The cube

March 27, 2019
 by Paul McGowan

Bob Carver is a legend in our industry and, along with Ted Smith, as close to genius as I have met.

The man's amazing for his innovations and iconic for his brash marketing—a cross between Nikola Tesla and Harvey Rosenburg.

Carver was the first to open my eyes to the possibility of big power amplifiers that sounded good: the Phase Linear 400 followed by the 700. Compared to the industrial beasts of the day, like Crown and BGW, Phase Linear products actually sounded good.

And it was Bob Carver that showed the world big speaker cabinets were not necessary when he introduced the Sunfire True Subwoofer.

I was astounded to hear an 11-inch cube crank out bass with such authority and power as if it might have been coming from the 7.5-foot tall Infinity IRS woofer tower. Here was thunderous subterranean notes shaking the floor and pounding my chest and all from this silly looking black cube. In fact, the only problem with this miracle woofer was its propensity to scoot across the floor if not secured to it.

How was that possible? In Bob's words: "It's simple. All you need is a lot of power and a woofer that can handle it."

That power came from a 2700 watt class D amplifier and that woofer was a heavy 8" beast with a 2.5" throw (more commonly, woofers move not much more than a half an inch).

Suddenly my eyes were opened to the possibility that size really doesn't matter much anymore. That speaker cabinets could be freed from their size shackles without sacrificing performance. We could design speaker enclosures that looked great in a home but didn't have to be the 1.2 tons of 7.5-foot tall Infinity rosewood forests in Music Room Two to perform magic.

It's been freeing to know we can design a speaker like our upcoming AN3 to look the way we want and perform the way a full range speaker should.

If you're planning on going to the Axpona show in early April, come by our room on the ground floor (near registration). We'll have a prototype of the AN3 for you to listen to.

Subscribe to Paul's Posts

43 comments on “The cube”

  1. I’ve never heard of Bob Carver or Phase Linear, but then he is an American designer whose claims to fame go back almost 50 years. I had a look at the products on his current site and the thing that struck me is that they are products the likes of which I have never seen before. The U.K. has a history of innovation and design of audio and broadcast equipment on a par with the USA, but never went in any of the Carver directions. He seems to have been very “bigger is better”. The classic U.K. valve amp is probably the Quad II, which has been in production for over 50 years. All this suggests that there is nothing definitive about audio, there is a lot of variation in tastes and desires around the world, and there is no point arguing what is better.

    1. For me, there always seemed to be a little magic associated with Bob Carver's products. I always looked forward to reviews of his products with great interest and anticipation. Thanks for giving Bob Carver the recognition he so justly deserves.

  2. I was on the way mentioning the Sunfire sub (negatively) just yesterday already but held back. I owned it, too, as well as I had the mentioned Crown amps at home for temporary use at a party.

    I must say although the Sunfire really delivered the sheer „amount“ of bass a room usually only experienced from much bigger speakers before, this wasn’t what made the advantage of large speakers (or subs) in a room (especially in bass). Nothing I sold as quickly again as this sub. Just as well as the Crown‘s delivered perfectly controlled deep bass but no good sound otherwise.

    Pretending that we just need small speakers now with highly powered bass drivers to replace whatever kind of bigger speakers in their ability to supply a room with good sound is something I’d count as „partly true“ in terms of supporting the AN 3 marketing start 😉

    1. I completely agree with you. In my case it was listening to the Devialet 'ostrich egg' Phantoms, which can pump out an astonishing bass volume from tiny domes moving visible distances at what must be a hazardous velocity. They ticked the bass box but, and here I am going all subjectivist on you, the sound did not seem as rounded as an equivalent volume coming from a larger, less stressed driver. The Phantom is admittedly an extreme of the small driver, long-throw, high power combination.

      1. The Devialet driver is a rather different design. You will find it at US patent US10142753B2 in Google Patents. I note that the first citation is to US patent US6130954 granted in 2000 to a Mr Carver for a subwoofer!

        My 4.5kg 900w Devialet Reactor sits on top of my 400w 27.7kg BK subwoofer. Enough said.

      2. Yes, those were nothing that impressed me at all either. Impressed maybe again in terms of bass amount out of a small enclosure, but not regarding overall quality.

        This doesn’t mean I don’t expect the AN series to be great, in the opposite I do. I just think most important of a speaker is that it makes forget certain partial characteristics of tonal regions etc. like firm bass, detailed highs, deep strong bass etc. A speaker is great imo if nothing of this jumps at you but just the naturalness of the music.

        IMO in the same way you shouldn’t hear that it has an insane bass amount for the size as then mostly the room is overloaded with bass. But I guess many are impressed by that and it’s surely a matter of preference how this is perceived.

        I guess there’s a risk that this series of speakers are showcased towards their bass capability where they shouldn’t...just as the Diavalet shouldn’t.

    2. Not all rooms can fit the IRS V nor can most people afford such a speaker. I find it refreshing that engineers are working to develop small speakers with very high quality bass. Though I wouldn't consider the AN3 as being small just because it's not an IRS V. With subwoofers it's all in how you set them up. You can mess it up if you don't know what you're doing or try to use a subwoofer to make up for a lack of midbass in your main speakers. There are some subs suited for a higher crossover.

  3. Bob's "Flame Linear" amps were noisy and very finicky , and when pushed hard, they became very abrasive, and were low on quality control and sonic performance. That's just the facts.

    When you separate the low frequency driver out of a common cabinet and create the sat/sub model, you then start to introduce time alignment and imaging issues.

  4. Yes, mr. McGowan is damn good in advertising for one of his (upcoming) products by telling nice little stories.
    Just to whet our appetite...
    But...then why make coffins (e.g. AN3) instead of (small) speakers with a 5000 watt amplified monster sub ?
    Or is the AN3 what Americans call "small" ?

    1. I think you should ask PSA to change your moniker to "Mr Sunshine".

      If I saw a mock up of the AN3, it was a while ago, this American would call it a medium sized speaker. A small two way still need stands. No one who cares about sound puts book shelf speaker on a shelf.
      I also doubt that when the average person buys a two way speaker they plan on adding a powered sub. But after listening for a while they realize something is missing. Then they buy subs, rather than replace the little speakers.
      My speakers are 55" x 15" x 12", if I replace them it will be with larger ones, unless my room got smaller. I can't speak for my fellow countrymen, but I personally like large speakers, but I prefer small cars. I know we are full of contradictions.
      Now don't comeback until you have taken your happy pills;-)

      1. Sorry I offended you Jeffstarr. I didn't know you are in charge of this site.
        I would have picked my words more carefully.
        I can be cheerful. I proved that in a lot of my comments.
        But you obviously can't stand people who say something you don't like; you showed that more than once. But don't blame that on me.
        It's your problem.
        At least you showed your true colors.

        1. No, apparently I offended you. Did you not see the smiley on the end?
          You don't think Mr Sunshine would be a good moniker?

          I have to admit, I'm a little confused, what colors am I?

      2. I had speakers in bookshelves for years. The HDF shelves were suspended on 18" steel bolts and the tweeters at ear level.

        I bought (effectively) 2-way speakers that measure 25" x 12.5" x 12" with a view to getting a sub, which I did. Getting the larger model that includes a 12" bass driver would increase the cost from £4,600 to £14,600. The smaller speakers and a £500 sub work perfectly in my room, the larger speaker would be too large and almost treble the price.

        I've been told by top engineers that 3-way passive designs are really difficult to get right, far more than 2-way. It's just not a matter of adding a bass driver. Adding a sub is a different and more subtle approach - mine is only 400w, that's all I need.

  5. Small is the new big - possibly but I've yet to be convinced.
    The scale and authority of a realistic soundstage projected by large speakers has no equal (as yet) in my book.

  6. The key to the desired result is the movement of a given volume of air, correct? To that end, the physics involved, it makes sense that to move that volume of air you have a large woofer in a large enclosure with less power and little excursion, a small woofer in a small enclosure with copious amounts of power and large excursion or something in between like many small woofers which add up to the surface area of a large woofer, to do so. The devil is in the details as to how you go about achieving that end.

    1. Bob Carver was and still is a genius. His new speaker system has been getting incredible reviews. Bob has always tried to come up with design ideas with features that have been truly "Ear Opening". The user manual for the "True Subwoofer" clearly explains how the system works and the physics behind his design. Bob stated that (1) "to have lots of bass we need to move lots of air". His design incorporates two drivers that could move back-and-forth approximately 5 times more air than a normal sub and (2) that the drive amplifier must be much more powerful than an ordinary woofer amplifier in a tightly sealed box. His explanation goes into substantially more detail which I won't elaborate on but I have this sub in my system for many years and it sounds pretty damn good. Ultimately it is the source material dictates its impact on the overall sound..

      Is this the best deep, solid bass that I have had in my past systems. Only the Infinity RS1-B's woofer columns bested the Carver and by a lot. They put out deep powerful bass that occasionally felt like a punch in the solar plexus.

  7. As I pointed out yesterday an acoustic suspension loudspeaker which really should have been called a pneumatic suspension loudspeaker can be tuned to any and Q and F3 by adjusting the moving mass, the aerodynamic drag factor, and quantity of air inside the sealed enclosure. That means if you want a small box you will need a higher moving mass driver and to duplicate a 6 driver tower of woofers a driver that can be displace as much air as all six of them combined. It will also have to be tuned to the same Q and F3. The reason the principle works is because both the restoring force K and damping factor B are independent of frequency while other designs are not. The acoustic suspension design has other advantages too. The restoring force is applied uniformly over the entire surface of the cone by differences in air pressure inside and outside the sealed box. This eliminates difference in force on different areas of the cone both radially and tangentially that mechanic suspension systems invariably suffer from. The result is much less tendency for the cone to break up into harmonic modes and since the mass of the cone is greater and therefore stronger anyway, that further reduces likelihood of breakup. As a penalty it also probably increases group delay which is a different topic for discussion. The other advantage is that below the resonant frequency point the response falls off at a relatively gradual slope of 12 db per octave linearly which is equalizable. Other designs fall off at 24 db per octave making their resonant frequency the lowest usable limit of their design.

    The penalty as I also stated is efficiency. But high powered amplifiers are no longer difficult to find or necessarily expensive. One other note of caution and that is the risk of fire. The speaker design is likely to generate a lot of heat at certain times. It is contained in a relatively small well insulated space. Before marketing such a speaker a manufacture should do long term testing at high power to be certain the speaker will not spontaneously burst into flames. KLH Little Baron had a tendency to do just that.

  8. I don’t know how you keep your cheery disposition Paul. A few of the technically misinformed replies you receive, stated as inarguable fact, remind me of the old Robert Conrad battery commercials. He made a claim about the battery, puts it on his shoulder, then dares you to knock it off. Audio enthusiasts take a half truth here, a half truth there, mix it with personal anecdotes, proclaim it as audiophile Law, and denigrate the credibility, integrity, or intelligence of all who have another, and possibly correct and or new paradigm or methodology. I guess that is true of humans generally, not just audio enthusiasts. 🙁

  9. I had the opportunity to listen to the cube of Carver, (11") in the house of a young enthusiast, who was transported to the seventh heaven by the annoying sound of that tiny speaker, maybe it was good for him, because of the deafening noise that his generation calls "music".

    The only thing that could be discerned, even after turning down the volume and changing the type of music, was that it was the classic subwoofer with a single-note bass, like so many on the market.

    About a week he called me to tell me that the cube had burned. Maybe it was lucky for him, because he could not be deaf prematurely.

    Maybe for young people this is enough and ideal, but for my ears it turned out to be not only unpleasant sound quality, but also in an aleve aggression.

    On the other hand, the Amazing speaker, that was another different story.

    1. I heard Bob Carvers amazing speaker and did that ever sound good. His subwoofer technology is cutting edge. It might be more fussy setting them up but if you get it right and use them as subwoofers instead of midbass drivers because your mains lack decent midbass then your experience should be good.

  10. Paul, you may be correct, that the Sunfire woofer was powered with Class D. That was not my understanding at the time. If it was the Sunfire amp, which was patented, I believe Class G or maybe Class H would be the designation. Bob stated that it was the Sunfire technology, with output maximized for the driver. I was a Sunfire rep in two states in the Midwest at the time of the Sunfire Sub intro. There were NO drivers at the time with the xmax/excursion capabilities of the active woofer. Bob had to teach a driver manufacturer to build what he needed. There were no rubber surrounds that big and fat. There were no power amps that could deliver that much power in that small a space, nor were there any sub boxes that small. So your moniker of genius is applicable if that means offering fresh, previously unimagined perspectives and solutions. Lesser humans sometimes criticized him for what his inventions would not do, rather than for what they did. Cheers to you for recognizing. As a physicist he understood obstacles and sought solutions to overcome them. Traditional engineers, no offense, think inside the box, no pun intended. Bob was maximizing output and extension to make a big marketing splash. The original amp had circuit traces for a servo. When Bob found that ultimate output capabilities were diminished with the servo, he disabled it! One could criticize him for that decision, but he claimed 115 dB at 40 Hz. With servo enable I believe it was still a respectable 100 dB or so, but Bob wanted astonished reviewers to sell subs. I told him to offer a switch, servo on, servo off! Anyway, it was designed for maximum output below 40 Hz, something few so called subs, even large ones, offered. People who used the Sunfire subwoofer above 50 or 60 Hz, who didn’t use the crossover appropriately, don’t know how to position a sub accurately or adjust the phase control, blamed the woofer, not their own lack of knowledge. The sub had appreciable output to 15 Hz, and when used intelligently, below 40 or 50 Hz, positioned appropriately and phase control adjusted, would allow one to feel the 16 Hz organ pedal of the Saint Saens Symphony No. 3 in C Minor. That was something most large subs didn’t do, and the reason he named it “Sunfire True Subwoofer”. Most audio enthusiasts have limited (being generous here) technical background. The Sunfire had limitations, but it was many times criticized for being a hammer when someone inappropriately used it as a saw. Below 40 or 50 Hz, as a SUB, it worked fabulously well. My understanding at the time was the amplifier was the Sunfire/Lightstar amp inside the sub. That technology had its own patent. The Sunfire amps said “Load Invariant” on the front panel, and could almost perfectly adhere to Ohm’s Law, doubling their power with every halving of impedance. The current was immense, as the 4, 2, and even 1 Ohm specs demonstrated. The Sunfire/Lightstar amp did share in common with Class D a very high operating efficiency of over 80%. It barely became warm, even when driven hard. But I have yet to see Class D that doubled power when going from 4 to 2 or even 1 Ohm. Here is a white paper on how the Sunfire amp worked, if in fact it was the amp in the sub. I would welcome your feedback, as I’m not an engineer as you are. I know, you don’t like feedback, pun intended 🙂 https://karma.digital/sites/default/files/sunfire_amplifier_whitepaper.pdfhttps://karma.digital/sites/default/files/sunfire_amplifier_whitepaper.pdf

      1. Reading that from Bob Carver was a nice trip down memory lane. My first good amplifier was a Carver Sunfire amplifier and it came with the description above. Sounded great. I owned the Carver Sunfire amp and the sub as well. The Amplifier was a black box with a pretty yellow meter on the front and came with a piece of heavy smoked glass to sit it on. Perfect for positioning on a carpet. The brand new factory unit failed when I got it home. But when the Maryland dealer reported it to Carver in Washington state, my phone rang. What a nice and interesting conversation with Bob Carver. He helped me with everything stereo including understanding my Tinitis. The cube lasted forever and I sold it to a hifi friend for use with his Maggies. I do believe the amplifier in the subwoofer was a class D or similar. The weight and construction of the two was very different. I still own a Carver hybrid preamplifier, it's someplace out in the garage. For a very old item it sill seems to hold it's value. It's been Conrad-Johnson for me ever since.

        1. I would love to know what Bob Carver had to say about tinnitus. It plagues me, and probably other readers here. If you have the time and inclination to help, I'd sure appreciate it.

          1. Hey Jay...

            The conversation with Bob Carver was 35 or more years ago. The cube sub was a new thing as was the the Sunfire Stereo amplifier. At that time I was around 40 and had Tinitis for 20 or so years. As I was complaining about the issue and my HiFi hobby to Carver, he remarked simply "just turn up the volume. You will hear as much of the music as anyone". He was right. Now in my mid seventies I use aides, but find my ability to discriminate details in my system and others often exceeds many younger folks with no hearing loss. Paul comments on this occasionally. I guess my brain is trained to hear music details after all this time.

  11. Paul I own a pair of those Sunfire Carver Signature Subwoofers in a 13" cube with the 12" woofer and 12" passive radiator a step up from the 11" cube. It can go as low as 16Hz and put out 116 db of sound pressure. There's a massive magnet that must weigh around 30 pounds which brings the weight of a 13" x 13" cube to around 57 pounds. Bob Carver says in the owners manual that it's equal to have several 15" woofer drivers in a cabinet the size of a small refrigerator. If you pair a quality set of bookshelf speakers to one or two of these subs you have sound that competes with some of the best full range speakers in the world. These will definitely bring the police to your house.

    Some will complain they are more suited for home theater then music which might be true if you cross them over too high into mini monitors that have no bass. I wouldn't cross these over any higher then 80Hz so your main speakers should have decent bass to begin with and these just fill in the bottom end. It's all in how you set them up. You cannot beat these for weight and authority though for their size. If you want something more musical that blend better with speakers that lack bass you might want to try PSB Subwoofers which I own that are extremely musical. I also own a Velodyne with an 18" Servo controlled woofer. So I'm set for music, home theater or a multiple set of mini monitors and floor standing speakers.

    1. You like them because you’re using them correctly! They work well with full range speakers with output to 50 Hz or lower. They do NOT work well with mini monitors, crossed over at 100 Hz. It is a SUBwoofer... 🙂

  12. The original Bose 901 and Series II speaker systems demonstrated that an array of small acoustic suspension drivers could match the low end frequency response and low distortion of a much larger single acoustic suspension driver. However, in this regard the design was poorly executed. Usually people who design this type of speaker optimally will look for the lowest possible Fs and system F3. Bose didn't do that. Instead he pushed F3 above 180 hz because he said that resonance frequencies below that number created audible phase shift. He also underdamped the design resulting in a fairly well documented rise of about 7 or 8 db in my case at around 250 hz. Others who tested it claimed it was around 500 hz and was inaudible. In fact to my ears it is very audible. The system had an output that fell at the predicted 12 db per octave below resonance and seemed to reach the 1 khz output at about 90 hz where it just kept going down. It needed a 7 db cut at 250 hz and an additional 12 db boost at 30 hz to flatten the low frequency response. The Bose equalizer only produced 18 db. This means that to achieve flat response to 30 hz at the same loudness level for 1 watt at 1 khz, you'd need about 1000 watts at 30 hz. But since the system is only rated to handle 270 watts per channel you'd need about 4 pairs or more. The CTS 4" acoustic suspension drivers held up perfectly after 50 years, absolutely remarkable and much better than the drivers Bose manufactured himself starting with series III which was an entirely different design using what appears to be a transmission line enclosure losing the bottom octave and much more efficient. For those drivers the surrounds often deteriorated.

    Coincidently the aggregate cone surface area for 9 4" drivers is the equivalent of a single 14" woofer but their Xmax seems to be relatively limited compared to a typical acoustic suspension long throw woofer, another reason to use more pairs of them.

    At the point of series III the economics of the system changed radically as well. Where previously you needed a $1500 amplifier to drive a $500 speaker now you only needed a $500 amplifier to drive a $1500 speaker. Profits at Bose must have soared. None of the 901 variants appear to be able to produce the top octave of sound probably do to the inertial mass of what we now would call a midwoofer but was incorrectly called a table radio speaker by its detractors at the time. (this might have been the result of the article in popular electronics around 1960 that explained how to build a surface array speaker system from 16 5" Jensen table radio speakers called "the Sweet Sixteen.") This inertial mass problem was pointed out by Gordon Holt in his review. So whatever its positive attributes which attracted many non audiophile buyers its drawbacks, no deep bass unless played at ear shattering levels, a large FR bump in the upper bass and no high end made the speaker unacceptable to most audiophiles. Figuring out the bass was the easy part. If that took 4 days figuring out the treble was much harder and took me 4 years. This points out something I've believed since my experience with AR3. If you don't get the treble right nothing else matters and most designers don't. It's a lot harder and more complicated than you'd think and the solution is not a matter of designing better tweeters or better crossover networks.

    1. I just bought and am awaiting delivery of a Stellar Stack. Guess what they are being connected to ? Series 1 901's.....BUT....the equalizer, I've heavily modified with Sonicaps, super low ESR KEMET power supply caps, Vishay 1% metal film resistors, and a toroidal transformer (got that idea from Mr. Paul). They're not a pair of Wilson Watts or Puppies or the IRS V's. But they sound really good for 51 year old speakers. Once the Stack is paid off (give me a year LOL), then maybe I'll start looking at some Totem's, PSB Imagine (T2 for budget, T3 if I can do it), or maybe a pair of Martin Logan's. Preferably the cheapest of whatever Paul & Darren come up with. For know, I'm having a lot of fun with these Retro Modded 901's.

  13. Paul, I wish I had AXPONA in my budget, because I really want to hear where you are going with the AN speaker series! Unfortunately I am retired, so I am looking for AN3 sound on an AN1 budget. I _do_ have plans to attend RMAF 19 in October, so maybe by then you will be closer to the reality of marketing them instead of the prototype version. I know that someone (if not yourself) will show them off on YouTube next month: can't wait!

  14. Am I the only person here aged under 65 (by a good few years) ?

    I do despair that recent discussions revolve about people and products that were in their heyday when a certain Richard Milhous Nixon resided at the White House (and I'm not referring to our local Chinese kosher restaurant http://whitehouseexpress.com).

    Most audio buyers, and presumably those brands like PSA that want to get their hands on those buyers' money, have only heard of said R M Nixon by contrast to the current incumbent. I only know of him from an excellent play called Frost Nixon, that was made into a pretty good film. I have no recollection of that period of ancient history at all, other than The Magic Roundabout (a children's programme based on Class A drugs), Crackerjack and Noel Edmond's Swap Shop.

    A reader of this forum might think that the last 30 years had not happened. It would be nice to engage from time to time with the 21st Century.

  15. No, you're not the only one under 65.
    I'm also well under 85, but, contrary to a lot of people on this site, I hate being stuck in the past (the "good old days") when everything was better, sounded better.....Of course in reality the opposite is true.
    Oops, did it again. Another comment not sunny enough for Jeffstar.

    1. I received an invite this week to a 40th anniversary school reunion. I’ve not been through the school gates in all those years. It is a rather elitist private institution that seems extremely proud of its history, stretching back over 500 years. I actually bothered to email the headmaster and we had a brief and friendly discussion in which I expounded my disdain for elitism and private education, and that my son went to a (free) local state faith school at which he had a great time, the outcome was as good as had I paid, but most importantly the school only looked forward rather than always looking back. It’s not difficult as the school only opened two years before he started.

      I feel looking back all the time is really self-defeating. No one ever truly innovated by looking backwards. You just get very slow evolution or another version of the same thing time and again. We have access to audio products that fit in our pockets that produce sound better than a roomful of the best older products at a fraction of the cost.

      I consider it a very sunny observation that we’ve never had it so good and the businesses making strides are those looking forward, not back.

  16. Wow, where did the disparagement of the stereotyped, older, participants on this forum come from? This whole topic is centered around the individuals, older ones as they may be (Carver, Smith and even Paul himself), were, are and will continue to be the ones that think outside the box for new ideas.

    Just because some of them refer to the previous, older, achievements of those individuals doesn't make them irrelevant or "stuck in the past". Nostalgic maybe, irrelevant no. I believe Paul was trying to spark discussion to encourage everyone to think outside the box for new ideas by showing, as an example, how Bob executed the Cube, at that "older" point in time, and not stay stuck in the past.

    One doesn't have to be mean to make a point.

  17. I parted ways with my 80’s Carver equipment last year in preparation for starting fresh on a new system with modern components.

    Despite their age they brought me a good return on their purchase price. Seems most of my old equipment was in high demand by Gen Xers. So the age of either audio equipment or an audiophile appears to be of little importance.

    Paul’s point of view that most audio problems can be fixed with more amplifier power reminds me of the adage “To a man with a hammer every problem looks like a nail”.

    I have zero doubt the AN3 will be a quantum leap in sound reproduction, and better than any speaker I will ever own. But the engineer in me is currently entranced with designing a Transmission Line speaker with a 16” woofer. I am curious to learn how much bass I can achieve with as little power as necessary.

  18. Thanks for writing about Bob Carver's Sunfire True Subwoofer. My little 11" cube has been rattling the foundation since I bought it in the mid 1990s. I find it to be accurate, unbelievably powerful, and a joy to listen to. Currently, it's handling the sub duties for our home theater, and I couldn't be happier.

  19. The Bob Carver sub was never replicated as far as I know. It will be interesting to see how PS Audio does it with the new speaker specially since the excursions required for the mid range and tweeter would have to be in inches.. Regards.

  20. I've had the pleasure of speaking with Bob Carver on several occasions and he's as humble and personable as a person could be. He is a genius but he certainly doesn't hit you over the head with it. What you do notice is that he LOVES audio and enjoys what he does.

Leave a Reply

Stop by for a tour:
Mon-Fri, 8:30am-5pm MST

4865 Sterling Dr.
Boulder, CO 80301
1-800-PSAUDIO

Join the hi-fi family

Stop by for a tour:
4865 Sterling Dr.
Boulder, CO 80301

Join the hi-fi family

linkedin facebook pinterest youtube rss twitter instagram facebook-blank rss-blank linkedin-blank pinterest youtube twitter instagram