Class-D amps - a different re view


Martin Colloms, the editor of HiFi Critic (ad-free mag from the UK) have recently published the review of several different Class-D amps, together with an in depth technical analysys and measurments.

His conclusions were not favourable, to say at least:

"I regret that not a single model merits unqualified recommendation. Price is not the issue; the poor listening tests speak for themselves. (...)
At present we have to take the prudent view that good sound might be possible from switching amps, but we haven't heard it yet."

BelCanto REF1000 (ICEpower) - score 10.5 pooints
"The ICE power module used has a dependable reputation, and the design is well built and finished as a whole. While I would not suggest that you shouldn't try this amp, on sound quality grounds alone I cannot recommend it for audiophile use."

Channel Islands D100 (UcD) - score 13 pooints
"While I have reservations about a number of aspects of sound quality, and advise personal audition, given the solid lab results (...) the overall performance and the moderate price, these CA Audio monos do make it to the 'worth considering' cathegory."

NuForce 8.5V2 (proprietary technology) - score 9 pooints
"Yes, the price is good for the power output. Yes it's pretty, light, small and runs cool. However, the sound quality simply does not justify recommendation." (on top of that the NuForce amp measured very poorly - Elb)

Pro-Ject Amp Box (Flying Mole) - score 5 points
"I'm sorry to say that Project (...) was a real disappointment in the listening tests, and can't be recommended."

Just as a point of reference, recently reviewed Krell 700CX scored 100 points, CJ Premier 350 - 110 points and ARC Ref 110 - 135 points.

At least someone have had the balls to say it. This is why HiFi Critic is THE mag to subscribe.
128x128elberoth2
I also have a tube pre-amp paired with my class d Spectron Musician III and the combination is very,very,nice. Smooth,detailed,spacious,and natural sound.
Ralph. . . I typically dispense with visual frivolities [chuckles!] does that make me a 'purer' kind of audiophile who is inherently better capable of grokking the ineffability of true sonic beauty? But here's the rub, some fellow audiogoners that start from my very same sensorial premises, end up with very different equipment choices

"Ultimately if an amp is sounding really right, it should sound like any other amp that is also sounding really right, shouldn't it?"

I can't see why the above should be the case. . . there are nearly infinite forms that a beautiful sound can take. Even after excluding extra musical consideration, our individual personal experience often causes us to make subtly different value judgements, equally valid in their own right. . . or invalid, if you so prefer. If what you posit were correct, not only all truly top flight amps should sound alike, regardless of underlying technology, but a Steinway piano should sound exactly like a Bosendorfer, a Stradivari should be indistinguishable from a Guarneri, Anne-Sophie Mutter should play exactly like Salvatore Accardo, and a Karajan performance should be carefully patterned on Toscanini. In other words, yes, greatness exists. . . but True Truth in art? I doubt it.
And -- needless to say -- mediocrity in art is very much like greatness, quite alive and well.
Guidocorona, FWIW there is no audible difference between a damping factor of 60 and that of 1000...
the problem with most solid state amps is the unrealistic presentation of detail. the sound of an instrument is usually represented as highly timbrally inaccurate, compared to some of the classic tube designs.

there is something very unnatural about solid state.

yes, you get the speed, control and resolution, but there is no bloom and the sound seems forced, rather than liquid.

it would be nice to meet some audiophiles at ces, visit soem rooms and compare perceptions.