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

for any Class D amp that I have heard. Amended: Every Class A amp I have heard with my system has sounded better, overall, than every class D amp. I can name the specific amps if anyone wishes.

@hilde45 +1

FWIW Dept.:

Even as Class D dominates the numbers game, Class A still earns its place for listeners chasing a specific character and simplicity. Its fully linear, always-on operation keeps transistors within their most predictable range. And, it produces a natural harmonic structure that some describe as richer or more “alive” with acoustic instruments and vocals.

Class D amps can be quite simple. Ours has less parts count than an SIT amp that Nelson designed that was a simplified rework of the Sony VFET amp; his version makes about 20 Watts. So simplicity isn't the distinction.

The 'always-on' bit is problematic. One thing that is really nice about a class D amp from a design perspective is that everything about it (slew rate, propagation times and so on) is very knowable, IOW, very predictable. So not a distinction of class A. 

Finally, our class D amp tends to make lower ordered harmonics in much the same way that a tube amp does; 95% of that due to the dead time required to keep the output section running properly. So the last bit about harmonic structure in his comment isn't a distinction either. 

@atmasphere Thanks for your post. If anyone can make this new technology sound good, it’s you. The people I respect most in audio love your tube amps. So, I’m looking forward to trying and comparing it to my Class A stuff.

The nearly $8k AGD monoblocks could not do tonality and presence as well as my $5k XA-25. Given that it is GaN and yours is GaN, I am a little dubious, but as you’ve said elsewhere, implementation is most of the game. For my ears and system, the question is open about whether your implementation (and the inclusion of 2nd/3rd order harmonics) can best the AGD and match the Pass. I hate having a 300 watt beast on all day long, so this trial could really lead somewhere good.

About those harmonics -- is there somewhere we can see an fft plot showing the harmonic profile? 

Out of curiousity, Ralph, beside the Class D, what other solid state amplifiers have you designed and built? I’d love to see or hear them!

Given that it is GaN and yours is GaN, I am a little dubious, but as you’ve said elsewhere, implementation is most of the game.

@hilde45 It is. As you can imagine though, you can have two tube amps that use the same power tube and they can sound quite different. The use of GaNFETs is exactly the same in that manner. 

Post removed 

@atmasphere  Can you also tell us what the 11 secret ingredients are to making KFC Chicken while you're giving away the blueprint to your amps??