Is Class D actually killing the "soul" of high-end audio?

[luizamarns]

I’ve been reading through the endless debates about Class D efficiency, and honestly, I don't get the hype. Sure, they are light and run cool, but every time I listen to a Class D setup, it feels completely clinical and sterile compared to a solid Class A/B or a tube amp.

To me, it feels like we are sacrificing musical warmth and texture just for better specs on paper. Is anyone else tired of people claiming you'll "get left behind" if you don't switch, or am I just old school for preferring an amp with some actual soul? Let's be real about it.

 

[Hear Here]

Please let us know which Class D amps you have been listening to - for a whorthwhile length of time. Class D vary as much as Class A or AB amps do. Many are poor, specially those using 10-year old technology, but others offer everything you can find in other classes.

 

[luizamarns]

Please let us know which Class D amps you have been listening to - for a whorthwhile length of time. Class D vary as much as Class A or AB amps do. Many are poor, specially those using 10-year old technology, but others offer everything you can find in other classes.

you're right that technology has moved fast. I've mostly spent time with older ICEpower modules and some budget toppings, which definitely left a flat impression. I know high end stuff like Hypex Nypex or Purifi, and even NAD's implementations, claim to bridge that gap entirely. But even with modern ones, don't you feel that perfect micro detail transparency sometimes comes at the expense of that organic holographic soundstage you get with a good tube or A/B setup? It feels like they measure perfectly but lose a bit of the emotional engagement.

 

[Feanor]

I wonder if anyone has the option that the type of music one listens to affects one's preference for type of amplification?

Personally I don't find the latest generation of class D amps sound clinical or sterile. However my listening tends strongly to the Classical genre that might demand a "clinical " approach. So for example large scale choral works seems to demand the utmost in detail and transparency to be appreciated to the fullest extent. This might not be true to the same extent for, say, Jazz or Pop, much less Rock.

 

[Hear Here]

> I know high end stuff like Hypex Nypex or Purifi, and even NAD's implementations, claim to bridge that gap entirely. But even with modern ones, don't you feel that perfect micro detail transparency sometimes comes at the expense of that organic holographic soundstage you get with a good tube or A/B setup? It feels like they measure perfectly but lose a bit of the emotional engagement.

To tell the truth, I chose the NAD M33 with its Purifi Eigentakt technology (built under license) over numerous other ss amps of Class A and AB when I decided to move away from SET valve amps. These were from Sugden, Accuphase, Lyngdorf, Quad, GamuT, Bakoon, Valvet and Mark Levinson amongst others.

I bought or borrowed these amps and kept them in my system for between a week and a year, and always with my SET to compare them with. The NAD proved to be the best choice overall, not only for its excellent sound quality but also for features and value for money. It out-performed several other amps at 2 to 3 times its price.

 

[Randy Myers]

I have tried Class Ds from Wyred 4 Sound, PS Audio, Bel Canto, NAD, etc. I admit to not yet trying the absolute latest tech. All that I have tried are rather clinical sounding to me. All were decent sounding, especially the NAD, but simply not my cup of tea. I described them at the time as simply not giving me that warm and fuzzy feeling that is so inviting. I have had tubes that I also liked but I found most tube power amplifiers to be quite finicky.

The tube pre-amps I tried were not nearly as finicky (I really liked the ARC I had for some time), neither is my headphone amp (Woo) or guitar amplifier (Victory). Both are dead solid perfect, so far. But I really do love the flexibility of my McIntosh!