Old 90's Carver speaker review

Ever read this review. Guy sure didn't pull any punches
www.integracoustics.com/MUG/MUG/reviews ... er-ALS.htm . A lot of reviews seem to be really complementary. This guy really tells it the way he sees(or hears it). also dumped heavily on the mono block amps too. Art. P.S. Don't know how to make the the browser line light up so you can click on it so you'll have to copy and paste

Interesting read! Seems as Bob has always been busy tweaking his products!!!

Notice the timing of the lawsuit in the cut and paste below and the date of the review. Once you read the synopsis of the lawsuit on page 9, pdf 11, in my opinion, one can draw there own conclusion as to the outcome of the review. Bob's relationship was albeit strained with Stereophile to say the least!

http://www.theaudiocritic.com/back_issu ... c_16_r.pdf

It's a review by Dick Olsher for god's sake!

So I would recognize Dick Olshers work because???????????????????????????????. It didn't seem to me that Bob would be running to this guy with changes to the speaker if he wasn't taking him seriously. Don't get me wrong I love these speakers but a couple of the points such as razor sharp highs aren't completely wrong. I also think that because this guy wasn't ready to give them the perfect bill of health lead to Bob Carver making quite a few changes for the better I might add. I wonder if the great majority of these reviewers are really telling it like it is.One bad review could ruin a company. If you read the movie reviews on the back of the DVD's you'll find glowing reviews of movies that in reality really sucked. Someone told me the reason these guys would write great reviews was that if they didn't they would never be invited to do any more. Kind of makes you wonder about the validity of many of these reviews.

So I would recognize Dick Olshers work because???????????????????????????????. It didn't seem to me that Bob would be running to this guy with changes to the speaker if he wasn't taking him seriously. Don't get me wrong I love these speakers but a couple of the points such as razor sharp highs aren't completely wrong. I also think that because this guy wasn't ready to give them the perfect bill of health lead to Bob Carver making quite a few changes for the better I might add. I wonder if the great majority of these reviewers are really telling it like it is.One bad review could ruin a company. If you read the movie reviews on the back of the DVD's you'll find glowing reviews of movies that in reality really sucked. Someone told me the reason these guys would write great reviews was that if they didn't they would never be invited to do any more. Kind of makes you wonder about the validity of many of these reviews.

Stereophile has a large following, rightly or wrongly. A bad review can do serious damage. Thus the reason, in my opinion, Bob was trying to appease. That is not to say the tweaking did not yield sonic improvements. However, after continual negative reviews of his products by Stereophile, Bob obviously had enough. Thus the reason for the large ad in Absolute Sound, which spurred the lawsuit. My opinion, which isn't worth a whole lot.

So I would recognize Dick Olshers work because???????????????????????????????. It didn't seem to me that Bob would be running to this guy with changes to the speaker if he wasn't taking him seriously. Don't get me wrong I love these speakers but a couple of the points such as razor sharp highs aren't completely wrong. I also think that because this guy wasn't ready to give them the perfect bill of health lead to Bob Carver making quite a few changes for the better I might add. I wonder if the great majority of these reviewers are really telling it like it is.One bad review could ruin a company. If you read the movie reviews on the back of the DVD's you'll find glowing reviews of movies that in reality really sucked. Someone told me the reason these guys would write great reviews was that if they didn't they would never be invited to do any more. Kind of makes you wonder about the validity of many of these reviews.

Read the "Stereophile challenge" & you can get a little perspective on their point of view.

Bob proved he could make his amps sound "like any other you can pick" and Stereophile didn't like it.

That's not to say the "improvements weren't valid, only that Stereophile had a bit of a hardon for Bob.

My .02

Well, I think the Stereophile Challenge was a fairly even treatment of Bob, except for that little morality judgement at the end, that was more of an afterthought than part of the article main (i.e., where Stereophile said "he won"). I think that was written after the article was written to appease their high-end advertisers, and didn't have anything to do with how Bob was treated up to that point. Plus, I do not believe J. Gordon Holt had anything to do with smearing Bob's name like Stereophile tried to do after "he won". In fact, he left the magazine.

Bill, you are correct on that.

Bob has a high regard for Holt.

The magazine was sold or Holt left & was replaced. There was some animosity after that.

The speaker review was after that and my point was only to point out that there was some anti Carver feeling at the magazine during that time.