Comments please on: NAD M23 vs c298 vs. other newer Class D

Update: I got the NAD M23 to try out. Hesitant to say too much because I don’t want to prejudice myself, but so far it is more dynamic and detailed, including in the bass, than my other amps (Pass XA25 and Quicksilver Mono 60’s with KT77 tubes). I’m driving 97db speakers (15" driver plus AMT tweeter) and currently using the solid state preamp.

Sounds: 

Midrange sounds really nice. Not thin or analytical but definitely less warm and rounded. But much better than the Hypex I had in here.

Great energy with dynamics and transients -- easy to get the toes tapping.  Hearing some new notes (maybe even instruments) and richer textures in tracks I know really well.

A couple tracks pushed me back in my seat with some brightness -- but I’m pretty sure it was the volume setting and/or the track itself. (In other words, it would happen on other amps, too.)

Sound stage is really good so far -- perhaps less depth than the tubes, but I imagine that’s to be expected.  Need to listen more.

The big test will be to see if, over time, it gets fatiguing and if there is ultimately something that seems not very interesting about it. Performance wise, everything is going well, but it needs to be listened to for a lot longer, and it needs to be compared with the other amps, and it needs to be tried on the other speakers. If I’m going to spend $3000 on this thing, it has to pass a lot of tests. The most important test is that it has to be interesting and bring something new to the table. Otherwise, I’ll just wind up looking at it on a shelf, thinking about the hassle of selling it used. 

hilde45 - Nice initial feedback. What pre-amp and sources are you running? If ever an amplifier demonstrated ruler flat frequency response and nearly perfect measurements don't exactly produce beautiful results, the M23 would be the poster child for that category.

For me, I'm constantly seeking perfection in playback so I can tweak the other variables in my listening environment as needed if the I know the source is true. I find the M23 to nearly flawless on the measurments front, but understand that isn't necessarily the sound everyone wants.

Despite many seeking perfect measurments, I believe most are actually seeking listening bliss. Those are very different objectives in my opinion. Nonetheless, I am very happy with my M23 and am considering buying a second (pre-owned, version V1)  and running them as mono block amplifiers. 

It would be hard to find an amplifier that measures better than an M23. However, that clinical grade amplification leaves much to be desired for many audiophiles. A bit like a professional marathon athlete vs. Sydney Sweeny. One is the epitome of efficiency and performance. The other...

Which is the end game partner? The perfect athlete or the stunning head turner? Absolute performance vs. hedonistic pleasure? Do both exist in a single product? If so, please point me in that direction!

@connollymj 

At the moment, I am using my SS preamp, which is very quiet and neutral. My source is a dead quiet Pi-based streamer running Qobuz into Roon or streaming from an attached hard drive. Mostly, I stream.

Measurements (which you mention throughout your comment) are not important to me unless I find a way to hear them in my listening. So, no free ride for the M23, there.

"Listening bliss" is a good phrase. I’m interested in the varieties of bliss that exist. The Pass XA-25 offers one kind of bliss; the monoblock tube amps offer a second. The question is whether the NAD M23 offers a third, distinctive kind of bliss. That’s the objective of my listening inquiries.

The promise of this amp, and newer Class D in general, is a more articulate sound stage, snappier dynamics and transients, space between instruments -- all while delivering tonality and presence that has an emotional, not-clinical, engaging appeal. I don’t expect "warmth" (often the result of pleasing harmonic distortions that Pass and tubes give) but I’m expecting something approaching "intimate" or "organic" or "natural."

Paging Ralph at @atmasphere -

If Class-D amps can be carefully laid out in a stereo two channel format with "plenty of power", relatively low distortion, with careful isolation of components for each channel, in a shared chassis - what would be the Top3 reasons some manufacturers still choose to make Class-D amps as mono amps?

I realize your amps are set up like this is why I bring it up, and PS Audio does something similar. I wonder if you might be willing to present your case how your Class-D mono amps would surpass some of these mainstream stereo Class-D amplifiers?  Its a legitimate question.  For reference I’ve owned many SS and tube amps in stereo and monos and usually hear a compelling difference in Class A, AB tube or solid state mono amps to this day. I enjoy the channel separation mostly.  

How’s that work with Class-D amps with stereo vs. mono, pros/cons/benefits with Mono Class-D amps.- can you break it down for us as you normally do here on Agon?  Thanks in advance for chiming in.  :) 

@atmasphere I’d love to hear your response, also.

I sometimes wonder – not about Atmasphere but generally – about products that incorporate features meant to convey "serious equipment" to buyers using what implementations that are really cosmetic, not functional. We see this all the time in products; engineers and marketers dream up the product together. The question becomes, does this ever happen with mono designs? In other words, are there some products where something is made "mono" mostly to fluff customer expectations rather than electronic and sonic priorities? How would a layperson figure that out?