2. amps-preamps
  3. 186622-124012

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?

 

128x12861falcon
koh_i_noor
44 posts
 

All manufacturers have to deal with high risk decisions regarding product life cycle. Do they innovate with product that cuts into sales of cash cow products? Ralph has made his decision. In the last 60 years of computer technology, we see many examples of companies that lost out because they protected existing product. IBM protected their IMS database product and did not innovate with a relational product, and allowed Oracle to take that market. OTOH, they did have enormous success betting the company on system/360.

It sure looks to me like class D will be very disruptive in the amplifier market, but I don’t have a great track record as a future guesser.. ;) 

atmasphere's avatar
atmasphere
11,861 posts
 

So my thought is that calling them digital amps is a reasonable slang and everybody knows what it is referring to.

The distinction here is that digital has specific on and off states that form words (which might be 16, 32 or 64 bits) that represent a value of a voltage. While class D is a switching technology, there are no 'words'; the on and off states are an analog of the input voltage so is considered an analog technology- Pulse Width Modulation goes back a really long way back to the tube era.

mspot
115 posts
 

IBM protected their IMS database product and did not innovate with a relational product, and allowed Oracle to take that market.

To be fair, IBM did innovate by inventing relational databases and developing SQL.

atmasphere's avatar
atmasphere
11,861 posts
 

IBM was also the source of the parity bit...

gillatgh's avatar
gillatgh
381 posts
 

Tried my first class D Amp after lightning struck real close and fried my Amp along with a number of other high end components. To date I'm quite happy with the results. 

I think class D is not really taking off yet due to the IMO false impressions provided by commentators who have yet to hear a good quality class D Amp

Some of our older audio brothers get stuck with bias.I  happen to been one of them until misfortune led me in a new direction.

Always wanted to try the class D and now I'm not looking back.

 

 

More to discover