Do ClassDAudio Amps Have Proper Decay Of Notes?


I'm interested in the ClassDAudio kits. Has anyone tried them? I had a tripath amp once and it had a liquid, detailed quality that I liked but it was too fast with the decay so ultimately sounded a bit fake, even with a tube pre. Full-bodied, lush, but too fast. I've heard the Hypex modules from Holland have nailed the decay issue but they're miles out of my price range. Just wondering if the ClassDAudio kits are close in terms of decay.
uberdine
I own an Esoteric I-03 Integrated ($12,000.00 MSRP) with an Esoteric designed Class D amp section. 180 WPC into 8 ohms, beautiful dynamics, and 68 pounds of audio excitement.

I have owned several class D amps (Auralic Merak Mono blocks, Classe Sigma 2200i, PS Audio HCA-2) and was pleased with all of them. I had a Mark Levinson No. 585 Integrated up until a couple of months ago and after comparing it to the I-03, I ended up keeping the I-03 and selling the 585.

I like well designed great sounding Class D amps. Having said that there are some poorly designed Class D amps out there so try as many as you can before making a final decision.


" Just had to put that in there.... that ’someone’ being me...

Class D was first demonstrated during the vacuum tube era. The reason it is called ’class D’ is that class C came before it and so was already taken. PWM (Pulse Width Modulation) is an analog technique. Just ask any keyboard player with an analog synthesizer (by varying the pulse width, a string sound can be obtained from a square wave)."


Believe me I know exactly what "digital" and "class D" mean, and that class D is not "digital" - however, my point was that from the marketing perspective there ARE "digital amps" which almost all use class D but also include a DAC and purportedly the audio waveform never enters the analog domain, other than as a PWM signal, inside the amp - hence the amp itself gets the moniker "digital" amp and "class D" is conflated with "digital" when in fact the amplification itself an analog process controlled by digital microcontrollers.

However, would you agree that what you just excerpted about PWM describes a process whereby the waveform (square wave being the trigger for lack of proper terminology at the moment) is a combination of ON or OFF states in an array of switches (transistors or vacuum tubes) and that ON = 1, OFF = 0 which would easily lead people to assume that the process is "digital" even when it was a plain square wave and not a complex microcontroller dictating the ’sampling’ process?

Finally, would you agree or disagree then, that today's class D amps, with built in DACs and which use complex microcontrollers to sample the output and alter the switching algorithms can indeed be called "digital amps"? 

hence the amp itself gets the moniker "digital" amp and "class D" is conflated with "digital" when in fact the amplification itself an analog process controlled by digital microcontrollers.
Our class D amp does not use any digital circuits or microcontrollers. You don't need a computer for a class D circuit. 
However, would you agree that what you just excerpted about PWM describes a process whereby the waveform (square wave being the trigger for lack of proper terminology at the moment) is a combination of ON or OFF states in an array of switches (transistors or vacuum tubes) and that ON = 1, OFF = 0 which would easily lead people to assume that the process is "digital" even when it was a plain square wave and not a complex microcontroller dictating the ’sampling’ process?

Yes- I've been aware of the confusion around this topic for some time :)
Finally, would you agree or disagree then, that today's class D amps, with built in DACs and which use complex microcontrollers to sample the output and alter the switching algorithms can indeed be called "digital amps"?
'Built in DAC' suggests that the amp is amplifying an analog signal, since the acronym 'DAC' stands for Digital to Analog Converter'. So as the sentence is written, my answer is no, I don't agree. If we let go of that problem though, another arises, which is that the amplifier portion which has the digital stream as its input still has a lot of analog processes in it to do its job. One example is the dead time circuits that are present in class D output sections. They are essential to prevent shoot through currents which can damage the output devices. Digital circuits don't need anything like that; dead time is an analog issue brought on by the fact that transistors take a finite time to turn on and even longer to turn off. Keep in mind the conversion implications involved because Class D amps usually switch at much higher frequencies than a digital bit stream.

From a marketing perspective, the term 'digital amplifier' (which isn't an engineering term) is lazy writing at best and serves to ironically confuse the market, which readily associates the term with class D (but not in the way that it should; hence the irony). It might apply to any amplifier (Class D or otherwise) that had a DAC built-in.
An amp that I would consider to be a true 'digital amp' would be one where the process of conversion from digital to analog happened only at the output, IOW that the entire circuit is one big DAC.

An amp that I would consider to be a true 'digital amp' would be one where the process of conversion from digital to analog happened only at the output, IOW that the entire circuit is one big DAC.

@atmasphere - interesting.  I could be wrong, but my reading of the Lyngdorf integrated (and other "digital" integrated amps that are now coming out such as the new NAD DirectDigital) would seem to match this architecture.  As best I can tell, there is no "analog audio stage".  It seems like they are using the actual digital pulse output of the DAC chip to drive the amplifier output transistors.  In this sense, the amplifier power output stage is essentially acting as the "DAC I/V" stage (basically bypassing all the analog and preamp stages in between).  It's really not a "digital amplifier" because it is still an analog translation (which is required in any sense of audio anyways).  I could be completely wrong here, but this is what I am assuming based on how they are describing the product. 

I'm not sure how well this actually works.  Some people just love the Lyngdorf, but I would actually want some sort of Class A discrete analog stages in between to help shape the sound and reduce the square wave effect of the DAC pulses - in addition to providing a very strong signal to drive the impedance of the amplifier.  I think the Lyngdorf could be very crisp/clear sounding for some people, but I think it could go too thin and solid state sounding.

@auxinput   If that's really the case, the problem is that the switching frequency is too low because its only at the frequencies of the digital codices. And I can tell you from having designed Class D amps that no DAC out there can drive the outputs directly- so there is likely a level shifter and driver circuit as well. Since the codices are such low frequency, a converter of some sort would have to be employed, along with some sort of computer control (like @ostensible mentioned earlier) to switch from one algorithm to the other. Otherwise the distortion of the amp would be quite high; funny that distortion can be low with digital but if you switch at that frequency distortion is unacceptable.


That's why I don't think there is a true digital amplifier out there.