The Truth about Modern Class D

Class d amplification development is similar to digital format source, began with 16/44, then 24/96 to 32-bit/768kHz, in future will be....

Here’s my worthless 2 cent contribution which I may have posted about previously. When Paul McGowen of PS Audio set out to make a world class amplifier (at a "reasonable" price) he built custom input stages coupled to I believe Hypex modules at the time (not the very top model since he was using his own input stage anyway) He was quite happy with his design and brought it to the late Arnie Nudell’s (founder of Infinity) sound room to play on his prototype new smaller IRS speakers. When compared to Arnie’s custom tube amp he had commissioned, Paul’s designs continued to fall flat compared to Arnie’s reference, try after try. I believe he finally told Paul if he wanted to build a world class amplifier he’d have to scrap the project and hire Bascomb King (of Constellation, Marantz, Infinity as well as a respected reviewer/measurement writer) to design the amp from scratch. The design he came up with was MOSFET class AB and Bascome’s design beat Arnie’s reference, (which he promptly sold to make room for a BHK.)

I think it’s amazing that Paul kept his public informed along each advance and setback over the years. The time I waited for the BHK line to be released was worth it,

The R&D on Class D may have helped later with their lower priced amps, and from what I’ve read they sound really good, but there is a reason the MOSFET amps exist as their flagships.

Incidentally, Paul was very anti tube and PS had never released a tube product. Bascom convinced him to at least listen to a tube input stage. It was agreed and even planned to release the BHK’s with two input options, one tube and one solid state, built on tube socket for easy switching. But once they auditioned the two designs, it wasn’t even worth releasing the solid state version, and PS Audio had its first tube product and achieved its goal to be a top contender in amps (especially the mono blocks, which were conceived as a convenience option with only 50 watts more, but who’s balanced design once rolled off the assembly line and heard for the very first time proved to reveal another level of sonics above the stereo version. Of the few people that have heard the BHK (I imagine the mono) versus the much more expensive and top reviewed Constellation, they preferred the BHK.

You are saying this 0.9kg 150w Gan amp
https://orchardaudio.com/bosc

Will not be shamed by this Technics SE-R1 54kg 150w GaN amp

Nope. Didn't say that. I merely pointed out that class D circuits have to be compact. The above is a Strawman logical fallacy; thus inherently false.

You did, because you called me out on saying this, to which I was making reference (dinky) to the Orchard Audio Bosco 150w type ones

The ones around now using GaN’s are either dinky little office type class-D’s or expensive ones that haven’t utilized the technology as far as Technics did.

To which you responded

This statement is false. The Technics amplifier is only 150 watts, which is similar power as many of its GanFET competition.

Ralph get it right your the false one with strawman mentality, you can’t have it both ways, the two 150w amps (Technics SE-R1 v Orchard Bosco) are very different, and will not be the same, and I’m sure your answers are "protection blurb" for what you have coming. Stick to tubes that's where your cred is.

Ralph get it right your the false one with strawman mentality, you can’t have it both ways, the two 150w amps (Technics SE-R1 v Orchard Bosco) are very different, and will not be the same, and I’m sure your answers are "protection blurb" for what you have coming. Stick to tubes that's where your cred is.

If you look back at this you will see that I am not claiming that they are the same. I was simply saying that a module the size of a pack of cigarettes is that way on account of it has to be so to ameliorate noise issues.


And again, your argument quoted above is yet another Strawman. A Strawman is an argument different from the one which which your opponent in debate has presented; by then knocking down a different argument you can still think of yourself as correct. It works only if  others don't notice the slight of hand. You've been correct in your arguing but incorrect in addressing my points.