Are future improvements in Amp/PreAmps slowing to a crawl?

'The end of science' bit in the title is mostly journalistic license in designing a hook for the article.

Nelson speaks on some of this via:

The other fundamental thing—number 2—is that I am centrally aware that all this is just entertainment, mine and yours. The objective needs of amplifier users are largely solved on a practical level, and as [Marshall] McLuhan perceptively noted, when that happens, we turn our technology into art. For me, the art lies in making simple, unusual amplifiers that sound great and measure fairly well. They aren't for everyone, but if they appeal to even a narrow segment of audiophiles, I'm perfectly happy. I'm equally happy if they are reliable.
Read more at https://www.stereophile.com/content/nelson-pass-circuit-topology-and-end-science#T473FqLttf7wgh1I.99

Thus not quite the end of science but an established science can head into being used in or as - art as commentary.

@kosst_amojan

The gold standard is class A and nobody has come close to building a class D amp that touches the qualities of class A. Even the very best draw very mixed opinions. Amplifiers are art. Every amplifier imparts distortion with some character. For those of us accustomed to low order distortion imparted by simple topologies using as few gain stages as possible, class D isn't even on our radar.

It may interest you to know that our tube amps are class A with only one stage of gain. It can't get a whole lot simpler than that.

And I've yet to hear a class D amp that can keep up. But it would be a mistake to simply write off class D. Its still on the steep part of the price/performance curve.

I think in General,  Nelson is exactly right... when it comes to the traditional designs of A... A/B anyway.  I look at an old Sumo or Gas Amp that Mike Bettinger mods.  He changes caps & resistors to newest & best as well as switching a bipolar to a Jfet,  the results are that you have a 30 to 40 year old amplifier that competes with modern amps or  Take an old PS Audio 200C.... from 1985.  Yes it can be beat, but if comparing apples and apples,  it still stands up with modern amps.  So what I see is better devices,  better parts, not necessarily better design.  I think really that was what Nelson was referring to is that He jumped in a big way to LISTEN to Input/output devices to build the best components that he could muster, based upon the best parts that he could find and how those individual parts sound,  it wasn't necessarily a revolutionary new design.  With that said.  I agree that we have newer technology that will matter.  Class D output Is pretty amazing... I've taken abletec modules and built some of the light weight little amps that don't get hot, yet are very musical amplifers.  So, I see both sides and suspect that some new input or output part will come along for Nelson or someone else to make the Next Best Thing. 

Why would a respected tube amp designer want to play with something very different?

Anyone who thinks the best Class D is the lesser technology or always inferior sounding when compared to Class A is just not paying attention.

"Will it sound like what you like?",

That is a completely different discussion to have. If anyone can make a _better_ amplifier than the best linear and Class D for normal speakers I cannot hear it.

However, lots of ways of making amplifiers sound different, juicier and more colorful.

As someone once told John Coltrane (I believe): "You can't make it better, only different."


Peace,

E