Carver Crimson 275 Review (Tube Amp)

[JohnVF]

This site has many demands for controlled listening tests. Are there links to the threads where they've been done?

 

[amirm]

This site has many demands for controlled listening tests. Are there links to the threads where they've been done?

I have post a ton. Others have too.

 

[JohnVF]

I have post a ton. Others have too.

Is there a sub forum for that or is it just a search around kind of thing? I'll poke around.

 

[Xulonn]

Before you can have a preference you need to be able to reliably tell the amps apart.

If only that were true! It might be in a logical world, but unfortunately, although humans are an intelligent species, we are not necessarily a logical species. Indeed, we are so abundantly illogical that the discussion of topics such as climate change and Covid-19 are forbidden because of the illogical controversies based on vehement anti-science stance of many folks.

Fortunately, with good, fair moderation, ASR somehow manages to muddle through a good number of controversial audio discussions with post deletions and bans held to a minimum.

 

[BDWoody]

This site has many demands for controlled listening tests.

Yes, because bias is a thing.

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.

I'm sure your eyes roll more than most, after you actually bothered to do one with your amps.

Is there a sub forum for that or is it just a search around kind of thing? I'll poke around.

They are scattered around. What's missing are the ones that demonstrate the claimed differences. After my one experience testing myself, I thought I'd actually learn what all those numbers mean so I could leave the reliance on magic woo behind.

After a few months of doing a lot of reading around the place, much of it about psychoacoustics, I was pretty well de-woo'd.

Here's one:

Post in thread 'If "Tube Sound" Is a Myth, Why Tubes?' https://audiosciencereview.com/foru...be-sound-is-a-myth-why-tubes.8656/post-548462

 

[SIY]

This site has many demands for controlled listening tests. Are there links to the threads where they've been done?

@levimax did it with a Stereo 70.

edit: oops, Brad beat me to it.

 

[SIY]

This site has many demands for controlled listening tests. Are there links to the threads where they've been done?

Mostly for extraordinary claims. For stuff that not unexpected, say frequency response differences or signal manipulation (e.g., DSP) or other things ears are actually sensitive to, there's far less burden of proof expected.

 

[MakeMineVinyl]

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.

I think for many, including me, the most salient point and the entire 'justification' is simply that vacuum tube amplifiers are more entertaining to look at and appreciate as objects. There's really no further justification needed. If that doesn't register with a particular buyer, they should simply stick to solid state. And of story.

I honestly cannot for the life of me believe that this even a point of debate, because as humans (most of us anyway), we are subjective in most things we encounter, and nothing is going to change that, at least until we are all robots in the likeness of Jeff Bezos.

 

[JohnVF]

Yes, because bias is a thing.



I'm sure your eyes roll more than most, after you actually bothered to do one with your amps.



They are scattered around. What's missing are the ones that demonstrate the claimed differences. After my one experience testing myself, I thought I'd actually learn what all those numbers mean so I could leave the reliance on magic woo behind.

After a few months of doing a lot of reading around the place, much of it about psychoacoustics, I was pretty well de-woo'd.

Here's one:

Post in thread 'If "Tube Sound" Is a Myth, Why Tubes?' https://audiosciencereview.com/foru...be-sound-is-a-myth-why-tubes.8656/post-548462

Thanks for the link. I find such tests very interesting to read about but there aren't a lot of them that I've seen documented (not that it was a very thorough search).

 

[BDWoody]

Thanks for the link. I find such tests very interesting to read about but there aren't a lot of them that I've seen documented (not that it was a very thorough search).

Most don't get much further than I did, when I did a single blind test as best I could, and realized pretty quickly if there were indeed differences, they weren't the huge ones I clearly heard earlier...when I knew what was playing. I played with a few more DAC's I had around and felt humbled, but interested in how I had been so obviously kidding myself.

It's hard to describe for those who have never done one, but too many are happier to just make more claims than actually risk being 'wrong.'

That's part of what is different about this place...it is more evidence based, rather than...whatever else is out there. Claims that can stand up to some controlled testing turn into evidence. Those that don't, are easily and often unceremoniously dismissed.

 

[Selmerdave]

It's clear that many here are not that familiar with tube amplification. The notion that listeners of tube equipment are doing so out of a love for distortion or because they are mesmerized by the glow of the tubes or feel special because they do or whatever... it's all grossly misinformed generalizations. There is no shortage of internet threads debating tubes vs solid state that would make a 70-pager seem like a cursory summary, it seems quite out of place in this thread. Those that subscribe to such beliefs that are posting on a site where they seek clinical tests to validate their own listening preferences should consider their own blind dogma and get out and listen more...

 

[levimax]

I think for many, including me, the most salient point and the entire 'justification' is simply that vacuum tube amplifiers are more entertaining to look at and appreciate as objects. There's really no further justification needed. If that doesn't register with a particular buyer, they should simply stick to solid state. And of story.

I honestly cannot for the life of me believe that this even a point of debate, because as humans (most of us anyway), we are subjective in most things we encounter, and nothing is going to change that, at least until we are all robots in the likeness of Jeff Bezos.

I agree completely and you are always clear about the reasons for your preference for tubes, I enjoy them as well. I get a little frustrated when people either talk about how "terrible" tube amps sound based on measurements or how "magical" tube amps sound based on sighted listening. In my experience unless something is broken or used outside of it's range amps are very difficult to tell apart. I think the real lesson is people don't hear nearly as well as they think they can and SINAD of 60 or possibly even 40 is good enough for most music.

 

[Blumlein 88]

It's clear that many here are not that familiar with tube amplification. The notion that listeners of tube equipment are doing so out of a love for distortion or because they are mesmerized by the glow of the tubes or feel special because they do or whatever... it's all grossly misinformed generalizations. There is no shortage of internet threads debating tubes vs solid state that would make a 70-pager seem like a cursory summary, it seems quite out of place in this thread. Those that subscribe to such beliefs that are posting on a site where they seek clinical tests to validate their own listening preferences should consider their own blind dogma and get out and listen more...

Not this again. I've owned several tube amps and listened for years. So have many here. It's not that we've never heard them. But at best if they sound different it's a coloration. If you like it then fine.

 

[searay_89]

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."

Ouch. I try to do a post-mortem on amps that I work on. This is typically impossible. I usually just assume that if the output is blown, it somehow got shorted at the binding posts. Not so sure here. Your failure sounds similar to the amp I repaired: shorted output transistors including base shorts, emitter resistors blown to pieces ... but nothing burned in my case. I guess in your case the burning is from the emitter resistors, they held up where mine blew? Just a guess. Burning on PCB can indeed be challenging to fix, especially with dual sided PCB as these amps have. I'm not a materials guy but it's possible the carbon created from burning fr4 could add some level of conductivity where previously none existed? Both rails are fused on each channel. The fuses are 15A. This seems far too high to prevent any speaker damage. One was blown in my case. It probably did prevent blown out PCB traces, but not much else. I now better understand your comment regarding "reliability (or safety)".

 

[Selmerdave]

Not this again. I've owned several tube amps and listened for years. So have many here. It's not that we've never heard them. But at best if they sound different it's a coloration. If you like it then fine.

But that's true of any audio device, whether tubes or SS.

 

[sergeauckland]

It's clear that many here are not that familiar with tube amplification. The notion that listeners of tube equipment are doing so out of a love for distortion or because they are mesmerized by the glow of the tubes or feel special because they do or whatever... it's all grossly misinformed generalizations. There is no shortage of internet threads debating tubes vs solid state that would make a 70-pager seem like a cursory summary, it seems quite out of place in this thread. Those that subscribe to such beliefs that are posting on a site where they seek clinical tests to validate their own listening preferences should consider their own blind dogma and get out and listen more...

Anyone of my age will have been very familiar with valve amplification, as that's all there was! There's no dispute possible that valve amplification is inferior to solid state in frequency response, distortion and noise, not least power consumption, although the better ones are good enough for transparency so with those, there's no audible difference, and therefore no reason to have them except for the attractive looks.
So, apart from looks, the sonic justification for valved amplification can only be those amplifiers that are not transparent, usually with high output impedance affecting the loudspeaker's frequency response, or high distortion . Noise is seldom an issue even with valves. What somebody prefers has little to do with technical performance, but where technical performance is a criterion, there's zero justification for valves.

S

 

[atmasphere]

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

I'm not sure that I agree about 'which is the case for modern amplifiers'; most of them I've encountered are not. But I have encountered a few; IMO what this seems to come down to is exactly how low the distortion actually has to be before its masked- and that is lower than many think. This is entirely due to the fact that the ear uses the higher ordered harmonics to sense sound pressure, so if the amp adds any of its own, it can be detected. In a nutshell we've been hearing this for the last 50 years and most of it simply has to do with the simple fact (or maybe not so simple) that most amps simply lack the gain bandwidth product needed to really control distortion. If you graph distortion vs frequency then you see how this bears out; it can be a mistake to only look at the distortion curve at one (usually low, like 100Hz) frequency. Almost any amp with feedback has enough feedback at 100Hz

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.

The Sunn is in no way similar to your Pass amp. It employs a driver transformer and so is not a wide bandwidth device nor is it low distortion or class A and it has a push-pull output. I only mentioned it because of its prodigious 2nd harmonic which the ear interprets as 'warmth', 'lush', 'rich'; all audiophile terms for audible 2nd harmonic.

 

[SaltyCDogg]

I feel like watching some of Amir's YouTube videos should be compulsory viewing for new members so that they at least had an idea what this site is about and would likely be less perplexed by members responses to them.

 

[MakeMineVinyl]

I might add that if the distortion in any of my tube amplifiers were high enough to be heard as such, I'd have no problem with dropping them like a bad habit. None of them have reached that level, so all's good.

Much the same can be said with my love of all things reel to reel tape machine (just click on my avitar). I adore them because they are possibly the most fascinating electro-mechanical objects ever created in the service of sound recording. But I can always hear the distortion from even a single generation of recording, not to mention multiple generations, so I would never commit to using one to record a once in a lifetime musical event. I used them as a recording engineer for decades when that was all that there was. Now, they're just very, very interesting playthings.

 

[norcalscott]

View attachment 181768​

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! )

View attachment 181769​

Beautiful amp! Amazing price - I look forward to hearing your impressions of it.