Bob Carver new tune expected

Any idea how his electronics are. I know ships speakers are awesome..look like crap though. 
I've done a/b sonic comparisons of his TX-11 tuner vs some of the most revered high end tuners of the "golden era", and the TX-11 matches or beats them all.  The man knows musical sound quality.

I've been using Bob Carver's Sunfire Classic Stereo Amp & matching pre-amp for about 20 years.  They are both defect-free and they sound wonderful! 

About a year ago, I started to hear a soft hum from the amp.  Bob Carver had me ship it to him.  He replaced the caps, tested to make sure call was well, and sent it back to me... all for free.  He wouldn't even let me pay return shipping.

I've heard Carvers new tubed monoblocks and they sound just as great. At 350 w/ch, they'll drive anything.  They also run so cool that he guarantees the tubes will last 50 years.

For those who don't already know, Clearthink is a troll who should generally be ignored.  As usual, he has no idea what he's talking about: all insults and vitriol, nothing intelligent or useful.

Bob Carver is an audio genius, one of the greatest innovators in the field. He's also a very, very nice guy!

Possibly owing to manufacture, his gear is like the tale of two cities.
C-4000 good esp. if upgraded
M-500 good especially if upgraded
Latest ALS good
He stands behind most of his stuff. Good
John Atkinson doesn't like him. Excellent!.
FWIW, I owned a number of Carver Corporation products during the 1980s, namely the M400t, M400a, C-4000, C-9, and TX-11. All were absolutely reliable, and in fact after about 35 years the M400t is still going strong in the home of a relative.

Sonically the M400t, which was the version of the cube amp that was designed to emulate the "transfer function" (the relation between output and input) of the very expensive and highly regarded pure class A Mark Levinson ML-2, I remember as being quite good, at least with the easy to drive speakers I was using it with. And despite its diminutive size it seemed every bit as powerful as its 201 watt/channel rating would suggest.

Its predecessor model, though, the M400a, sounded poor, with a strange glare often being present.

I found the sonics of the other products to be satisfactory for a few years, if not particularly enthralling, and I ultimately moved on. The M400t, though, I used in rotation with various tube amps until well into this century, when I gave it to the relative.

-- Al
P.S: Regarding the Carver TX-11 tuner, my experience differed from what another poster reported earlier in the thread. Despite the special signal processing it incorporated to enhance weak signal reception, it was handily outperformed in that respect as well as in terms of sonic quality by two different Marantz 10B’s I owned during the 1990s, and by the 1954 REL (Radio Engineering Laboratories) Precedent I still have in my main system.

The 10B and the Precedent (which is monophonic, but provides a "multiplex out" signal that can be demultiplexed into stereo by an external H. H. Scott or Fisher "multiplex adapter") are by a substantial margin the most sensitive of many tuners I have owned over the years, most of them being "golden age" tube designs. Both live up to their outstanding reputations sonically as well, assuming of course that they are in top condition and/or well restored.

-- Al