Useless, in that the question(s) posed by the OP involve too many variables for the collective response to tell anyone anything. Yes, I've owned class D (Crown, 600 wpc), along with AB, A, push-pull and triodes. Most class D are based on modules from a handful of manufacturers, so the end result always relies on effective implementation. Class D is not my cup of tea, but YMMV.
Expanding the Class D Conversation: How Would You Characterize Their Differences?
Expanding the Class D Conversation: How Would You Characterize Their Differences?
I'm currently trialing the NAD M23 (1st gen. Eigentakt-based), and I find it intriguing enough to want to understand it better — which means understanding the broader sonic landscape of class D. So I'm crowd-sourcing.
In a recent exchange, the estimable Ralph Karsten (Atma-Sphere Music Systems) made two comments that stopped me cold. For those who missed it, here's what he said:
"IME, class D amps vary in sound more than tube amps, which is to say, quite a lot."
"IMO there is a bigger difference between various class D amps than you hear between various tube amps. IOW just because you heard one class D amp says nothing about how the next one might sound."
Link: https://forum.audiogon.com/posts/2885828
As I think through this more carefully, these are genuinely important claims. My own experience with tube amps confirms that they produce audibly distinct characters across topologies and designs. If Ralph is right and class D exceeds that range, then generalizing from one class D experience to another is even more hazardous than I assumed.
One specific question for Audiogon members:
If you have a Class D amp or have compared class D amplifiers, how would you describe their character(s)?
Here are some criteria I use:
- Frequency balance — Is the tonal response even across bass, mids, and treble, or does it favor certain regions?
- High-frequency texture — Are the highs extended and smooth, or edgy, grainy, and fatiguing?
- Bass definition — Is the low end tight and articulate, or loose and bloated?
- Midrange character — Does the midrange feel present and natural, or recessed and thin?
- Transient speed — Does the amp respond quickly to dynamic attacks, or does it sound sluggish and rounded?
- Dynamic range — Does it scale convincingly from quiet passages to loud ones, or compress the difference?
- Soundstage width and depth — Does it create a convincing three-dimensional image, or sound flat and narrow?
- Image specificity — Are instruments and voices placed precisely, or do they blur and wander?
- Background noise floor — Is the silence between notes actually silent, or is there grain, haze, or hash?
- Long-term listenability — After an extended session, do you want to keep listening, or has something been quietly fatiguing you?
If you can include relevant system context — room, speakers, preamp — please do. Those variables will help me interpret what the amp itself is contributing.
I'm less interested in rankings than in understanding what Ralph mentioned, namely the [vast] range of sonic signatures class D is capable of. Eigentakt, Hypex, Pascal, Purifi, GaN-based, etc. — all fair game.
Price is no constraint here — I'm interested in the full range of what's out there.
- ...
- 355 posts total
. Crown Class-D: Pro Sound, PA system use, fans involved, design is not as low noise, no real input stage refinement, primarily used for PA, HT, subwoofers. If you like PA sound, great. Not a great reference for home audio use or critical listening. A limited and fairly useless comparison example for Class-D Hi Fi in musical home audio. |
I'd gently disagree that the thread is useless. You're right that implementation matters enormously—that's actually one of the valuable insights that emerged. But the responses did yield something concrete: specific sonic signatures tied to different Class D topologies and designs. Consider what emerged despite the variables: Eigentakt implementations (NAD M23, Purifi 1ET9040BA): Described as balanced and articulate with holographic soundstage, but the OP noted the NAD can sound "shouty" on certain tracks—consistent with the analytical character we discussed earlier. Bel Canto (ICE-based): Neutral yet full and dimensional, avoiding midrange magic loss—older architecture, but still competitive. AGD (GaN): Exciting transient speed, wonderful frequency balance, image specificity, draws listeners into music rather than fixating on the system—a distinct sonic signature from Eigentakt. Mola Mola Kaluga (Hypex NC1200-based): Initially impressive dynamics and bass, but became fatiguing and boring compared to Class A/B—suggesting that implementation can miss "musicality" despite raw performance. Merrill Audio Veritas (Class D): Remarkable clarity in midrange/treble, more powerful bass than tube reference—different character again. Yes, all these characterization depend on variables, but given that I appreciate what can be, the thread is nevertheless a useful propaedeutic for what I might actually try next. These aren't abstract generalizations—they're concrete guideposts for narrowing my own trials and understanding what to listen for. You can duck out, of course, if you find it all useless.
@bluorion Thanks for your *useful* comments. |
We each have our own opinion as to "musical". The Crown amp was part of a 4000 watt home theater system involving JBL stage monitors and 18" sub. For HT use, the system made most visits to the theater superfluous, as the better sound was at home. It was never intended for use as a 2-channel stereo system amp, nor did I claim it was. Keep your snark to yourself |
@fatdaddy2 You were the one who called the thread "useless." Your snark is evident to everyone here. As for the term "musical," yes everyone has something in mind by that term. But that is a truism. If "musical" were purely subjective with no shared meaning, it wouldn't survive as a term in audio discourse. Words persist because they carry *shared meaning*. When someone says an amp sounds "musical" versus "clinical," listeners recognize a real distinction—not an arbitrary one. Yes, "musical" needs unpacking. But unpacking a term doesn't prove it's meaningless; it proves it has structure. The thread's value lies in exactly that unpacking: people describing what they hear when they use the term. That's empirical observation, not relativism. |
- 355 posts total