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

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?

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?

@decooney @hilde45 The main reason is to reduce colorations.

Mono amps insure there is less noise in their power supplies and allow you to place the amp right by the speaker, thus keeping the speaker cable as short as possible. The reason that is important is no speaker cable is really correct; they all have mismatches with the speaker. Your best bet to minimize those errors is to keep the speaker cable as short as possible.

That is also the reason we use a balanced input. If your preamp supports the balanced standards then the interconnect cable's artifact (the reason interconnect cables can be really expensive) is minimized or non-existent. As an example I run 35 feet of interconnect cable at home and often at audio shows too. 

So that allows for the least coloration; something that is a lot harder if a stereo amp is used.