How does the Phase Linear 400 compare?

ykingfisher: If you have ever read any of my posts, you would know that i am not one to rave about products based on price or brand name. Personally, i would rather pay the least amount possible and obtain the most performance possible. I am VERY much a "bang for the buck" kind of guy.

After thinking back to my comments about the capacitors used in the Phase 400, it was the Phase 700 that used two 4,700 uF caps. As you can see, this is MUCH too small for an amp of this power rating. Thank you for correcting me.

Having said that, i have owned 11 Carver built / designed products over the years. I have multiple Phase 400's, a Phase 400 Series II and a Phase 300 Series II ( even though there was never an original Phase 300 ). I even went so far as to take two of the original 400's and convert them into one TRUE dual mono design on one large chassis. When doing this many moons ago, i performed quite a few upgrades, modifications, circuit changes. As such, the comments that i made were from experience and intimate first hand knowledge of the products. They were not meant to slam anyone or anything, simply to offer my point of view in the grander scheme of things.

In a direct comparison between an old Carver ( Phase Linear or Carver Corp) product and a newer Carver ( Sunfire or Lightstar ) product, the old amps in stock form sound slow, sluggish and have ill-defined bass. The treble is smeared and sibilant. This gets worse as you drive the amp harder. The midrange lacks any form of liquidity and sounds hard in the upper octaves. There is also a grainy, gritty sound throughout the entire spectrum. As such, Bob Carver has obviously learned a WHOLE LOT over his career.

While i do agree with your comments regarding the preamp and speakers i.e. "system synergy", i would also suggest that you might want to check into other products on the market to see what is out there and if the models that you have are still competitive. It is quite possible that your upgraded / modified Phase 400's will do everything that you want out of them as compared to newer, and probably more expensive gear. Then again, one would never know unless they had done such a comparison. It could be either an eye / ear opening event or a strong confirmation that what you already have is sufficient for what you want out of your music reproduction system. Sean
>

It makes a pretty darn good, cheap, sub woofer amp...

It was affectionately known in pro audio circles as the "Flame Linear" since it was prone to frying the outputs and drivers, and more when pushed into clipping in PA applications...

I've owned at least a dozen 400s and a few 700s since they first came out in the 1970s.

They're not hard to keep working once you know what is going on inside. The criticism of the filter caps is 100% valid, and it's easy to see the difference between my own Symphony No.1 amplifier design which uses a mere 500,000 ufd and the PL 400 that uses 2 x 6800!

It's not hard to say that I'd rather have one of them for my system than certain other current amplifier offerings that cost much more... :- )

_-_-

No offence intended Sean. If so please accept my apologies. When I was writing my comments I was thinking of the general public. I get a lot of tips from newsgroups and am grateful to all who advice and all who critise.

Incidentally I have a PL 700 series two, NAD 208 and Audionics. I used to have a SUMO but couldn't get a replacement part and have to junk it. All these I would rotate with different speakers and pre-amps and as you said synergy is the way to go.

BTW for others who would like to note I have added a switch to the speakers and switch them on after the amp and off before switching the amps off to avoid the thumps.

Keep the ideas flowing.

For what its worth, JGH once wrote about the PL 400:

"This and the higher-powered P-L 700 have a sound that is characteristically their own: A rather fat, rich quality that one normally associates with good solid-state units of considerably lower power (such as the Citation 12 and the Crown D-60), and the effortless openness that is a sure sign of oodles of reserve power. Both however also have a noticeably fine-grained or 'gray' quality that is substantially less conspicuous in the 400 (which in turn has a shade more of it than the Crown DC-300A). In addition, although it is not easy to overload the 400, it does not respond very gracefully when it is overdriven (usually on heavy, sustained bass passages), and takes a perceptible period of time to recover.

"All in all, we would judge this to be a less successful design than the Dyna Stereo 400 (which sells for $100 more), but would rate it as being the best solid-state amplifier in its price class."

Seems to corroborate Sean's comments, not that we need JGH to corroborate Sean.

James: Thanks for posting that. Where in the world did you ever find that ? Do you still have the original magazine or was it on the net somewhere ?

I guess if you take things in perspective, J. Gordon Holt made some of the same comments that i did i.e. the Phase amps had a grainy haze, the power supply was soft and that the bass lacked sustain and definition. Other than that, it appears that he thought pretty highly of the Phase amps in their day. Obviously, his comments might be somewhat different if he were to look back upon those amps today knowing what he now knows.

The one thing that i have a hard time understanding is that he said that the Dyna 400 was a "more successful" design than the Phase 400, but rated the Phase 400 as being the best in its' price class. Given the difference in price of only $100, was he saying that the Dyna may have sold more ( i.e. "greater success" ) but that the Phase 400 was a better amp ? One cold also take it to mean that the Phase 400 was the best amp for the money, but for another $100, they felt that the Dyna was a step forward ? Without seeing the entire review / commentary, it is hard to tell how to take this comment. Sean
>