"They just don't sound good." — Bob Carver, speaking in this month's TAS. Check it out. He's a guy that does know a think or two about amps.

Just checking out the definition of class d gave me an answer quite a while ago.  The carver designed and executed amp I'm using now is good enough for me for now. 

mdeneen:

"They just don't sound good." — Bob Carver, speaking in this month's TAS. Check it out. He's a guy that does know a think or two about amps.

Maybe, but Carver has already produced a class A/B amp that runs cool, and sounds great.

Hifi jim:

mdeneen:

"They just don't sound good." — Bob Carver, speaking in this month's TAS. Check it out. He's a guy that does know a think or two about amps.

I just read that article, interesting. Every new technology brings challenges to the pioneers who dare attempt it. Someday I predict class D amps will surround us more than they already do. Good sound, reliable, cool running and cheap to build are reasons manufacturers will pursue it. I think when a company such as McIntosh produces a class D amp, the technology will finally have arrived. I've read that they have attempted one, but they were ultimately unhappy with the results. Probably won't be long though...

Maybe. But then I recall in 1975 all kinds of people saying it was just a "matter of time" before a transistor amp could be made to sound as good as a tube. The jury is still out on that one 30 years later. 

Here's something I can say without a doubt, or without a hesitation: My 8 pound Western Electric rotary dial phone in 1968 sounded way better on phone calls than my current cell phone, or my current plastic-GE-POS-desktop-barely-useable-cpu-powered phone. So, progress isn't always what you think it is. I LOVE my iPOD touch, but holy cow, I wouldn't fool myself about the sound quality. Class D has already won the war in the sense that they are the best solution for most applications. But like my old rotary phone, I doubt very much they will ever win the niche end of really superb sound quality.

Nothing.  They already sound better to my ears than any SS amp at any price.  I've had a number of forum members over since the Panasonic SA XR-25 became my "workaday" amp (the ST-70 for when I feel the need for that warm glow) and not a single one has ever criticized the amplification and the majority have been quite taken aback.  I've yet to hear anything out of it that I could say it altered in any way other than to drive my speakers.  It is neither clinical like SS nor warm like tubes.  It simply amplifies whatever I throw at it.  A good thing.  Glad I lived to see, er, hear it.  

I think the resistance is still more the low cost and lack of "heft" than the sound.  I tend to rely on my ears, not pocketbook pain...and getting of my Mc 2100 with it's 75 lbs. so I don't have to move it again was a really good thing.

I like Bob Carver and I've enjoyed his techno ventures in audio over the years, but I do not consider him a guiding light.  

Dave 

Bah Humbug!!

Well, I don't agree with him either. I think the Super-T sounds marvelous on big horns as long as you remember that you only have one good watt, and I still think it's one the best things I've ever heard for those late night listening sessions. I had a three channel Hypex amp built for me last year using the UcD180AD, and it was freaking awesome on the Klipschorns with a Heresy center. It's one of those pieces I regretted selling, but the center channel wasn't practical in my room, and since so much of my listening was late at night I just didn't need the three channels or the extra watts. It's a clean, open, natural sound with a minimum of grain or hash, and that's more than you can say for a lot of solid state. It doesn't bloom or project like good tube gear does, but hey, cheap tube gear doesn't bloom or project like good tube gear either! 

 >I think the Super-T sounds marvelous on big horns as long as you remember that you only have one good watt,

I hear no difference between my T or Tio and the Pany except that the Pany has at least 60 good watts X 6 and I only need about 5 of them per channel to achieve more db than I can tolerate.   I have read 115 and there was no audible distortion.  That was mostly bass so it did not hurt much...and I did not leave it up long. 

However,  I regularly read over a 100 on things like the Fox direct to disc LP when all those 32 foot pipes are going full.  Very uplifting...

Dave 

mdeneen:

Hifi jim:

mdeneen:

"They just don't sound good." — Bob Carver, speaking in this month's TAS. Check it out. He's a guy that does know a think or two about amps.

I just read that article, interesting. Every new technology brings challenges to the pioneers who dare attempt it. Someday I predict class D amps will surround us more than they already do. Good sound, reliable, cool running and cheap to build are reasons manufacturers will pursue it. I think when a company such as McIntosh produces a class D amp, the technology will finally have arrived. I've read that they have attempted one, but they were ultimately unhappy with the results. Probably won't be long though...

 

Maybe. But then I recall in 1975 all kinds of people saying it was just a "matter of time" before a transistor amp could be made to sound as good as a tube. The jury is still out on that one 30 years later. 

Here's something I can say without a doubt, or without a hesitation: My 8 pound Western Electric rotary dial phone in 1968 sounded way better on phone calls than my current cell phone, or my current plastic-GE-POS-desktop-barely-useable-cpu-powered phone. So, progress isn't always what you think it is. I LOVE my iPOD touch, but holy cow, I wouldn't fool myself about the sound quality. Class D has already won the war in the sense that they are the best solution for most applications. But like my old rotary phone, I doubt very much they will ever win the niche end of really superb sound quality.

Solid anaology. Class "D" just may never get to musical for me.

I am tempted to try a B&K one though. 

The only problem with Class D done correctly is the distortion introduced by the inductor in the output filter. Though nobody ever complains about the inductors in their passive crossovers...

DeanG:

Well, I don't agree with him either. I think the Super-T sounds marvelous on big horns as long as you remember that you only have one good watt, and I still think it's one the best things I've ever heard for those late night listening sessions. I had a three channel Hypex amp built for me last year using the UcD180AD, and it was freaking awesome on the Klipschorns with a Heresy center. It's one of those pieces I regretted selling, but the center channel wasn't practical in my room, and since so much of my listening was late at night I just didn't need the three channels or the extra watts. It's a clean, open, natural sound with a minimum of grain or hash, and that's more than you can say for a lot of solid state. It doesn't bloom or project like good tube gear does, but hey, cheap tube gear doesn't bloom or project like good tube gear either! 

Spot on, Dean.  I would also add the Trends to the list. 

Certain Class D sounds surprisingly good on horns so long as you don't try to do too much with any given unit.

Carl.

 QSC has a full range class D amp, the PL380. I would like to try one out one of these days. 

That's interesting. I don't know what to make of it. My take on it is similar to Dean's experience.

I know one thing, I was really, I mean REALLY surprised at how good it sounded for so little cash.  That's a psychological thing. Could be that I got bang for the buck giggles and that distorts my hearing. It really "shouldn't" sound as good as it does.

Bob Carver knows his stuff for sure. He's one of the industry big guns. Still, he might be vulnerable to a paradigm thing along with a subjective preference for a different reference sound.