How do Digital Amps Mfrs. compare in sound?

Marty, the good news is that John Stronczer's designs have evolved quite dramatically from the BC 300. . . you'd be amazed. . . I definitely was so, last night, with the $6K BC R1000 Mk.2 having broken the 400 hour mark.

Stanwal, have you considered quoting a little less 'old trombones', and relying on your ears a little more? If after that you still do not enjoy some of the top flight switching amps we are discussing on some of these threads, you will at least be speaking out of personal experience, rather than nostalging over the anachronistic pontifications of some old anchoret whose better times have long come and gone.

I know 2 years 40 years whats the difference,come to think of it that's just it we do use our ears.

Stanwal said this and much, much more:
""Not a single master of analogue power amplifier engineering has turned to Class D. Shouldn't one know this, and, ask 'Why?’
By their nature, electronic engineers are usually eager to "migrate into the future technology"."

You spout these things as if you have some special knowledge, or, perhaps, thinking that if you say them with a deep enough voice and authoritative enough delivery then people will believe you. Actually you weaken your overall arguement with such drivel. Kijanki mentioned Rowland and there are others.

If anything, my guess is that a very large proportion of designers stick with what they know and avoid migration into future technology. Othewise, how can you explain the overflow of SET tube amps on the market today? That's only my assumption, but I think that resistance to change is highly prevelant, including among posters here at A'gon.

Dave

I have found through experimenting with just one amp, the H20, that it can sound like anything from bad to terrific. They take on the personality of the preamp, wires, speakers and source.

I solved the preamp problem when I purchased the H2O's stable mate, the Fire preamp. That helped enormously. Preamps are terrible coloring agents. The Fire is as neutral as it gets.

Then, through experimentation, again, I solved the wire problem by making my own naked ribbon SCs.

The speakers are Apogee Scintillas. These speakers can sound like anything too. They respond gratefully with every positive change to my system.

The source is more important than can be imagined. The old adage, "crap in, crap out," is frightfully true. My H2O modified Audio Note DAC is a thrilling addition. Here is what a neighbor wrote me recently. It supports my notion how system support means everything. He brought a CD player that he liked to my place, and found on this revealing system it was grainy, and bright. It didn't fail as bad as another visiting SACD 999 Modright player did.

"What many of the anti-ICE amp people don't understand is the amps (H2O) are like Apogees, very neutral. If it dosen't sound right, too harsh or bright, add tubes. IMO (Apogees) don't have that problem, but CD decks, preamps.. amps, do. Henry's amp OTOH are, from all the reviews I've read, much like many Damps, have such a "black" background, (no noise) they show off everything."

So, whenever I read the same old criticisms, like the publication quote above," Poor treble seems a feature of Class D amplification," I have a laugh every time. For one thing all publications depend on advertising for their existence. Another thing is they do not care to find complimentary components, choosing to use their usual review system. But, more importantly, countless class D systems prove it is a fib,"

I was able to spend a few weeks directly comparing a pair of ICE-based monoblocks with a Mark Levinson ML-9. I found the ICE amp to be a very good amp overall, with no obvous weaknesses. I find it quite puzzling that there is such vehment opposition to "Clas D" from people who have either never done a direct comparison or only listened in passing years ago.

Truth be told, I returned the ICE amps because of two minor things my friend and I both noticed. One was that the ML-9 had tighter bass. No, the ICE amp wasn't "boomy" by any means. I'd say the ML-9 probably has tighter bass than most SS amps, so this shouldn't be an indictment of class D.

The other reason was that there was a slight veil of the high frequencies, as compared to the ML-9. I want to emphasize that it was very subtle and not noticeable most of the time. If I had not been doing a direct comparison, I probably would not have noticed it. Judging by the popularity of the various ICE amps, I'd say most people do not notice these issues.

Btw, based on a few days of diect comparison between the ML-9 and a Spectron Musician III SE Mk 2, I'd say the Spectron compares very well with the ML-9. My friend and I are not able to say for certain if there is or isn't high frequency veil, and the bass extension may be slightly better with the Spectron. It weighs 20 lbs less and uses less than half the electricity of the ML-9, which to me are "good" things. I think I may have found a keeper and can finally return my father's ML-9 :)