My NAD 3020 D proves your Class D tropes are wrong


I have a desktop integrated, the NAD 3020D which I use with custom near field monitors. It is being fed by Roon via a Squeezebox Touch and coaxial digital.

It is 5 years old and it sounds great. None of the standard myths of bad Class D sound exist here. It may lack the tube like liquid midrange of my Luxman, or the warmth of my prior Parasound but no one in this forum could hear it and go "aha, Class D!!" by itself, except maybe by the absolute lack of noise even when 3’ away from the speakers.

I’m not going to argue that this is the greatest amp ever, or that it is even a standout desktop integrated. All I am saying is that the stories about how bad Class D is compared to linear amps have been outdated for ages.

Great to see new development with GaN based Class D amps, great to see Technics using DSP feed-forward designs to overcome minor limitations in impedance matching and Atmasphere’s work on reducing measurable distortion as well but OMG stop with the "Class D was awful until just now" threads as it ignores about 30 years of steady research and innovation.
erik_squires
Class D is still awful. The end. The damn things are built backwards. with the most important part of the signal being ignored and the least important exalted, in the measurements and the design.

That’s what happens when engineers with incomplete questions and data sets, go out and try and improve the qualities of said poorly informed question sets. They arrive at the wrong answer and a poor device regarding it’s intended solution point.

Digital is no less the same.

Steady research, sure..... but still the wrong question and answer set.

Another point is that class D in high end audio, may start to go away, as the BASH patent has expired as of last year. A dynamically variable power supply rail with a regular output device design (class AB, etc) is probably better, overall, re what part of the signal the ear works with. Class D makes a mess out of that all important small area. BASH, as a high efficiency design, harms it far less.

Class D would still exist as a widely disseminated type of device, due to it’s unique ability to fit smaller devices, reduced power levels, etc.. but BASH might come to dominate high end audio as the efficiency champ.. when played against Class D.

One might even claim, conspiratorially... that current or overall Class D design is an effort to get past the BASH patent. A poorly run effort, a compromised effort...with worse results.

IMO and IME, there is more unclaimed and unrealized high fidelity hiding in the BASH design than any current or known, or expected class D fundamentals in design. 

When BASH arrives in high end audio, then the walking back of Class D may take place. IMO, count on it. Meet the new king, etc.
Real shame I have a great sounding integrated sitting right in front of me that disproves your entire post. 

Further, I don't know where you get the idea that BASH or similar isn't being used. NAD's hybrid Class-D as well as the Yamaha EEEngine are derivatives.  Not sure which are licensed but similar ideas.  My ICEpower amps however, definitely not BASH, are the equal of mid-range linear amps, the better of some top end ClassA but awfully warm sounding.
I’ve heard it. Sorry, no go.

The NAD, from my understanding is a hypex. And that’s bog standard class D. If you seek a high quality low priced mediocrity and want to call it excellent.... then class D is your savior, your champion.

Sure, whatever you want.....

I’d be happy to be wrong about that (sort of, no one likes crow) but I’m afraid I’m not.

Anyway, you are just trying to start up some long convoluted circular thread. Again. Some gambit to get everyone to scratch each other's eyes out. Grow up.