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!

 

[Mr Peabody]

> 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.

There it is, I knew it was coming. LOL To be fair the OP is new and this is probably the first time to hear it, I know your story by heart.

 

[Mr Peabody]

I think this topic has been beaten to death, but apparently not.

I remember when Pioneer introduced their home theater receivers with ICE amplification. It was a hot topic and then everyone was saying how good they sounded. I think if Class D was left alone and allowed to grow in the market naturally it may be better accepted than it is now. I'm personally so sick of the hype and the false comparisons to other amp tech.

I'm tired of retreading the same path I'll just say in regards to the more affordable Class D there are very real technical reasons they can sound bad and yet measure good.

What we like is subjective and to each their own.

 

[Hear Here]

to each their own.

Precisely.

 

[luizamarns]

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.

That is a fantastic point, Bill. Genre absolutely dictates what we look for in amplification. For complex classical arrangements and massive choral pieces, that absolute black background and clinical separation of Class D probably shine perfectly. But like you mentioned, when it comes to Jazz or Rock, you often want that raw energy, the grit, and the organic bloom of a tube harmonic texture to make the instruments feel 'alive' in the room. It makes complete sense why a Purifi setup works perfectly for your preferences, but for someone spinning classic rock or intimate vocal jazz, it might still feel a bit too polished.

 

[luizamarns]

That is a seriously impressive list of amps to compare against, especially heavyweights like Accuphase and Mark Levinson. Moving away from SET valve amps is a massive shift since that holographic midrange is addictive. It speaks volumes that the NAD M33 held its own and outperformed setups multiple times its price in your system. I guess the modern integration of Purifi really has managed to iron out the dry, analytical traits that plagued older modules. Do you ever miss that specific SET tube saturation on certain tracks, or does the NAD genuinely satisfy that itch across the board?

> 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.

 

[luizamarns]

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!

Exactly. Even with names like PS Audio and NAD, the core characteristic doesn't change it measures perfectly but lacks that organic depth. The hybrid approach you're using with a tube pre amp and McIntosh solid state seems to be the only real way to escape the clinical Class D sound without dealing with the constant bias adjustments and maintenance of full tube power amps.

 

[luizamarns]

I think this topic has been beaten to death, but apparently not.

I remember when Pioneer introduced their home theater receivers with ICE amplification. It was a hot topic and then everyone was saying how good they sounded. I think if Class D was left alone and allowed to grow in the market naturally it may be better accepted than it is now. I'm personally so sick of the hype and the false comparisons to other amp tech.

I'm tired of retreading the same path I'll just say in regards to the more affordable Class D there are very real technical reasons they can sound bad and yet measure good.

What we like is subjective and to each their own.

You're spot on about the technical mismatch. A lot of affordable Class D modules suffer from load dependency and output filter interactions that completely mess with the high frequencies depending on the speaker's impedance curve. That’s exactly why they can measure flat into a perfect dummy load in a lab but sound harsh or dead in a real world setup. The hype ignores the actual engineering limitations