Class D amplifiers. What's the future look like?
I have a number of amplifiers: Luxman C900U, Bryston 4BSST2, Audio Research VSI 60 Integrated, NAD C298 and some other less noteworthy units. As I swap them in and out of my main system, I've come to the conclusion my very modest NAD C298 is about all I really need. Granted if I had extremely hard to drive speakers, I might be better with the Bryston or Luxman, but driving my Harbeth 40.2 speakers, the NAD is just fine.
I thought a while ago that class D would quickly overtake amplifier design type mainly due to profit margin which I think would be much greater than A/B and tube. I'm not saying the other design styles would go away, just that D would be the most common style.
Clearly my prediction is not panning out, at least in the mid and high-end audio world and I'm wondering why? It seems companies such as Bryston, Luxman, McIntosh, Hegel and so many others are sticking by A/B. I'm no "golden ears" guy, but is the perceived sound issue(weather real or imaginary) still holding D back? Maybe my assumption of profit margin is not correct? Maybe the amplifier manufacturers are experimenting with D, but keeping tight lipped until release? Perhaps brand loyalists don't want change similar to what happened with "new coke". What else am I missing?
- ...
- 159 posts total
The "Law" of diminishing return which is not a law but an observation had two faces: a subjective side and an objective side... The subjective side is related to our own acoustic history and learnings and limits in qualitative discerning power and abilities... The objective side of this observation reflect the ALWAYS NECESSARY optimal trade-off choices or the non optimal one , introduced in the audio gear system by any components design limits when embedded in a room optimally or not and coupled with other design reflecting other trade-off choices too ... Most people confuse this two correlated side of a problem with a "law" which anyway is not a law but an observation about the psycho-acoustic subjective factors and the objective audio design factors, they reduce or simplify it for everyone with a negation of the alleged claim that " improving" or "upgrading" ONLY the gear will NECESSARILY improve the acoustic and psycho-acoustic experience, most people reduce and simplify this observation even more when they say that the hypothetical claim about a direct linear link between price and acoustic quality experience is false ... This observation , called improperly a "law" , is a very astute and true observation of a complex psycho-acoustic problem coupled to acoustic and physical material electronic design ... ... |
Dogma run amok. Anyone who values and respects the opinion, experience, and knowledge of @deep_333 over @atmasphere please raise their hand. Joke. |
So, if I understand you correctly @mahgister then the idea that the old school separate pre amp and amp approach being "better" would sort of fall under the bigger is better type of logic, as well? I've only had my tdai 2170 for a little less than 2 weeks but so far the biggest trade off I've been able to observe is something I read about in nearly all of the reviews is what I can now confirm as the blackest background ever. I'm sure someone's gonna show up lately to dispute the virus of the approach, which I understand very little about b/c I have zero interest around the subject matter, But plenty of our members do! And I know not everyone around here is into the high end cable thing but I'm a Nordost kind of guy, which is a very freaking expensive habit so how nice is it to be able to cut out some of that cost ... as another true trade off of the approach. so far, the trade offs are sounding pretty sweet! |
@soix LMAO Pretty hilarious! |
- 159 posts total