recommend full featured preamps?

Mapman,
I remember now its called the "Holography" circuit... Its pretty nice for those compressed recordings...
I was not really knocking the carver as it is for the price its not bad, you can find some of the Mcintosh pres for 500 to 700 with all the features from the late 80's early 90's same era that are a bit better for a couple hundred was all I was illustrating.

As for the Behringer its okay, but really a cheap piece that is a pain to work with for most people, too many gadgets and features that have nothing to do with straight 2 channel full range speaker useage, and results will vary with much time needed to sometimes get dialed in or be effective correctly.. And then buying one used for 150 or 200 bucks might as well go with a mcintosh, its a better unit period in my opinion, well built, and eliminates all the EXTRA cables and conversions from XLR to RCA using a unit from the Pro audio realm...

Undertow,

The Carver holography circuit is what I thought you might be referring to.

It has nothing to do with compression or dynamic range. If your system lacks transparency, think of it as a magic "transparency" button.

technically, it reduces crosstalk between channels. I suppose crosstalk would be considered a form of noise and that circuit then a form of switchable noise reduction.

Wouldn't surprise me if many other newer amps that sound inherently transparent do something similar internally to achieve it. The most unique thing about the Carver is the circuit can be switched in or out as needed. That is the flexibility aspect of it. And yes, it does work exactly as advertised. The tradeoff is a small change in the timbre of the sound, particularly in the mid-range.

I used to use the holography circuit but then realized there were other ways to coax more transparency out of my system that I pursued (power conditioning, interconnects, setc.). Now I do not use it much. But it was nice to have around back when I needed it.

The features I still find most useful on the Carver today are the two switchable circuits for separate signal processors. I use 1 for a dbx range expander that still comes in handy with dynamic range-challenged recordings.

Also, the tone tilt feature I mentioned can be useful to provide flexibility in adjusting tone/timbre in ways not possible with conventional tone controls.

There is an absolute phase shift circuit that can help with the low end if needed, depending mostly on room acoustics.

The blend control can also be useful. It provides the ability to continuously increase or decrease channel separation all the way from mono to greater than normal.

I find I use these features very infrequently these days (the separate DBX the most because many recordings just have the dynamics sucked out of them before they even hit your system) but they have been invaluable tools to help me get my system tuned in better over the years when needed.

Also, the low cost for the Carver used today is a big plus. It provides lots of features but sounds VERY GOOD even without them. Over time, you may find ways to tweak your system using it that results in not needing the flexibility in the pre-amp anymore. Then you might look at moving up to something even better, though I truly believe the C-6 is nothing to sneeze at in regards to sound quality.

I'm almost to that point myself. If I can find a SS amp or hybrid with sound that is more like the tube emulation outputs on the Carver than the SS, and I can use my DBX without issue when needed, I think I am golden. I haven't quite decided what that is yet though, so for teh time being, my Carver is still the man.

Thanks for the suggestions. I'm currently using an AR LS-15 preamp, Mesa Baron amp, EAR 834P phone pre. I have a backup pre, a DB Sytems 2B with excellent tone contols, which was very good in its day, and generally considered better than anything by Carver, but it is a high-feedback ss design, not equal to the AR/EAR. I was hoping for something I could potentially afford that wouldn't be too much of a step down. I have tried various preamps and devices over the years, always been disappointed at the electronic "veil" all forms of eq introduce, not least of which are phase issues, so I am aware of the downside of tone controls. In theory, flexibility could more than make up for it. I will (save up and) look into Mac and Accuphase. The points above about the Mac's flexibility are pretty persuasive.

That's a good pre-amp to start with.

Any idea why the tone controls are needed?

Can't you do some tube rolling with that model to tweak the sound?