The Truth about Modern Class D


All my amps right now are Class D. ICEpower in the living room, and NAD D 3020 in the bedroom.

I’ve had several audiophiles come to my home and not one has ever said "Oh, that sounds like Class D."

Having said this, if I could afford them AND had the room, I’d be tempted to switch for a pair of Ayre monoblocks or Conrad Johnson Premiere 12s and very little else.

I’m not religious about Class D. They sound great for me, low power, easy to hide, but if a lot of cash and the need to upgrade ever hits me, I could be persuaded.

The point: Good modern Class D amps just sound like really good amplifiers, with the usual speaker/source matching issues.

You don’t have to go that route, but it’s time we shrugged off the myths and descriptions of Class D that come right out of the 1980’s.
erik_squires

Musically speaking ... well I am very happy were I landed with a 625s2...
Yours and the 725 mono seem to be the last linear Class-A/B amps JR make, and seem to be a worthy choice.

Cheers George
My speaker system is DIY, assembled from various sources:

Bullet tweeters + 300 Hz conical-horns with field-coil modified B&C DCM50 compression drivers + (2) 15" Acoustic Elements DiPole 15" woofers in (2) U-frame cabinets per side.

Each driver is powered by a modified/upgraded NuForce Ref 9V3 amp.
The midrange horns are driven by Ref 9 monoblocks, the other drivers are powered by 6 channels of a 7-channel NuForce HT amp, with the same modules as the mono amps (also modified/upgraded).

If I switched to eight Class A or Class A/B amps - either tube or solid state - the listening room would be far too hot and my electric bills would go through the roof. Class D is the only practical way to go for me. I am not wealthy.

My stereo can go toe-to-toe with any system out there. 

Like any ultra-accurate system it is brutally revealing of bad source material.

But great recordings shine like the sun.


It’s simple. You cannot put anything into the air besides a hot air balloon. At best you can create a glider and glide down from above, but the idea that you could build a machine heavier than air that could hold a person a motor and fuel combined is ridiculous.

Just think of the weight of the fuel alone! Gasoline weighs over six pounds per gallon. To have enough gasoline to push against the ground with a motor or fan of some sort would require monstrous gasoline consumption.

It is utterly ridiculous to imagine that you could do anything useful with a machine and flight. The machine itself, the motor, the fuel and the pilot simply are not sustainable.

Not only is it physically impossible, but dear god, it’s a foolish venture to attempt to make such death traps into a business. You could never produce an actual plane that could carry itself for long, let alone cargo, people, or get anyone to pay to have the gargo moved that way. Anyone who shipped via an airplane would surely loose their valuable posessions that way.  And comfort? What kind of comfort could you experience from falling out of the sky?

No, sir, no. It is clear that rational human beings should stick to balloons.
"Truth" is a word like "Fact" ... it is only for science.
Taste is not science. That is a fact, for example.

Class D at it’s best is great for some and lacking for others, and that’s fine.
Stop justifying your purchase, it’s the essence of admitting you’re insecure about it. If you’re happy ... great !
LISTEN and ENJOY !! That’s the goal here, it’s not a contest or a science project ... to love music.