Class D - A Fork in the Road

If you have to learn to like it, why bother? 

they’re pretty much the same sounding if designed by competent people

This is not true, different circuit designs and parts usually sound noticeably different.  The differences may be small or possibly not noticeable, but usually there is a difference enough to make user subjective preferences meaningful.

@kennyc +1 

@kennyc +1 

theoretically, class D amp can be precise one on frequency and time domain. in reality, it’s extremely hard to design device, with flawless transfer of continuous analog signal, into width modulated pulses, and then back, by integrating pulse energy using LPF (LPF very challenging part of design, typically not linear due to magnetic cores used for inductors, capacitor ESR, etc.). limitations are: nor precise / fast degrading components, resistive connections, hard-to-shield magnetic fields, fast aging switching SS devices, capacitors, and more.. analog amplifier is much simpler than D class, thus more reliable and predictable over time. 

class D amp has one significant advantage, - power efficiency, and excellent power per weight ratio. class D amp is the amp of choice for live performance PA system, car sound system, and other applications where high power efficiency, low weight are crucial. 

I cannot help with the comparison. I did, however, spend a fair amount of time listening to the AGD Gans and Fischer&Fischer speakers at CAF. I don't remember the model, but the AGDs were, for a good deal of the time, one of the less expensive models. The setup was very impressive. Plenty of well controlled bass, very natural midrange and no glare on top. I thought the sound was exceptional, even under less than ideal "show" circumstances, and destroyed much of the stereotype concerning Class D.

I have compared a few. Unfortunately I’m not up on the architecture so I can’t comment on the different core designs and of course implementation matters. 

Began with Fosi V3 monos which were quite good for the money but was getting random clicks and pops even when no signal was being sent (pre-amp off).

Then I tried SMSL PA200 bridged so 2 running a channel each. The build quality was much better and didn’t run as hot. The sound wasn’t as thick in the low end and a bit drier overall. However detail was moderately better and the stage more accurate so more depth of stage and less wall of sound.
 

Finally tried a Buckeye Hypex NCx500 2 channel. Separation of instruments, clarity, transients, attack, etc is all the best I’ve heard by a significant margin. They say there is no inherent sound to these, no specific color to the tone or effect on the stage. That they produce exactly what’s on the recording. I agree. If the recording has width to the stage, you’ll hear it. If there are details you’ll hear that too. What’s great about them is you can crank it and it doesn’t become mush. And not every recording will sound the same which some find tiresome. Tonality is maybe just ever so slightly warm.