Carver TFM-35 vs. Carver M-1.5t

I asked the same question regarding Emotiva XPA-2 (250 watts into 8 ohms with 2 channels driven) and XPA-5 (275 watts into 8 ohms with 2 channels driven). Both are the same price, $799, and the latter gives you more flexibility by allowing up to 5 channels. Yet the reviews and the people here all claim the former sounds a lot better. I presume there are differences underneath, but it would be nice to what they are.

Something sounds like it is amiss with the M1.5t. I have A/B'd a TFM-55 and two mono'd TFM-55's up against one M1.5t and the M1.5t came out the clear winner in sound, available power and ability to control the woofers.

However, this A/B was done on an 8ohm speaker. Your speakers are 6 ohm speakers which will make the amps perform a little differently. Another thing to keep in mind is that your speakers are 90db efficient, while mine have a slightly higher efficiency. This will also alter the end result.

Oh, both of the amps are modified to sound like a tube amp FYI.

The entire lineup was emulated to sound like the Silver Sevens. A couple of exceptions like the C and CB versions along with some of the lower lineup weren't though IIRC.

What do you mean by t-modded? Is this a significant upgrade or merely a matter of preference?

Ron Temple wrote: »

t = tubelike, modded to sound like the Silver 7 monos. Most of the TFMs were also voiced similarly. The TFMx amps were not. It's a preference, not an upgrade. Others know far more about this than I, but that's the gist.

Actually, the 't' in the model number refers to 'transfer function mod' or 't-mod' for short; not 'tube'. The Carver model 1.0t 'was' modded after a tube amp, the Conrad Johnson Premier 5 mono blocks, which was the subject of the great Bob Carver Sterophile challenge (where Bob bet he could copy any high end amp within 49 hours in a hotel room near Stereophile's then Albuquerque HQ. Bob won the bet).

He then modded a Solid State Class A amp, the Mark Levinson ML-2, which became the 1.5t.

Later, he created the Silver Seven tube mono-blocks and modded them. This amp became the 4.0t. Later, the 4.0t got a facelift and became the internally identical but cosmetically different, TFM-42 and TFM-45 (one has analog meters, the other level lights on the front).

Everyone has their preferences on which carver amp sounds best (some don't like any of them). I personally enjoyed them all and currently own a 1.5t.

TNRabbit wrote: »

Tom, I'm pretty sure the TFM series were NOT t-modded.

Interesting that they would be named the "Transfer Function Modified" series (TFM?) if they were not transfer function modified. They all were in fact. Some of the smaller power amps were not magnetic field designs due to cost constraints at those price points, so they are conventional power supply amps. TFM-6 and maybe even 15 were conventional amp designs. The 60wpc job and the 100wpc.

And the Levinson was a solid-state amp.

I would rather have a perfect functioning 1.5t over the TFM-35 amp.

How does a PM1.5T (I know it's a pro amp) differs from M1.5T soncially? I bought one a while ago for use as a sub amp in mind. Since then, I have went different route and kept it unused. It sounds great without any problem though.

What would you guys prefer? PM1.5T or M1.5T for pairing with polk RTi12s or LSi15s?

Thanks

Why don't you just try it and see for yourself?

Use the search feature and you'll find all these Carver topics have been beat to death and into the ground over the last ten years or so.