Carver PT-2400 Dual Mono Vintage Amplifier Review

[davidc]

Excellent work by your repair guy, don't lose him.

Yes, his name is Greg Garrska and runs a company called Nelian Audio where all he does pretty much is restore Carver equipment. He runs the go to website for all things Carver called thecarversite.com. I believe he was once an employee of the Caverr corporation, but I'm not sure. There is one other qualified repair person at a place called Hi-Tech audio. His name is Roland. It is up in the Pacific Northwest in the state of Washington. He was a a authorized Carver repair facility back in the day and he does an excellent job as well. Some Carver equipment is very unusual in configuration and it's always been advised to have one of these guys restore things rather than trying to with somebody that does not have a lot of experience with Carver electronics

 

[Imakeller]

Hello Everyone, I am the owner of this amplifier.
I had it restored by Nelion Audio before sending it to Amir. I was curious how it would test compared with the Sunfire and Carver M1.5, which I don't believe had been completely restored.

While this amp was one of Carver's "Magnetic Field Amps, " it wasn't one of the lightweight versions. I believe it's about 65lbs. It is a dual-mono design that can be bridged in both series and parallel. Carver's other high-power amp at the time, the M1.5t, at 475 watts RMS into 8 ohms, was only about 29 pounds, I believe. And then the PT-1250, which came out a little later, had the same power output as the M1.5t but weighed only about 11-14 lbs.

I decided to get the amp because I noticed that when watching movies, explosions could easily clip my approximately 600-watt RMS-per-channel M1.5t. So, this PT-2400 was about double the power, dual mono, and had a little more headroom. I sent it off to Amir for testing after it was restored, before I even hooked it up.

I want to thank Amir for his excellent review. Even though some of the distortion measurements were higher than I would have liked, I'm not worried about it.

I’m curious how the M1.5t would do with Amir’s battery of tests. Do you still have it? Perhaps it would be interesting to send it to Amir if you do?

 

[davidc]

Inclined to agree, doesn't high order harmonic distortion cause intermodulation distortion? Which sounds bad at lower than 1 percent? Had a listen to one of these the other day: https://www.stereophile.com/content...ister-phono-integrated-amplifier-measurements

Rough as a badger's arse. Similar spray of high order distortion.

I remember when IM measurements first came out. Were considered more audible than THD.

 

[davidc]

Been told these are a nightmare to repair.

Everything is extrememly compact, but modular.

 

[davidc]

I’m curious how the M1.5t would do with Amir’s battery of tests. Do you still have it? Perhaps it would be interesting to send it to Amir if you do?

A non-refurbished one was tested by Amir. It met its output, but it was noisy. It had some caps replaced, but nothing more. Review Link

 

[davidc]

To be clear, the $2,400 price was for when it was new. I think I saw a used for $300 and change on ebay. You would then have to have it refurbished so probably close to $1000 total.

A non-working version maybe around $300+. A working non-refurbished version is more like $5-700. A thougout quality refurbishment is $900-1200.

 

[Imakeller]

A non-refurbished one was tested by Amir. It met its output, but it was noisy. It had some caps replaced, but nothing more. Review Link

Ouch. That review is pretty disappointing.

 

[Xyrium]

So, as a fellow old fart, I'm going to say that this was probably standard fare for its time; perhaps even underrated. However, in 2026, it's terrible. No one should be seeking a restored version. This age is long gone....unless you have an Accuphase, then I'm interested.

 

[davidc]

So, as a fellow old fart, I'm going to say that this was probably standard fare for its time; perhaps even underrated. However, in 2026, it's terrible. No one should be seeking a restored version. This age is long gone....unless you have an Accuphase, then I'm interested.

Keep in mind though that the refurbished cost is essentially double that of any other Carver amp because it's a dual mono design. And, when I first got back into the hobby and looked at these refurbished amps, one like this would have cost maybe $300 and refurbished another $500. Prices have gone way up for vintage equipment.

 

[Spoofer]

Keep in mind though that the refurbished cost is essentially double that of any other Carver amp because it's a dual mono design. And, when I first got back into the hobby and looked at these refurbished amps, one like this would have cost maybe $300 and refurbished another $500. Prices have gone way up for vintage equipment.

And because of that I only buy new now..Vintage has out cost itself of any value except nostalgia.

 

[xanalog]

Thank you for your candid review, @amirm.
Thanks go out to @davidc, for sharing.

Plenty of power... that's all she wrote. Thanks for testing this retro amp Amir.
View attachment 543390
View attachment 543389
View attachment 543391

Thanks for the internal photos, @JSmith,
While looking at the amount of manual-labor involved in putting together such a complicated power amp; the saying "They don't make 'em, like they used to!" came to mind.
Nostalgia almost made me go back and +1 my vote... almost!

 

[beefkabob]

This is a monster for power. PT stands for Professional Touring. This was never meant for home audio. It was meant for big bands with big speaker stacks.

 

[pma]

Voted fine.

 

[davidc]

This is a monster for power. PT stands for Professional Touring. This was never meant for home audio. It was meant for big bands with big speaker stacks.

It's interesting then to note that Carver produced a home version of this app as well called the tfm-75. Sort of considered the holy Grail of car amplifiers. Signal wise it's identical to the pt-2400. Here is an interesting thread comparing the two from the person who restored mine.

https://thecarversite.com/topic/26802-carver-pt-2400-vs-carver-tfm-75/

 

[pma]

The PT-2400 lacks linearity as evidenced by high distortion.

High with eye evaluation of plots, however inaudible.

 

[Gorgonzola]

So, as a fellow old fart, I'm going to say that this was probably standard fare for its time; perhaps even underrated. However, in 2026, it's terrible. No one should be seeking a restored version. This age is long gone....unless you have an Accuphase, then I'm interested.

It is terrible by today's standards though probably not much worse than s/s amps of the '70s -- audiophiles abandoned s/s in the '80s and '90s in droves because they hated the sound.

My own s/s story is the Phase Linear 400. I bought mine about 1978 I kept the damned thing for more than 20 years not knowing any better. I even had it partially restored about 2000 which produced no improvement. If you ever trust anecdotal evidence, believe this: it sounded like shiite -- at once shrill and opaque. My next amp was a NAD C270 which was, at least, a big improvement. Subsequently I owned several s/s amps including a Pass Labs X150.5 which was a nice amp but not the equal of my current Purifi 1ET400A amp.

The common bias around here --instantly proclaimed -- is that "all amps sound the same" when operating within their parameters and volume-matched. By all means listen to their arguments but 55+ years of audiophile experience has proven to me personally that they don't.

I'm not knocking measurements. Look for ultra-low distortion whether class D or A/B. Such amps will be audibly superior to the likes of this Carver

 

[Cogito]

audiophiles abandoned s/s in the '80s and '90s in droves because they hated the sound.

Huh? Solid State amps have been the dominate topology since the early 70s. If anything, audiophiles left tube amps in droves.

 

[Gorgonzola]

Huh? Solid State amps have been the dominate topology since the early 70s. If anything, audiophiles left tube amps in droves.

I guess you haven't been exposed to the same audiophile circles as I have. Very many audiophiles still insist on the sonic superiority of vacuum tube technology, albeit others are moving away, I would guess, because the best current amps overcome the shortcomings of older s/s amps.

 

[Mart68]

I guess you haven't been exposed to the same audiophile circles as I have. Very many audiophiles still insist on the sonic superiority of vacuum tube technology, albeit others are moving away, I would guess, because the best current amps overcome the shortcomings of older s/s amps.

How far back are you going here? Solid state has been fine for fifty years.

 

[Cogito]

I guess you haven't been exposed to the same audiophile circles as I have. Very many audiophiles still insist on the sonic superiority of vacuum tube technology, albeit others are moving away, I would guess, because the best current amps overcome the shortcomings of older s/s amps.

I bet the list of shortcomings for early solid state gear was far shorter than early tube gear. Tube fans obviously like the "Tube" sound, which is fine. This isn't however, indicative of a superior topology.