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:

  1. Frequency balance — Is the tonal response even across bass, mids, and treble, or does it favor certain regions?
  2. High-frequency texture — Are the highs extended and smooth, or edgy, grainy, and fatiguing?
  3. Bass definition — Is the low end tight and articulate, or loose and bloated?
  4. Midrange character — Does the midrange feel present and natural, or recessed and thin?
  5. Transient speed — Does the amp respond quickly to dynamic attacks, or does it sound sluggish and rounded?
  6. Dynamic range — Does it scale convincingly from quiet passages to loud ones, or compress the difference?
  7. Soundstage width and depth — Does it create a convincing three-dimensional image, or sound flat and narrow?
  8. Image specificity — Are instruments and voices placed precisely, or do they blur and wander?
  9. Background noise floor — Is the silence between notes actually silent, or is there grain, haze, or hash?
  10. 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.

hilde45

Re: bass "flow" or "flowering"

This is the hardest aspect of audio to get right and it's a first-priority. I spent a couple months measuring, purchasing, placing bass traps, speakers, listening position.

Unless I know that the room is either naturally good for bass or there has been some effort to analyze and deal with bass nodes/modes, I don't see how it's possible to speak with much confidence about piece of gear A vs. piece of gear B. 

@ted_b I almost went for that same VTV amp. Sounds like a winner for sure. I love the many options available on their website. Options like that can rival GanFET based amps and keep money in your pocket too. Instead, I went with Nord Acoustics top monoblocks with similar options but their own custom front end. These companies are putting name brands to shame imho. 

 You are right. I had also a hard time getting bass right...

My luck was that i had no subwoofer few years ago( i had one now) to study as a set of bass  external added parameters beside my speakers but only two big two-way speakers, then i did not look to optimize bass as a  separate wave frequencies phenomenon...

 

I used a few  grids of Helmholtz resonators bundles located specifically, because in reality in a speakers/ room it is impossible to separate bass and mids frequencies mutual interaction. In a word we cannot just add bass as frequencies. It is why it is very hard to get bass right : the room different zones pressures interaction vary  for a specific location, even for small displacement.

In a word :

the low-frequency field is a coupled, 3D pressure field, not a set of independent plane waves.
 

Re: bass "flow" or "flowering"

This is the hardest aspect of audio to get right and it’s a first-priority. I spent a couple months measuring, purchasing, placing bass traps, speakers, listening position.

Unless I know that the room is either naturally good for bass or there has been some effort to analyze and deal with bass nodes/modes, I don’t see how it’s possible to speak with much confidence about piece of gear A vs. piece of gear B. 

Searching for audio components is such a fuzzy process, with unique tastes, components, audio chains, rooms, power quality, vibration litigations, budgets, etc.  It’s often difficult to sift through options without going a bit crazy. 

The bass flow or flowering makes me think of poorer damping. I think back to some of the subwoofers I’ve owned. Some had that big, flowing or looser bass. Then I got a cervo driven Velodyne where the bass was a quick, deep thump and it was over. Quite different. Not sure if this is was the intention of the explanation or if I misunderstood.