Carver Silver 9, vs Carver m4.0

ohskigod

The Carver M4.0 is mine from a ways back...one of those keep forever amps....gotta get it sent out for a refresh I am sure as it buzzes a bit.

The Carver Silver 9's are Anthony's. he graciously left em here for me to play with for a while as he has more of these in house than he has tires on his car......seriously. He's a prince


From Polkfest, I heard both these amps on the Carver Platinums.... and the edge definitely went to the Silver 9's. I guess the little more heft they bring to the table do the platinums well. Both sounded great, with an edge to the Nine's. makes sense, I am sure these results dont surprise too many people.


Here is where it gets wierd. My 2 channel rig currently has my Teledyne AR9's running, so on a boring evening I decided to compare the amps on the 9's........and I liked the m4.0 much better, and not by a little bit.

make no mistake, the bas is a skosh more pronounced with the Silver 9's....more power, makes sense.

It's the mids and highs where things get odd. The Silver 9's came off real bright in this set up. keep in mind I prefer my sound laid back, and the room I have it in is mid bed room size, not too big. I readily admit that in a bigger room, some acoustic treatment, and different ears that prefer a different sound then me might very well vote the other way. for me, my 4.0t gives a beeter overall balanced presentation. Anthony's gonna stab me


meh, both amps are bad ****.........next set up will be biamping with my 2 Haffler DH500's....the amplification of choice for the AR9's when they were in my basement....wonder if that will be the same here in this new room.

gotta love it how a polkfest gets your audio juices flowing eh?

Fongolio

Interesting. Just out of curiosity how does your TFM-45 compare to the M4.0 ?

ohskigod

Fongolio wrote: »

Interesting. Just out of curiosity how does your TFM-45 compare to the M4.0 ?

the same, believe it or not, they are in fact the same amp. same guts with a different shell. same for the tfm42 (digital power meters instead of the analogue in the tfm45) the 4.0t has digital power levem meters as well but look far diferent than the ones on the tfm45.

all were voiced to sound like the Carver Silver Seven tube amp. this probably explains the different voicing from the Silver 9's I am noticing.

megasat16

Nice Reviews!

I think Siliver 9Ts are also Transfer function modified to sound like Bob's Silver Seven Tube Amps?

ohskigod

megasat16 wrote: »

Nice Reviews!

I think Siliver 9Ts are also Transfer function modified to sound like Bob's Silver Seven Tube Amps?

are they? hopefully someone will confirm or deny. if my life depended on the guess I would say no, especially given my experience playing with them on my AR9's, but who knows?

some tfm amps were made to voice other amps besides the silver 7, the TFM55 being one of them (though don't remember what the amp it was made to sound like was)

engtaz

The 9's were built with a db increase on the bottom end for more pronounced bass. The 4.0t was built for a tube sound.

erniejade

On other boards who run 9t or 7t's ( SS not the tube version) a few people have said the same thing. On ribbons or that type of speaker they shine but on regular type of speakers, the other carver amps sound better.

Thanks for the review. Like to see how the 4t hold up against the halfers.

TroyD

The m4.0t/TFM-45/TFM-42 are all the same amp...different cosmetics.

Lou, like you, I've had them all to play with and I said many times that I liked the TFM-45/m4.0t better. No surprise there to me at all.....I know that there are those who don't care for Carver products and that's cool but I'll take a TFM-45 allday/allabout.

H.K. Fooey

reeltrouble1

Well I used the 9t for a while with Amazings, only used carver tfm with the monkey coffins....I had to go with alot more amplifier to get better sound than the 9t's on the ribbons, but they did have just a touch of glare that I eventually decided to move on from. In fact I begot those 9t from Max and Anthony from me then to Lou's listening space and everyone seems to enjoy them. Ant though is cornering the market.


At the fest I thought the AAD monitors sounded better with the Dodd ELP and NHT ice over the carver 4.0, the 9t did shine on the Amazings. Not quite sure why folks kinda bash the carver, certainly on par with some of the other high power low cost amplifiers although I do prefer the NAD sound for stereo amplifiers.

RT1--Nobody likes their baby called ugly.

treitz3

Lou, your observations do not surprise me at all. Many folks like the 9t's and though I am a fan of Carver gear, that particular amplifier/mono block set up I am not. Roy is correct. There is somewhere close to a 3db hump at the bottom end [the 7t's are the same but without the 3db hump at the bottom....and equivalent power rating needed] and they were built by Mr. Carver specifically to properly power the original Amazings.

That said, when comparing the 9t on power hungry speakers the 9t usually comes out the preferred amplifier of choice between the two. Now, when you add a more efficient speaker [even on transients], the M4.0t seems to be the amplifier of choice for the end result as to what hits your ears.

To me, out of the non-esoteric lineup of Carver gear, the M4.0t has a sweet and luscious sounding mid through top end that will not get harsh, annoying or fatiguing. The bass is not your powerhouse type slam you in the chest, throw you against the wall type bass either. It tends to be more like a tube amp, if you will. It's still got a tad of authority but with the subtlety and finesse a tube amp might bring to the table. It's the mids and the top end with that natural rolloff that grabs you on an efficient speaker with the M4.0t.

I will suggest this to you. Take it how you will. If you prefer the M4.0t on the efficient speakers, then see if you can't get your hands on a M-500t on the same setup. The mids and top end are very, very close but the M-500t is the best "overall" top to bottom non-esoteric Carver amp that I have heard. Note the "t" at the end of the model # as I'm not talking about the M-500. If the bottom end of the M4.0t is fine? Eh, so be it and I'm glad you are happy....but if your one and only gripe might be the yearning for just a little bit more juice toward the bottom spectrum? Do yourself a favor and check it out.

BTW, this isn't so much for you as for those who are reading this....all of the aforementioned observations are with the M4.0t in stereo mode. You do not want to bridge this amplifier with ANYTHING less than a true 8 ohm or higher load. If you do, you will not get the same results whatsoever. Let me repeat, these observations were done in stereo only.

megasat16

I've tried Carver M1.5T, M1.0T, M500, PM1.5, TFM35, TFM55x with C4000 and a few other preamps.

I tried above carver amps in single and bi-amp setup with Carver Plats Original (Dual Binding Post Version).

Unfortunately, I haven't had opportunity to try out 7T or 9T with my Plats. And the news is that the 7T or 9T is what you need from Carver for the Carver Speakers.

Well, I haven't traveled that far out with Carver amps yet.

But from my experience, the Plats become truly Amazing when tried with amps other than Carver. It has enough resolution to keep up with the better electronics.

I am truly Amazed how the plats can keep up and resolve details and change imaging and representation as I move up the chain. It can keep up with the really high end electronics.

Carver Speakers are a bargain price but they truly Amazing when you give them really nice gears.

YMMV.

amulford

Thass it!!! Now I'ma haft cut me a muthaf#@ka...

Really though, I'm not surprised at all. The Silver series of amps were designed for the Amazings. It was a progression.

He started with the Silver 7's because there just weren't many tube amps out there that could produce that kind of wattage the Amazings needed and he wanted to show he could. But the cost of them were what they were. You still won't find any south of 20 large...

The Silver 7t's were for those who wanted the sound, but didn't have the scratch. He voiced them to emulate the 7's. They sound great with orchestral compositions, accoustic jazz and such. But they just didn't have the low end that people were expecting from a 4 subwoofer speaker/575 amp combo with some music, such as rock.

So then come the Silver 9t's. Same power as the 7t's but he tweaked the voicing to give a little more oomph on the lower end. Now everybody's happy, right?

Big Poppa, I think that brightness went away when I sent them out to Rita. She told me one of them was pretty far out of callibration, but she dialed them right back into brand new specs. But YYMV...

Megasat, I heard some Mk IV Plat's with bridged M4.0/TFM42's giving them 1000wpc. Believe me, they sound DAMN good.

All of the TFM's were designed to emulate the voicing of some of the higher end amps of the period. It was his way of giving some of the snobs the finger. It doesn't surprise me at all that you might prefer something else with something else...

skipf

If you really want to get the absolute best sound out of ALS Platinums, power them with one of Bob's 180W tube blocks. I thought my 9t's were great with the Plats until I got the chance to hear them with the tube blocks. The difference was truly stunning. I'd really like to hear them with some Manley neo classics sometime.

ohskigod

amulford wrote: »

Big Poppa, I think that brightness went away when I sent them out to Rita. She told me one of them was pretty far out of callibration, but she dialed them right back into brand new specs. But YYMV...

..

could just be me bud, I am REALLY sensitive to bright sounding stuff. I was taken aback though, especially since I though they sounded so fantastic with the Plats. could just be a synergy thing with the AR9's, I might give them a spin in my theater on my LSi's.....that might be VERY interesting. of course, i am very afraid I will like them there (also note, it will be a similar comparison as a TFM45 is pulling suty in that spot now. the Drama continues..lol


Tom, if I see a m500t, I might snag it. I think Jdhdiggs might have had one of them when I bought a set of SDA1C's from him years ago, incidentally it was also the first time I laid ears on any LSi (7's in this case) and fell in love with them. might have been the right amp for the job

skipf

I use an M-500t on my LSi9's. It's a very sweet combination.

TNRabbit

treitz3 wrote: »

....There is somewhere close to a 3db hump at the bottom end...

Actually, it's a 1 dB bump from I believe 200 hz down to 0.

ohskigod

whatever it is , it is very noticable

TNRabbit

TNRabbit wrote: »

Actually, it's a 1 dB bump from I believe 200 hz down to 0.

Found it:

engtaz

I was wondering when someone would post that pic.

megasat16

Can someone confirm or deny if the 9t and 7t are tube modded?

ohskigod

tube modded? there are no tubes in them if that is what you mean, all solid state. The Seven T is "voiced" to sound like the silver 7 tube amp (this is where the confusion lies) but it is not a tube amp.

megasat16

ohskigod wrote: »

tube modded? there are no tubes in them if that is what you mean, all solid state. The Seven T is "voiced" to sound like the silver 7 tube amp (this is where the confusion lies) but it is not a tube amp.

Let me rephrase and ask "are the Transfer function modified to sounds like Bob's Silver Seven Tube Amps?"

I am crystal clear what they are otherwise.

TNRabbit

engtaz wrote: »

I was wondering when someone would post that pic.

It took a while to find it; ended up asking BillD for it~:D

megasat16

ohskigod wrote: »

tube modded? there are no tubes in them if that is what you mean, all solid state. The Seven T is "voiced" to sound like the silver 7 tube amp (this is where the confusion lies) but it is not a tube amp.

I asked the question in the newer Carver Forum and got the answer on the 9T and 7T about T mods.

Just for informational purposes....

the 7t is an m-4.0t with paralleled drivers, commutators and outputs. t mod is to the silver 7 tube amp.

the 9t has a slightly different t mod circuit (explained in the service manual) which yields a slight (IIRC) 1dB boost in bass frequencies