Expanding the Class D Conversation: How Would You Characterize Their Differences?

I have and have heard various Class D amps in recent years.  Each may sound different and I may prefer some over others, but I am not aware that any are “badly implemented”.   Some probably are but only measurements can determine objectively.  Subjectively sounding bad to some  does not alone mean a bad implementation.  Different ears alone may account for what sounds good or not. 
 

More that some are better for some things than others and I may prefer one over another, just like all the rest. 

+1 @mapman 

Instead of treating Class D as “a sonic character”, simply treat it as another Class with many sonic presentations. 

@earthbound  Thanks for the report! I don’t know what you’re referring to with the "the Ultra Premiums."

I did an all-tube listening last night, now that all the Class D are out of my house for these trials.

I would not say that my experience with tubes is captured by “romance/aura,” which is too fuzzy a descriptor for me.

What came back with all tubes on my most sensitive speakers -- with the AMT tweeters and JBL drivers -- was the following:

Tonality that had more tonal warmth and was a bit wider; the sax, voice, drums, etc. seemed a bit larger in the space. Not more detailed, but those details also had more color to their tonality.

Soundstage definitely gained depth, front to back. No flattening.

There was an overall "cohesiveness" to the ensemble playing -- not that the better of the Class D amps didn’t accomplish this -- the AGD definitely did -- but the cohesiveness was a bit more natural. Best way I can put this is the way you walk into a room where there’s music playing and you say, "Oh, there’s a band in here."

@mapman  I have been documenting the many ways the Class D amps have been badly implemented -- or maybe I should just say, "sound bad to me despite having in them modules that are celebrated as sounding good in other amplifiers." (That’s why the word "implemented" does work, actually.)

When an audiophile friend and I listened to some bad sounding amps (including one that he built), we both wrote down what we were hearing that sounded bad to us. We had written down the same things -- "harsh, no soundstage depth, strident, wanted to turn it down." Those sound like objective results to me. They’re not electrical -- they are psychological -- but since we used our ears, brains, and language and came out with a common agreement -- I'd call them objective.

Instead of treating Class D as “a sonic character”, simply treat it as another Class with many sonic presentations. 

This is a good point, made over and over in this thread. The point of the thread was to isolate a topology and explore its range and compare findings to other amplifiers outside that topology.

The best thread i read about class D impressions.

And i trusted the OP  well done experiences  and descriptions and anyway even if there is no comparison with my low cost class D amplifier i precisely added a pre-amp with tubes for these  same reasons which compensate for my first negative  impressions (the same as the OP) and  i added all other optimization devices  to reach with them  some " minimal acoustical satisfaction threshold" with the system/room i had optimized. 

If i had more money then i perhaps will bought  a class D amp + a tube top pre-amp.... If i was Bill Gates i will buy probably a S.S. amplifier paired with a top tubes pre-amp.... But only someone with  experiences i dont have here can gave an answer ... I know how to optimize but i never did extensive costlier class amplification and pre-amplification comparisons... it is why this thread is so useful and interesting ...

I appreciate my class D Edifier once optimized with Schumann generators , Buffer/filters , E.Q.+DSP,galvanic isolation+DDC all with many linear supplies and a small acoustic corner controlled by Helmholtz resonators grid and diffusors in nearfield...

But right out of the box my low cost class D correspond at his quality level with the exact description of the OP comparison...

The relation S.Q. price in my case is superior to most system in this price range  with class A or A/B  or low cost tubes, non optimized in a non controlled room for sure . Then i am happy...

 Audio wisdom is learning how to do the best with what you have, the rest is music...

Excellent thread. Thanks to the original poster.

For some reason one of Merrill Thor monoblocks stopped working recently. I have enjoyed them for many years. They replaced a Modwright KWA150 amp. Whereas the monoblocks provided more bass definition, I lost some warmth of tone especially in vocals. Also, it felt as if some connective tissue holding the music together had been diminished. I’d say that the soundstage lacked some depth as well. This seemed more apparent streaming digital and less so listening to vinyl. I decided to audition a pair of Laiv GanM monoblocks while I try to figure what happened to the Thor unit (modified Hypex). My initial impressions are very positive. Listening to jazz, instruments such as trumpet, sax and bass sound more natural. There is more reverb of instruments, longer decays when appropriate.  The soundstage has improved back to front and extends beyond the sides of the speaker cabinets. The connective tissue of the soundstage has also improved and it’s easier to get a sense of the environment in which the music was recorded. I’m not sure whether all this is due to GanM tech or implementation, but to these ears, some of the drawbacks of earlier Class D have been addressed.  Has anyone else had a similar experience with newer Class D implementation? Anyone else auditioned the Laiv GanMs? Thanks