Useless, in that the question(s) posed by the OP involve too many variables for the collective response to tell anyone anything.
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.

