[fredgarvin]

Fred, Something to consider, every coin has two sides. If the Ncore is transparent and a truly closer approach to a straight wire with gain then someone will sooner or later feed garbage into it and be dismayed by the magnitude of the upstream problems that are revealed.
 
 Eventually we will hear about this. I am not suspicious of claims that the amplifier is suitable for both high and low efficiency speakers, a properly designed amplifier should be able to drive damn near any speaker without problems.
 
As far as a general discussion of the merits of Class D versus the rest, it is a waste of time. Pros and cons can only be meaningfully dealt with by considering specific cases. IMO
Scotty

I'm not suspicious of the ncore product, in fact I'm interested. But, we've already had people come over to register an account simply to shill Ncore to an annoying level and even set up multiple accounts. Hyped claims are suspect, to me.

[jtwrace]

I'm not suspicious of the ncore product, in fact I'm interested. But, we've already had people come over to register an account simply to shill Ncore to an annoying level and even set up multiple accounts. Hyped claims are suspect, to me.

That's why the Tour is so good.  These are random people that are listening and giving their feedback.  The only thing I've asked for is honest feedback.  That's it!

[lowtech]

...But, we've already had people come over to register an account simply to shill Ncore to an annoying level and even set up multiple accounts.

Please cite an example.

[fredgarvin]

That's why the Tour is so good.  These are random people that are listening and giving their feedback.  The only thing I've asked for is honest feedback.  That's it!

Yeah, I agree!

[fredgarvin]

Please cite an example.

The posts have been removed by JohnR, I think. You could pm him.

[doug s.]

The posts have been removed by JohnR, I think. You could pm him.

i went thru the igwb posts, where these "shill posts" are alleged to have taken place.  yes, i see new members posting.  not surprising, really, as someone on the web who is interested and does a search on "ncore" will certainly find the a/c forum threads.  but, i haven't seen any shilling, only posts from owners giving their opinions.  not sure why some of the posts got deleted, actually...

ymmv,

doug s.

[doug s.]

I guess you have a more dire definition of suspicion than I do, in this context.

i guess we are arguing about symantics 

afaik, "suspicious" does in fact connote bad things:

https://www.google.com/search?source=ig&hl=en&rlz=&=&q=virus+that+takes+your+email+list&oq=virus+that+takes+your+email+list&aq=f&aqi=&aql=&gs_l=igoogle.3...1539.14721.0.14877.25.5.2.18.20.1.385.1036.0j3j1j1.5.0...0.0.#hl=en&q=suspicious&tbs=dfn:1&tbo=u&sa=X&psj=1&ei=ieKiT9zhMKPG6AH3y_mACQ&ved=0CC4QkQ4&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.r_qf.,cf.osb&fp=b1cb84515fad6089&biw=1213&bih=601
sus·pi·cious

adjective /səˈspiSHəs/ 

   1. Having or showing a cautious distrust of someone or something
          * - he was suspicious of her motives
          * - she gave him a suspicious look

   2. Causing one to have the idea or impression that something or someone is of questionable, dishonest, or dangerous character or condition
          * - they are not treating the fire as suspicious

   3. Having the belief or impression that someone is involved in an illegal or dishonest activity
          * - police were called when staff became suspicious

Synonyms
adjective: distrustful, doubtful, fishy, suspect, mistrustful, questionable, dubious, shady, leery, equivocal

doug s.

[fredgarvin]

i guess we are arguing about symantics 

afaik, "suspicious" does in fact connote bad things:

https://www.google.com/search?source=ig&hl=en&rlz=&=&q=virus+that+takes+your+email+list&oq=virus+that+takes+your+email+list&aq=f&aqi=&aql=&gs_l=igoogle.3...1539.14721.0.14877.25.5.2.18.20.1.385.1036.0j3j1j1.5.0...0.0.#hl=en&q=suspicious&tbs=dfn:1&tbo=u&sa=X&psj=1&ei=ieKiT9zhMKPG6AH3y_mACQ&ved=0CC4QkQ4&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.r_qf.,cf.osb&fp=b1cb84515fad6089&biw=1213&bih=601
sus·pi·cious

adjective /səˈspiSHəs/ 

   1. Having or showing a cautious distrust of someone or something
          * - he was suspicious of her motives
          * - she gave him a suspicious look

   2. Causing one to have the idea or impression that something or someone is of questionable, dishonest, or dangerous character or condition
          * - they are not treating the fire as suspicious

   3. Having the belief or impression that someone is involved in an illegal or dishonest activity
          * - police were called when staff became suspicious

Synonyms
adjective: distrustful, doubtful, fishy, suspect, mistrustful, questionable, dubious, shady, leery, equivocal

doug s.

In this context, my definition is more like this one;

3.  A state of uncertainty; doubt.  http://www.thefreedictionary.com/suspicion

'Leery' is a good synonym.

[fredgarvin]

i went thru the igwb posts, where these "shill posts" are alleged to have taken place.  yes, i see new members posting.  not surprising, really, as someone on the web who is interested and does a search on "ncore" will certainly find the a/c forum threads.  but, i haven't seen any shilling, only posts from owners giving their opinions.  not sure why some of the posts got deleted, actually...

ymmv,

doug s.

Count yourself lucky if you missed them. It was ugly, sending the ncore threads into quarantine and posts were deleted. JohnR threw out a couple of yes votes in the circle poll due to multi-accounting by one of the shills he put on time out.

[doug s.]

Count yourself lucky if you missed them. It was ugly, sending the ncore threads into quarantine and posts were deleted. JohnR threw out a couple of yes votes in the circle poll due to multi-accounting by one of the shills he put on time out.

as i stated before, i did not miss them.  they are there for eternity for all to see, in the quarantine and intergalactic waste bin circles.  the only things i saw ugly were folks raving about how good they must be, who have never heard them; and folks ranting about how bad they must be while having never heard them.  mostly from folks who have been a/c members a while.  the "newbie" posts were primarily from owners who have heard them and stated their wiews about them.

doug s.

[fredgarvin]

as i stated before, i did not miss them.  they are there for eternity for all to see, in the quarantine and intergalactic waste bin circles.  the only things i saw ugly were folks raving about how good they must be, who have never heard them; and folks ranting about how bad they must be while having never heard them.  mostly from folks who have been a/c members a while.  the "newbie" posts were primarily from owners who have heard them and stated their wiews about them.

doug s.

Some of the newbie posts were multiple accounts by one particular individual. 'Ding' 

[Freo-1]

I agree with that statement. But the topic thread is about class D vs others. 

Well stated.  This thread is titled “Class D vs. the Rest”, so it’s appropriate to point out how Class D amps actually work.  The posts and references listed were listed to point out both the strengths and challenges.  As pointed out, the last post listed is a manufacture of the devices used for Class D.

It’s also fair to point out how the operation of the amp can correlate to the performance of the amp.  The principals of Class D operation has not changed since the mid to late 2000’s, so the bugbears brought out then still apply today.  Granted, there are perhaps better (faster) components to work with, but that only goes so far.  The design concepts of Class D are a more involved, no question, so it’s not as easy to get Class D designs right.  The papers also show how a minor deviation in component values can have a significant adverse impact on output sound quality.  The more the amp has to switch the signal (from Class A to Class AB to Class B to Class D) the more difficult it is to get the amp to sound its best.

Class D has some advantages over conventional (high power output, no need for feedback, etc).  If one owns speakers that are of lower efficiency, then Class D could be just the ticket for those speaker types. 

I’ve owned and have listened to a fair amount of Class D amps to date.  To me, the best Class D has not yet equaled the best conventional amp designs (but they have improved).

[hifial]

"I’ve owned and have listened to a fair amount of Class D amps to date.  To me, the best Class D has not yet equaled the best conventional amp designs (but they have improved)"

You say this without having heard the latest challenger, Ncore 400 DIY, so how can you be so open minded as you say you are. Also until you hear Ncore's 1200 amp, designed to compete with other OEMs, you and others will still not know for sure. Keep in mind that there are other resent designs that I would like to know if you have had a chance to hear and if so what your impressions are:Devailet D, NAD M2, Mark Levinson no 53 and Tad. All are highly respected and all received praise for there sound. Now, everyone has different tastes and these my not be your cup of tea but to force others who find these or other class d to their liking to defend and prove it by technological means is bordering on bulling. So fine, you love class A and will always, but then you can not say you are open minded if you have to have other people prove it to you, only you can, by listening and investigating it yourself.  Dito for Fred.

I am not taking sides but unless you have tried or heard the latest, all you are doing is assuming, and you know the old saying about assuming, right.

[BruceSB]

For those interested in the "starting date" for Class D, the Spectron website states that "John Ulrick, introduced the very first hi-fidelity switching design amplifier into the audio world, while he was the president of Infinity Systems, at CES 1974".
Hope that I am telling you guys what you already know!

[BruceSB]

Please forgive me.
I meant to say I hope that I am NOT telling you guys what you already know!
Sorry!

[JohnR]

No, that's interesting.

[JohnR]

The initial invention of Class D is attributed to Baxandall: Baxandall, P. J., “Transistor sinewave oscillators,” IEE Proc., 748–758, London, May 1959.

In it he says "It is suggested that the term 'class-D' be applied to the operating conditions used in these oscillators. Thus a class-D oscillator or amplifier is one in which the angle of current flow in each active device is 180 degrees, but in which substantially no voltage exists across the active device while it is conducting."

So that proves it.

[BruceSB]

Thanks, now that's really interesting.
Certainly its no recent arrival!
Sure pushes 1974 way, way back!

[JohnR]

Well, those are oscillators, not amplifiers. Haven't found the "first class D amplifier" yet. Anyone? (Perhaps it was Ulrick.)

[OzarkTom]

With the new up-coming energy regulation laws in Europe, and will probably become law in the US, won't that force all amp companies to go Class D?