I had my 1.0 on a set of Cerwin-Vega 10t's. The sound was good at low listening levels but was a little harsh and tiring at moderate to loud levels. I have since then bought a pair of Polk Audio 1000p's. This really toned down the Carver 1.0. The sound is sweet and not tiring or harsh at any level. This combo makes music really enjoyable.

Before I start this review i must say that I never thought I would end up happy with a 10.5 year old amp in my system.I have only owned this amp for about 5 days, I have heard it sound very good, and very not so good. I will start with what I like, the M1.0t has a very soft, mostly detailed sound through the whole audio spectrum. However I think there are problems with the power supply, i know it has a partial or "stepped" tracking power supply, the amp sounds great when it is at medium to medium high volume levels, but when you turn it up, it gets glossy & rubbery sounding. (That's the only way I know how to describe it?, i think it may have phase problems while under extreme load)I also notice this when running it into constant low ohm load speakers, like Maggies SMGB's 3-4ohms. The same rubbery sort of sound is exhibited. I must now say that with 8ohm speakers at medium to medium high levels the amp sounds very good, and has ecellent control of the speakers especially on jazz and classical. It is the kind of amp that you can just sit back and listen to for a long time. One other characteristic that stands out is it's ability to reproduce piano with amazing wieght and resonance. Overall i like this amp especially for it's age. When matched with 8ohm speakers it sounds very nice, however i would not recomend it for power hungry speakers, or high spl listeners. Rating 4 stars sound (5 stars for value).

I have owned the carver m1.0t for over 10 years. I believe that the people who say that it has no bass have no idea how to set up their speakers to give them the best performance. It takes many months of tweaking speaker placement to get everything set up correctly. When i first purchased this amp I was not completely satisfied with the sound quality, but after fooling with speaker placement, cables(I settled with Audioquest Ruby's after trying 3 other cables) and front ends I came to realize that this amp is very neutral. The only way you can say that this is a bad amp is if you did not try hard enough to make it sound as good as it could.

In my opinion the carver 1.0t is an awesome amp. If there are people out there that think it has no bass then I suggest you look elseware in your audio system, like your speakers... I have a car stereo with over 2000 watts rms on 8 orion xtr3 12's hitting spl's of over 160db and this amp and my cerwin at15s are the closest I have heard a house stereo come to this type of sound. Well I guess this also includes my 2 cerwin 15 inch 200 watt power floor subs but all the same. This amp is one of the best I have heard for the money. If anybody is looking for an amp with a very clean sound and plenty of power to spare for a good price I would highly recommend this one.

Carver 1.0t good amplifier?? What a joke !! I earned this AMP for 3 months and there was no bass at all,the high and midrange sounds like nothing.Real audio enthusiats please compare this piece of shit with a real class A
amplifier and you know what i mean!

These reviewers who say that the carver dosen't have bass, need there head checked!!! This baby rocks!! if you want to spend a ton of cash elseware go ahead. if your not getting bass check your speakers.

I owned a Carver M1.0t amplifier for about 6 years and thought it sounded pretty good until I heard other amplifiers. As my experience grew, so did my disatisfaction with the M1.0t. The clincher came when I replaced it with an Acurus A100. Using the same speakers, cables, pre-amp, etc. as before, the bass sounded like another octave had been added! I did not realize the M1.0t bass extension and definition were so poor! On top of that, the highs were smoother, less electronic sounding than the Carver, the mid-range better defined with a wider sound stage. And unlike the Carver, which sounds thin and reedy at low volume, the Acurus A100 sounds punchier and more dynamic at any setting!If you are still listening to a Carver M1.0t, or almost any other Carver amplifier, you are not getting the most out of your system! Fortunately, you don't have to spend megabucks to get something better. Any amp by Acurus, Parasound, NAD, Rotel, etc., will sound better. Do yourself a favor and expand your horizons! Your music will thank you!

For clear, clean, powerful sound the Carver 1.0t Amplifier is tops. Bob Carver is clearly a genius and his magnetic field amplifiers are magnificient! The 1.0t is a solid state magnetic field amplifier with a tube-like sound (a rare feat for solid state). The 1.0t is a powerful little brute which can clearly kick out the jams with 200 watts rms a channel with 8 ohm speakers. One of the nice things about this amp is that it works well with speakers which pose difficult load problems (4 ohms and lower). A benefit of magnetic field amplification is that the amp runs cool to the touch (alas, I cannot fry eggs on it). Another benefit is that power is quickly sent to the speakers based on the intensity of the sound of the recording (hence, no need to have all 200 watts at the ready and no heat build-up nor the need for a noisy or even quiet fan).
The first time I hooked up this amp to my speakers (at that time BIC Venturi 830's--three-way tower speakers capable of handling up to 250 watts) I was astonished as how dynamic, quick, detailed, warm, clear, and clean the sound was as I rocked around the clock (listening to Pittsburgh's Joe Grushecky and the Houserockers, The Rolling Stones, The Beatles, Bruce Springstein, and myriad other albums). What really astonished me was overall sound quality of the musical presentation (I had been using a Sony receiver as an amplifier with 120 watts rms a channel with a Carver C4000 preamplifier ) and how improved the sound was. One should not stint on one's amplification is the lesson that I quickly learned (I had always thought that one should spend virtually all one's stereo budget on speakers and that any old amp or receiver would suffice). Quality components = quality sound.

I like the Carver 1.0t amplifier and after hearing other Carver amplifiers and receivers I'm quite impressed with the quality of the sound at reasonable "real world" prices. Even though my friend George complains that he can "hear" the magnetic field, I find the 1.0t to be a tremendously clean and clear sounding amplifier with a warmth (nice pleasant warmth) reminiscent of tubes and a dynamic musical presentation. I give the Carver 1.0t a high recommendation.

For clear, clean, powerful sound the Carver 1.0t Amplifier is tops. Bob Carver is clearly a genius and his magnetic field amplifiers are magnificient! The 1.0t is a solid state magnetic field amplifier with a tube-like sound (a rare feat for solid state). The 1.0t is a powerful little brute which can clearly kick out the jams with 200 watts rms a channel with 8 ohm speakers. One of the nice things about this amp is that it works well with speakers which pose difficult load problems (4 ohms and lower). A benefit of magnetic field amplification is that the amp runs cool to the touch (alas, I cannot fry eggs on it). Another benefit is that power is quickly sent to the speakers based on the intensity of the sound of the recording (hence, no need to have all 200 watts at the ready and no heat build-up nor the need for a noisy or even quiet fan).
The first time I hooked up this amp to my speakers (at that time BIC Venturi 830's--three-way tower speakers capable of handling up to 250 watts) I was astonished as how dynamic, quick, detailed, warm, clear, and clean the sound was as I rocked around the clock (listening to Pittsburgh's Joe Grushecky and the Houserockers, The Rolling Stones, The Beatles, Bruce Springstein, and myriad other albums). What really astonished me was overall sound quality of the musical presentation (I had been using a Sony receiver as an amplifier with 120 watts rms a channel with a Carver C4000 preamplifier ) and how improved the sound was. One should not stint on one's amplification is the lesson that I quickly learned (I had always thought that one should spend virtually all one's stereo budget on speakers and that any old amp or receiver would suffice). Quality components = quality sound.

I like the Carver 1.0t amplifier and after hearing other Carver amplifiers and receivers I'm quite impressed with the quality of the sound at reasonable "real world" prices. Even though my friend George complains that he can "hear" the magnetic field, I find the 1.0t to be a tremendously clean and clear sounding amplifier with a warmth (nice pleasant warmth) reminiscent of tubes and a dynamic musical presentation. I give the Carver 1.0t a high recommendation.

Cool running, attractive design, bridgable, economical.

Audible buzz through output, cheap useless output terminals, a lot of cheap parts used in production.

I use two amps run in mono mode, so I am not passing judgement on a single amp in stereo mode. First off, I'm not terribly impressed with the audible buzz heard through the speakers while these amps are on. The noise does not bother me when listening due to the levels I listen at, however the Haflers I have used didn't send anything to the speakers but an all but inaudible hiss at idle. My Carvers do not emit the POW to the speakers at shutdown like others have written about or like my brother's 1.0 does, due to the fact mine have had the input cards modified to stop this...and it works. Since I use real speaker cable of the AudioQuest high end variety, I found the stock binding posts (if you can call them binding posts) to be a total joke. They have no provisions for heavy guage conductors with spades at all. Unless you are using dental floss with no terminations, they are useless. I had to modify my amps with Vampire Wire BPHEX gold over brass posts and ditched the cheapo plastic single piece unit Carver stuck on the back. While doing the work inside the amp it was obvious Carver didn't hurt their budget in their choice of components. I suppose that kept the cost down to the consumer, but at the expense of how many pairs of speaker that were probably ruined with that shutdown burst? Would it kill Carver to modify existing M1.0t amps in use now at no cost? Afterall it's a screw up that should have never been released into final production in the first place.
Enough bashing, on to the positive. As far as power goes, I can listen as loud as I ever care to and as loud as my Polk SDA-1C's (modified for bi-wire) can take and barely get the indicator lights off idle. As far as bass...I don't know what some of you guys were smoking when you wrote your reviews, but if your 1.0's don't have any bass...it must have all ended up in my 2! These amps are not quite as warm, accurate or detailed as my former Hafler P3000's, however the difference is so minimal that it's trivial to point it out at all. The midrange is convincing, the bass is definitely detailed (Police, SYNCRONICITY track 9...perfect articulation) vocals are pleasant (Celine Dion...excellent) and the highs are as delicate and present as they ever were. I really can't complain about the performance of these amps at all. I wonder what they'd sound like if Carver hadn't opted to cheap out on the components??? The only thing I can say to you guys slamming the M1.0t is: what the hell is the rest of your system comprised of that you say they lack bass? I think I'd check room acoustics and speakers first guys. I challange anyone to come listen to my set up and tell me I'm lacking in the bass dept. And NO I don't have the bass or EQ turned up in the 150Hz and under region...in fact my didgital preamp has NO tone controls...what you hear is pure unadulterated flat response music straight from the CD to you. Overall for their cost they are a darn good amp with plenty of power (mono) to drive the most power hungry speakers out there with a quality that belies their build, provided you give them a little helping hand.
The model year for them was either 88 or 89, I don't recall offhand, maybe because I may have one of each...I didn't commit the dates to memory.
Reasons for my ratings: You shouldn't have to spend extra for real binding posts or to stop that WHACK. That hurts the value rating. Overall, what you end up with is very decent all things considered.

Similar Products Used:

Hafler 9180 Hafler P3000