Here's Jeff Rowland's last two sentences when asked about Class D (May/June 2012 TAS pg 71):
"...Strict adherence to a class designation for an audio designer is like asking a painter to reduce the number of colors on his palette. The end result may be less vivid than you had hoped for."
Jeff's words, not mine...
Jim
Sorry, you put words in his mouth. Read it in context, and he is referring to the fact that as a designer he doesn't want to limit himself to only one technology, in order to get the best results.
That isn't a put down of Class D. He's just saying he doesn't restrict himself to Class D.
If you read through the designer interviews, the opinions on Class D varied. A few were all in favor, some said it still had inherent limitations that future technology might overcome, some said it by definition couldn't compete with true conventional high-end designs, and others said it was competitive already.
I agree with the comments that the designers may not be the best people to ask this question to, as many have already made decisions about what kind technology is best, and are not going to change their minds after 30-40 years of designing amps.
Per the arguments in this thread on the sound of the NCore: one man's flat and lifeless is another man's good quality reproduction. We will never all agree on matters of taste.