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

So, Nord is a value-proposition, IF they sound good. 

Here’s some of what they say  on the Nord website:

"We source the very best Modules and components from around the world. Modules come from the market leaders Hypex, Purifi and ICE Power. But we use only the very best of their products. We then integrate them with custom Nord boards and electronics to deliver some of the very best sounding Amplifiers available at any price. 

Operating with ultra low noise floor and exquisite bass control, revealing palpable breaths, finger plucks and decaying notes delivered by the mids and treble. Levels and layers of detail, dynamics and sound stage are breathtaking, with the ability and current reserves (28A) to drive the most demanding speakers down to 2 ohms. All delivered with no hardness or harshness."

Do Nord amps sound good? Well, from what I gather, your random amp of this type will have (borrowing Nord’s language):

  • ultra low noise floor
  • exquisite bass control
  • dynamics
  • sound stage

But:

  • Levels and layers of detail -- not sure if this claim will be true
  • no hardness or harshness -- not sure if this claim will be true

And those last two are deal-makers or breakers. That plus tonality, which also needs to be checked.

The Nord Web site and many posters return again and again to the easy-to-quantify factor -- the "module" involved (Purifi, Hypex, Ice, GaN). The Nord company has all three -- but how are they implemented? Which to choose? I cannot tell.

But the key point was alluded to by @atmasphere (when he said how different all Class D amps sound from one another) and articulated well by @verdantaudio:

That said, while GaN can enable cleaner switching and potentially lower certain distortion artifacts, the overall sound quality of an amplifier depends far more on the complete design—its modulation scheme, feedback topology, power supply implementation, and output filter engineering—than on the semiconductor material alone. GaN is a powerful tool, but not a guarantee of superior sound by itself.

The very nicely built DIY Hypex (recent module) I tried sounded harsh with my speakers, in my room. The M23 first gen Purifi Eigentakt sounds better. An earlier version of a GaNfet amp I heard sounded bright, forward and harsh. But the AGD Audion GaN sounds quite amazing so far.

Regarding my AGD vs. NAD comparison, I have one more listening session to do to feel confident about the differences I am pretty sure I am hearing. Report to come.

 

Random question: does anyone know if the NAD C298 upgraded its Eigentakt to the version 2? Or does that just apply to the other NAD amplifiers, such as the M23 and its brethren?

I never thought I would learn THIS MUCH about Class D stuff. Pretty crazy and awesome!

To answer my own question, I'm pretty confident the NAD c298 does not (yet) have the Eigentakt 2. If there is an Eigentakt 3, I bet it will get the 2.

@hilde45 The C 298 was released circa 2020 and I believe is based on the 1st gen 1ET400A.