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

@hilde45 

In my way of thinking, someone who claims to talk to the dead and takes money for it is doing two separate things worth naming.

The Vatican also talks to the dead, preaches and rakes in $1/4B a year from visitors who fall for it. It also monetizes off grief and wishful thinking.

 

I haven't seen him bring in dead people on reviews and he claims to be subjective, not to be a measurement guy. I don't have issues with taking medical evaluation from an Indian doctor who believes in Buddhism. I can't see why I have issues with his reviews regardless of any unrelated beliefs.

@hilde45 - Absolutely - I think it might be the first time I've disagreed with you about anything - it's all good!

@larsman LOL! Be well!

@bartsw -- I've not read the Vatican's audio review literature yet, so I'm suspending judgment about it. But seriously -- a guy who claims to talk to the dead for people who pay him on the internet -- versus some of the serious reviewers in audio? If you think they're all of a piece, well, we'll have to agree to disagree. To me, there is a huge gap between a flim flam guy and a serious critic. But let's just leave it there.

Go to youtube and type in iiwi reviews.  Should be the most recent review.

Class D is merely a circuit topology for power delivery.  Wouldn't all the rest of the circuits complications be filters and such the manufacturer used to tackle various issues.  I'd imagined the character of the sound has more to do with the component choices, and additional circuit subsections than the fact that one is class a or d, and the circuit choices that tend to follow those designs.

 

I have a simple, Schiit Magni 3, which is a class D product, which i used as a headphone amplifier for years.  Then I moved to their Asgard 3, which is A/AB, and the soundstage was clearer and wider on the Asgard, but the low end was less prominent, which didn't make me happy, so it was a trade-off.  But I dont know that it would be fair to attribute this to class topology.  I've seen more difference in a sound by changing decoupling capacitors in a pre-amplifier.