My NAD 3020 D proves your Class D tropes are wrong


I have a desktop integrated, the NAD 3020D which I use with custom near field monitors. It is being fed by Roon via a Squeezebox Touch and coaxial digital.

It is 5 years old and it sounds great. None of the standard myths of bad Class D sound exist here. It may lack the tube like liquid midrange of my Luxman, or the warmth of my prior Parasound but no one in this forum could hear it and go "aha, Class D!!" by itself, except maybe by the absolute lack of noise even when 3’ away from the speakers.

I’m not going to argue that this is the greatest amp ever, or that it is even a standout desktop integrated. All I am saying is that the stories about how bad Class D is compared to linear amps have been outdated for ages.

Great to see new development with GaN based Class D amps, great to see Technics using DSP feed-forward designs to overcome minor limitations in impedance matching and Atmasphere’s work on reducing measurable distortion as well but OMG stop with the "Class D was awful until just now" threads as it ignores about 30 years of steady research and innovation.
erik_squires
Class D is still awful. The end. The damn things are built backwards. with the most important part of the signal being ignored and the least important exalted, in the measurements and the design.

That’s what happens when engineers with incomplete questions and data sets, go out and try and improve the qualities of said poorly informed question sets. They arrive at the wrong answer and a poor device regarding it’s intended solution point.

Digital is no less the same.

Steady research, sure..... but still the wrong question and answer set.

Another point is that class D in high end audio, may start to go away, as the BASH patent has expired as of last year. A dynamically variable power supply rail with a regular output device design (class AB, etc) is probably better, overall, re what part of the signal the ear works with. Class D makes a mess out of that all important small area. BASH, as a high efficiency design, harms it far less.

Class D would still exist as a widely disseminated type of device, due to it’s unique ability to fit smaller devices, reduced power levels, etc.. but BASH might come to dominate high end audio as the efficiency champ.. when played against Class D.

One might even claim, conspiratorially... that current or overall Class D design is an effort to get past the BASH patent. A poorly run effort, a compromised effort...with worse results.

IMO and IME, there is more unclaimed and unrealized high fidelity hiding in the BASH design than any current or known, or expected class D fundamentals in design. 

When BASH arrives in high end audio, then the walking back of Class D may take place. IMO, count on it. Meet the new king, etc.
Real shame I have a great sounding integrated sitting right in front of me that disproves your entire post. 

Further, I don't know where you get the idea that BASH or similar isn't being used. NAD's hybrid Class-D as well as the Yamaha EEEngine are derivatives.  Not sure which are licensed but similar ideas.  My ICEpower amps however, definitely not BASH, are the equal of mid-range linear amps, the better of some top end ClassA but awfully warm sounding.
I’ve heard it. Sorry, no go.

The NAD, from my understanding is a hypex. And that’s bog standard class D. If you seek a high quality low priced mediocrity and want to call it excellent.... then class D is your savior, your champion.

Sure, whatever you want.....

I’d be happy to be wrong about that (sort of, no one likes crow) but I’m afraid I’m not.

Anyway, you are just trying to start up some long convoluted circular thread. Again. Some gambit to get everyone to scratch each other's eyes out. Grow up.
The NAD, from my understanding is a hypex.

<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

From your understanding? So your blowing all the smoke about how something is engineered and you haven’t even listened to it?

If you haven’t used class Ds why on earth would you offer up a general opinion that seems to encompass ALL class Ds.

I’m getting ready to roll out the Mac and Cary valve unit and roll in class Ds Nord One Up for the summer. There are Krell class A, Threshold A/Bs, and a few others to chose from..

I’ll take the Class Ds over all of them just because of the heat index and the great sound quality.. They sound GREAT. Not perfect, not an A/B or class A amp.. BUT really really GOOD..

teo_audio you’re a broken record.. OR are they ALL (Records LPs) bad too?

It always get ME how people take a position AGAINST something that they’ve NOT had an experience with, BUT read or were told or have seen or FEEL, that class ds are just, bla bla bla...
(I like the song Bla, Bla, Bla though :-))

Grow UP! Ditto, Bucco, quit parroting what you HEAR and work on the principal of YOUR Own Due Diligence.

"Class D is still awful", from that point on I knew you didn’t have anything worth listening too. That is a SILLY statement.. Just SILLY..

If you don’t like the sound that’s fine.. Attacking a typology that has done nothing but get better and sell more and More and MORE.. How long has class D been around putting a serious DENT in amp manufacturing? A WHILE!!

That DOG don’t HUNT. Sales don’t lie..

Regards
Little long in the tooth, mercy..

So it is a keeper Erik?

I have a pair of Wyred 4 Sound SX1000 (not the R) they were sure powerful with my planar combination. It took good cables to bring out the  luster so to speak.. They are ICE but the early version.  I was tinkering with the tone control for sure. The bass was a -2 and the treble a +1 or so. I haven't heard ANY of the newer Ice modules.

I been looking at the Purifi though.. It's sure getting a lot of good press and reviews.. A few bad ones.. I think that ONE was pretty predisposed to see Purifi in a LESS than neutral light.. Tough I suppose.. I never found it hard though.. Being honest with myself..

I'm my own worst critic. :-(, :-), :-l, :-0.