Carver Pro ZR1600


Two of the three amps I ordered for my multichannel setup arrived today so I had to do a quick checkout driving the MG1.6 fronts and center. WOW. Everything you have heard about these amps is true. Perhaps, as others have said, they are particularly well suited to Maggies.

I did have a slight hum, as others have experienced, but activating the "ground lift" switch totally eliminated it. The amp is set up for balanced line input, and I suspect that the hum problem happens when you use a single ended input signal. (Not really a problem because the ground lift switch fixes it). The fan noise would be anoying if you can't put the amp in the cellar as I do. It is reported that in home audio applications you can disconnect the fan without overheating the amp. There is also a mod offered which replaces the fan with one that is much more quiet.
eldartford
The Carver Pro Amps are being modded by many with excellent results. There have been many threads discussing the Carvers on Audiocircles. I have listened to the 1600 before and after modification by a local modder, and I must confess the difference was dramatic. Bass and treble were extended after modification. Soundstage and clarity also improved.
Tayfiji,

Can you tell us what mods were done to your friends's ZR? I am about to look in to this matter for my own ZR1000
Dmason...One mod that I heard described pretty much amounted to bypassing the input signal processing (Level controls, high pass filters, clipping management, amplification configuration, etc) replacing the fan with one that is more quiet, and changing the input and output connectors to a different type.

My thoughts about this are that the fan is a good idea, and the rest of it can wait until I get things sorted out. The input and output terminals are just fine IMHO. I use bare wire clamped into the terminals for output, and converting to RCA plug input is a matter of two gold plated adapter plugs for a grand total of $3.60. At the input there is a 0.47 mfd capacitor in the signal path that might be upgradeable, and running a straight wire around the input circuitry is like chicken soup. However the various features of the circuit are individually bypassable with switches, so we really are talking about the difference between circuit board runs and switch contacts and unbroken copper wire (and that discussion could become long and heated). I don't think that anyone knows enough about the digital power amplification circuitry to justify messing with it. In summary, I think that this amp does not particularly lend itself to useful mods, and I would need to have a detailed description of the mod before I would go for it. The fan change, capacitor, and bypass wire are simple enough to do oneself.

If there is someone out there who can shed more light on the mod details, please chime in.
Kool39...A "full review" of the amp is something that I am really not qualified to do. Others have evaluated and reported on this amp, and their reviews are the reason I bought it. I could write some glowing praise using all the usual words (tranparency, punchy bass, etc) but these are all subjective things that you really need to hear for yourself. I therefore condense my comments to the statement that "this amp is something special, particularly in view of its cost, and it is worth you while to try it".

If I had to put my finger on one characteristic that is better than my Adcom 5503 (350 wpc) it is that in an orchestral recording, individual instruments of the orchestra seem to be separately distinguishable. (Subjective as hell!). I am unsure of how much credit should go to the amp's sonics, as opposed to the Magneplanar speakers. It could be that the more powerful amp is simply getting more out of the Maggies. Different speakers could give different results.
El: I don't doubt your observation comparing the ZR1600 to the Adcom. Adcom amps to me have always tended to get muddy, blurred and jumble things up at volume. This also includes the big ones that Nelson Pass designed and Adcom built to their own spec.

As far as your comments about bypassing the switches, you need twice the amount of contacts on a switch in order to reduce audibility of a decent switch. In other words, two contacts in and two contacts out wired in parallel reduce the audibility of a single switch in the signal path. As such, where one is using a single pole double throw ( spdt ) switch, going to a double pole double throw ( dpdt ) would work better. The only thing with this is that you end up with a whole lot more making and breaking of the signal path and solder joints galore. If you have no fear of overdriving the amp, i would suggest using good quality cabling and bypassing all of that. On top of that, don't forget to break the connections feeding into the circuit at the board level. Having circuitry that is still connected at various points but not active will cause differences in signal loading. Sean
>