Yeah, that was part of the story. It started with a bold claim from Carver stating his amplifier was indistinguishable from a tube unit. I believe Peter Aczel picked up the story in his review magazine, The Audio Critic. When it wasn't the same, Carver had to modify his amplifier in significant ways to make it sound the same, one of which was increasing its current capacity significantly. Those mods never made it into production since they were much too expensive.
Tweaking time domain energy here and there, that has all been done before, although I think Bob was the first to apply it to audio work, ignoring tone controls and equalizers, of course. Aczel's magazine went defunct before the review was published but Bob still reprinted that review with permission to sell his amplifiers.
I don't agree that most of our measurements are stuck in 1970 technology. The test equipment we have today is like comparing a Lotus to a Model T. I wish I had today's stuff back in my audio design days! Back then, we used to laugh and say "the test equipment we have today is like comparing a Lotus to a Model T" when we talked about 1970 technology compared to the 1950 technology. However, I find myself saying the same thing today about current test equipment. I can do things in my lab today with 1995-2005 era used equipment that I could never do in the 70's. And, the best part, it is so much less expensive today than back in the 1970's when comparing performance to the dollar.
Likewise, I don't agree that no one has made improvements in measurements. Folks have, I just don't see them dumping their IP into public domain for their competitors to use. See, the thing is, audiophiles want a single measurement that is the cornucopia and tells all. That is unlikely to happen, the fact is our equipment is fine, the key is knowing how to apply the equipment, how to interpret what you are measuring, and then solving the problem.
Tweaking time domain energy here and there, that has all been done before, although I think Bob was the first to apply it to audio work, ignoring tone controls and equalizers, of course. Aczel's magazine went defunct before the review was published but Bob still reprinted that review with permission to sell his amplifiers.
I don't agree that most of our measurements are stuck in 1970 technology. The test equipment we have today is like comparing a Lotus to a Model T. I wish I had today's stuff back in my audio design days! Back then, we used to laugh and say "the test equipment we have today is like comparing a Lotus to a Model T" when we talked about 1970 technology compared to the 1950 technology. However, I find myself saying the same thing today about current test equipment. I can do things in my lab today with 1995-2005 era used equipment that I could never do in the 70's. And, the best part, it is so much less expensive today than back in the 1970's when comparing performance to the dollar.
Likewise, I don't agree that no one has made improvements in measurements. Folks have, I just don't see them dumping their IP into public domain for their competitors to use. See, the thing is, audiophiles want a single measurement that is the cornucopia and tells all. That is unlikely to happen, the fact is our equipment is fine, the key is knowing how to apply the equipment, how to interpret what you are measuring, and then solving the problem.