YarLand/Ariand amplifiers were fairly popular in Europe over the past coupe of decades, with power transformer customization and other mods being done in the U.K. and Italy by distributors. They received good (subjective) reviews for sound and build quality. My Model FV-34B-S amp uses the classic EL34 output tubes and 6SN7 drivers in a push-pull Class-A design, although I would have preferred Class-AB design for better tube life and lower power consumption. This amplifier has a pair of stereo balanced XLR inputs, which is very rare in budget-priced tube amplifiers. It is also switchable from triode to pentode operation, and specs in general are decent for a tube amplifier. (There are some discrepancies between the specs, photos and description, so I will not know some of the details for sure until I receive it.) Because of the general bad reputation of stock unbranded generic tubes shipped with many Chinese amps, I do plan to immediately replace the EL34's with 6CA7's, and get new 6SN7's, both Electro Harmonix from Viva Tubes, and very reasonably priced. The replacement input tube will be a NOS GE-JAN 5670, which costs $4.79 each on eBay. Good quality audio vacuum tubes are not always outrageously priced, thanks to the sales volume supported by the guitar amplifier world. Of course, guitar players buy them to drive into distortion, and Hi-Fi audio tube fans buy them to use below gross over-driven distortion levels.

If I weren't 80 years old and getting towards the end of my days, I would have sent it to Amir for testing - just for fun, because I would not expect stellar results. (There is one of this model plus a couple of other models still left from this apparently shut-down manufacturer via China Hi-Fi Audio, so someone else can buy the last one for $753, and drop-ship it to Amir for testing and measurement! )

 

[levimax]

For all the talk about preferring this amp over that amp and the merits of measurements versus listening I see little proof anyone can reliably tell any of the mentioned amps apart in a controlled test. Before you can have a preference you need to be able to reliably tell the amps apart. It seems like this step gets skipped over which makes subjective preferences useless to learn anything from.