The Carver ad indicates a five year warranty on amp & tubes, with "Unique Carver Tube Tech" and variable bias. Nothing found on Carver's site and there's little info on-line.
It could be image distortion because the output tubes look like taller KT-120s. Does anyone, here, know the details on this <$5k amp? If an elaborate biasing scheme successfully develops 180 watts from a KT-120 pair, at low distortion, long life, and reasonable cost, what might be the trade-off? Or aren't those tubes KT-120s? Intriguing.
It could be image distortion because the output tubes look like taller KT-120s. Does anyone, here, know the details on this <$5k amp? If an elaborate biasing scheme successfully develops 180 watts from a KT-120 pair, at low distortion, long life, and reasonable cost, what might be the trade-off? Or aren't those tubes KT-120s? Intriguing.
Apart from being completely unrealistic? 😀
You can't have 180W output from a couple of 60W tubes, unless they are in class D or something.
There are full-page ads in both April & May TAS issues. for the Carver.
Even VAC's 450iQ seems to be stretching the limits with a quad of KT-88s outputting 225wpc from their new four foot tall, 400lb, integrated. It's hard to imagine that enough deep pocket exist to make this $150k amp viable. Hmmm, one of their 452, 450 watt monoblocs would be attractive standing next to my tower speakers - and they're ONLY $75k apice.
Even VAC's 450iQ seems to be stretching the limits with a quad of KT-88s outputting 225wpc from their new four foot tall, 400lb, integrated. It's hard to imagine that enough deep pocket exist to make this $150k amp viable. Hmmm, one of their 452, 450 watt monoblocs would be attractive standing next to my tower speakers - and they're ONLY $75k apice.
I would be interested in seeing actual measurements on the product and more technical information. 180W from just a pair of KT-120s would be quite an accomplishment. If the tests don't match claims, that's something else all together.
Years ago amplifier manufacturers used to claim exaggerated output power while referring to "peak music power" although not specifically stating that. Then RMS power ratings became the normal. It seems like that is now out the window and they've reverted back to the seventies. So read my tag line below and apply it to what you read from these "reputable manufacturers". And remember that Carver is the master of hype. His so called magic has been discussed here and here.
I'm not certain the 2180 actually uses 120's, but it looks similar in the magazine photo. The online image makes the tubes look extended and I'm not familiar with another, bigger, pair that would meet those specs - at least nothing common to me, a pedestrian enthusiast.
Regarding that VAC amp; it seems to fall a bit short in John Atkinson's bench test @ 1% THD. Perhaps more manufacturers are reverting to the old peak or "Music Power" rating. This "re-rating" has been occurring for quite awhile AFAIK. About 15 years ago I purchased a Marantz receiver rated @ 75wpc. I was surprised and disappointed to read in its manual that RMS rating was only from 40Hz & up. There oughta be a law - and I thought there was!
Regarding that VAC amp; it seems to fall a bit short in John Atkinson's bench test @ 1% THD. Perhaps more manufacturers are reverting to the old peak or "Music Power" rating. This "re-rating" has been occurring for quite awhile AFAIK. About 15 years ago I purchased a Marantz receiver rated @ 75wpc. I was surprised and disappointed to read in its manual that RMS rating was only from 40Hz & up. There oughta be a law - and I thought there was!