Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10 beta 3/9/83; site microsoft.UUCP Path: utzoo!linus!decvax!tektronix!uw-beaver!microsoft!gordonl From: gordonl@microsoft.UUCP (Gordon Letwin) Newsgroups: net.audio Subject: amplifier mystique Message-ID: <8711@microsoft.UUCP> Date: Mon, 27-Aug-84 20:41:08 EDT Article-I.D.: microsof.8711 Posted: Mon Aug 27 20:41:08 1984 Date-Received: Thu, 30-Aug-84 12:01:35 EDT Organization: Microsoft Corporation Lines: 68 I've been reading a lot of stuff lately about this-and-that amplifier, how they sound (lots of extremely subjective and meaningless words), etc. I've just purchased a Carver M-1.5t which came with an interesting article, the gist of which I'd like to share: Basically, Carver claimed that the differences between "super wonderful" amplifiers and any other high-quality amp (like his M-1.5) were minor, having to do with small frequency response changes, degress of phase distortion, etc. He claimed that given any particular "golden ear favorite" he could quickly "tweak" the M-1.5 to sound exactly like it. How "exact"? Well, both ampllfiers are to be driven from the same sources (pink noise, music, test records, etc.) and each drives identical speakers (which are kept in an isolated room). You then take the "+" leads for the right channel from each amp (do the left channel later) and hook them to the terminals of a very sensitive speaker. This speaker will play the DIFFERENCE between the two amplifiers. When the difference speaker is silent, the amplifiers are identical. The golden ears selected the Mark Levison ML-2 as their challenge. THis honker costs $6300 for a stereo pair, and produces a gut-shaking 35 watts. (Yes, not enough power for a true hi-fi system, but I guess golden ears are sensitive ears). After 48 hours of tweaking gain, adjusting capacitor values, adjusting feedback, etc., Carver made his M-1.5 null against the ML-2 down to -74 db! No active components were changed, and no circut board changes were made. To quote from the article, "We are also aware that this article will create tremendous antagonism in certain high-end audio circles, whereever there is a financially or emotionally vested interest in very high- priced equipment in general and Mark Levinson components in particular. That cannot be helped; we are merely reporting certain irreversible facts of life. But for heaven's sake, let no one make an ass of himself by indignantly declaring that the ML-2 does SO sound better than the M-1.5t. The two have been proved sonically equal with the same rigor as two triangles are proved congruent in plane geometry." Carver has propigated the mods to his M-1.5 production units, which are now the M-1.5t units. Each one, as it rolls off the line, is nulled against a pair of Mark Levinson ML-2's right before being boxed up. Since the ML-2 is $6300 for 35 watts (!!) and the Carver is $750 for 600 watts, this means the end the great amplifier controversy. One can buy a super-powerful Mark Levison for very cheap; what more is there to say? As I see it, the golden ears have only two things to do: 1) say that the ML-2 itself sounds bad, and try to argue that Carver was "lucky" in being given such a poor amplifier to duplicate 2) say "its not true, its not true" over and over again. Pls advise, golden ears! Gordon Letwin decvax!microsoft (but speaking for himself) P.S. - the article is from Issue 10 of "The Audio Critic" (Winter 82-83)