2. amps-preamps
  3. 140387-15288

The Future of Audio Amplification

I have recently paired an Audio Research DS225 Class D amplifier with an Audio Research tube preamplifier (SP8 mkii). I cannot believe how wonderful and lifelike my music sounds. The DS225 replaced an Audio Research SD135 Class AB amplifier. Perhaps the SD135 is just not as good as some of the better quality amps that are out there, but it got me thinking that amazingly wonderful sonance can be achieved with a tubed pre and Class D amp. I have a hunch that as more people experience this combination, it will likely catch on and become the future path of many, if not most audiophile systems. It is interesting that Audio Research has been at the forefront of this development.
distortions
ricevs
1,543 posts
 

Tweak1,

The person in the thread bought two stereo amps and is using them as monos.  He did not A/B using one stereo amp versus mono (however. I have and it is not close....you want dual mono IceEdge).  He just listened to dual mono.  However, since the Hypex modules are dual mono it makes it a fairer evaluation.  Basically he is saying that his dual mono stock IceEdge amps beat the dual mono Nord one up mono blocks (with Sonic Imagery op amps).

michaelgreenaudio's avatar
michaelgreenaudio
1,019 posts
 

I’m sure there are tons of links but just wanted to put another one up.

http://www.nordacoustics.co.uk/

agear
1,362 posts
 
As kosst alluded to, class D is not a new technology and was developed largely by Phillips for the sake of specific engineering requirements such as one would find in an hearing aid for example.  Class D has had a renaissance of late due in part to engineering or rather manufacturing convenience (who wouldn't want a kit you could pop in an aftermarket box).  

No one has provided a logical, technical counterpoint to kosst's argument regarding class D other than experiential vignettes.

I for one have owned the gamut of amplification (including several class D variants with multiple iterations of Hypex and a DIY amp from Class D Audio).  Class D was pleasant enough (with a tubed pre-amp), but failed to hold my attention and seemed vaguely flat and bleached for lack of a better description.  I have regressed back into the archaic world of tubes (Trafomatic 300B integrated) and the music is back.  To each his own.  With audiophiles, the rubber meets with the road with duration of ownership.      



erik_squires
16,383 posts
 
No one has provided a logical, technical counterpoint to kosst's argument regarding class D other than experiential vignettes.

No one has proven the measurements Kosst has alluded to are audible on the other side of a speaker.

All Kosst has done is noticed 1 measurement.

There are plenty of ways in which Class D is as good or better than many SS and Tube Class A, Class A/B amps.

Noise and frequency response and low output impedance in the audible band among them.  Why don't we count those 3 as better than Kosst's single measurement?

Why do you think Stereophile uses an output filter in the first place? Because it is more meaningful that way.  What makes Kosst such an authority that he can disregard it?  Puhleese.


brotw
103 posts
 
plga,

Congratulations on the Nord. I too have the LM508IA and largely prefer it over the W4S ST-500 mkii class D. The W4S had great lows and mid bass but sterile mids and hard highs. Heck I even liked a 20 year old parasound HCA-1200ii better. I can see how a tube pre could work wonders instead of my DAC-2 pre on a class D amp.

What get's me is how much a positive difference quality room correction makes. How many commenting on Class D vs. A/B, SS, tubes have made these comps with room correction and separates? My experience was that class D was stark, bleached, just plain fatiguing. I'm sure a better/new class D amp would sound better. 

The exacting results of RC may have synergy with one amp and not another and knowing the differences RC makes, I never A/B compare without it. Could the Lyngdorf 2170 buzz be largely attributed to room correction?

More to discover