The Future of Audio Amplification

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.      

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.

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?

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.

This common even with those that persevere with it as above.
But some don’t hear it, and because they can’t hear it, they say those that do are full of it, even if measurements are backing them up.
Bet you thought there was nothing wrong with the bass though
.
I still believe it is the future, just not yet, I think the Technics and Merrill ones with GaN technology, are going to lead the way, and take Class-D where it needs to be to compete with the hiend linear amps.
The others at the moment are great bass amps, but not hi-end yet elsewhere in the audio band..

Cheers George