Class D vs Class A, A/B

dflee · « **on:** 15 Oct 2010, 08:16 pm »

If this is rehash just slap me upside the head.
I have been curious about class D but some say you have to go mega-buck to get decent sound. Right now I have a class A, A/B and like it but want to know if I am missing out on something.

Thanks
Don

JLM · « **Reply #1 on:** 15 Oct 2010, 08:22 pm »

Like most things, the more you pay the better/bigger output you get.

At the very top end, most agree that class A (or even class A/B) still beats out class D. But at the lower, middle, and higher quality/price ranges class D is very competative.

Wind Chaser · « **Reply #2 on:** 15 Oct 2010, 08:30 pm »

It's like tubes vs. SS. Decent sound is not dependant on price or design topology. There's good and bad everything. Every component stands strictly on it's own merit.

DustyC · « **Reply #3 on:** 15 Oct 2010, 08:49 pm »

"Mega buck" gets you a fancy milled aluminum case. I have often how much cheaper amps and preamps would be if they ditched the fancy cases and used a plain black box with a black anodized front. Those thick aluminum front panels are expensive!

There are some high end companies that have dipped their toes in the class D pool and have dove right in. Bryston, Rowland, CIAudio, come to mind. When I can save up some extra cash I'd like to try one full range or for bass duty in my bi-amped system.

Freo-1 · « **Reply #4 on:** 17 Oct 2010, 01:43 am »

Quote from: Wind Chaser on 15 Oct 2010, 08:30 pm

It's like tubes vs. SS. Decent sound is not dependant on price or design topology. There's good and bad everything. Every component stands strictly on it's own merit.

Would tend to agree. I recently got a Rowland 102 for an excellent price. My eariler digital amps I've tried left me wanting for more. However, the latest ICE setup in this competes with pretty much any amp in it's power class, and sounds better than the majority of amps I've heard in the 100 WPC class.

werd · « **Reply #5 on:** 18 Oct 2010, 03:14 pm »

Its funny with all class D i have heard they (in home) have sounded compressed. Exactly opposite of the their attempts in design that they did not achieve. And yet in the car they don't sound compressed. I have heard good things about the DAC cherry amps. I would like to to hear those.

turkey · « **Reply #6 on:** 18 Oct 2010, 04:32 pm »

Quote from: dflee on 15 Oct 2010, 08:16 pm

Right now I have a class A, A/B and like it but want to know if I am missing out on something.

If you like what you have, then stick with it. It's very unlikely that you'll really gain anything in terms of sound quality with a switch to a Class D amp.

Freo-1 · « **Reply #7 on:** 19 Oct 2010, 12:22 am »

Quote from: turkey on 18 Oct 2010, 04:32 pm

If you like what you have, then stick with it. It's very unlikely that you'll really gain anything in terms of sound quality with a switch to a Class D amp.

Maybe, maybe not. The Rowland Model 102 (a current B&O ICE module) DOES in fact sound better than my restored Yamaha M-80 on Source Technologies 277 SE speakers in a moderate sized room.

Many reports are stating that the current B&O ICE modules do sound impressive. Robert Harley gave a rave review on some recent NuForce ICE amps. They have come up a lot over the last few years.

The take away is, one should not dismiss Class D out of hand, espcially if it has the latest B&O ICE setup.

groovybassist · « **Reply #8 on:** 19 Oct 2010, 12:31 am »

I'm quite happy with my Wyred4Sound STI-500 class D integrated. Nothing compressed about it from my standpoint. I'd be hesitant to dismiss class D out-of-hand without hearing it. I agree with previous posts - it's all in the implementation.

mjosef · « **Reply #9 on:** 19 Oct 2010, 02:08 am »

Silly question...is there a Class C, and if not, why did 'they' skip a letter?

Freo-1 · « **Reply #10 on:** 19 Oct 2010, 02:30 am »

Quote from: mjosef on 19 Oct 2010, 02:08 am

Silly question...is there a Class C, and if not, why did 'they' skip a letter?

Not silly at all. Class C is genarally used by RF units.

http://www.tpub.com/content/neets/14179/css/14179_82.htm

turkey · « **Reply #11 on:** 19 Oct 2010, 03:05 pm »

Quote from: Freo-1 on 19 Oct 2010, 12:22 am

Maybe, maybe not. The Rowland Model 102 (a current B&O ICE module) DOES in fact sound better than my restored Yamaha M-80 on Source Technologies 277 SE speakers in a moderate sized room.

How did you test this?

Quote

Many reports are stating that the current B&O ICE modules do sound impressive. Robert Harley gave a rave review on some recent NuForce ICE amps. They have come up a lot over the last few years.

Did NuForce take out some ads in TAS?

I'm not saying that Class D amps have to sound awful, just that they're not necessarily any better than other types of amps. With that in mind, I don't think that Don will gain much considering that he already has an amp that he likes.

mfsoa · « **Reply #12 on:** 19 Oct 2010, 03:48 pm »

I thought Nuforce didn't use ICE modules?

-Mike

Charles Xavier · « **Reply #13 on:** 19 Oct 2010, 09:07 pm »

Quote from: mfsoa on 19 Oct 2010, 03:48 pm

I thought Nuforce didn't use ICE modules?
-Mike

Who cares what they use . My demo ref9's arrived today and they sound darn good

pumpkinman · « **Reply #14 on:** 19 Oct 2010, 09:08 pm »

Quote from: Charles Xavier on 19 Oct 2010, 09:07 pm

Who cares what they use . My demo ref9's arrived today and they sound darn good

Well I care damn it

Charles Xavier · « **Reply #15 on:** 19 Oct 2010, 09:13 pm »

Quote from: pumpkinman on 19 Oct 2010, 09:08 pm

Well I care damn it

pumpkinman · « **Reply #16 on:** 19 Oct 2010, 09:41 pm »

Quote from: Charles Xavier on 19 Oct 2010, 09:13 pm

Thanks Chuckie

Freo-1 · « **Reply #17 on:** 22 Oct 2010, 08:49 pm »

Quote from: turkey on 19 Oct 2010, 03:05 pm

How did you test this?

Did NuForce take out some ads in TAS?

I'm not saying that Class D amps have to sound awful, just that they're not necessarily any better than other types of amps. With that in mind, I don't think that Don will gain much considering that he already has an amp that he likes.

Let's answer the three points:

1) When switching out the M-80 for the Rowland, the difference was not subtle. Vocals had a presence that reminds one of a good tube amp, as does reproduction of horns, cymbals, etc. The disclaimer here is this was noticed with my Source Technologies 277 SE speakers.

2) The crack about TAS adds nothing to the conversation.

3) Based on point #1, do not concur about trying a ICE amp. I suspect Don will indeed hear a signifigant difference. What his preference will be is impossible to say, BUT, I reckon he will like the sound of the current ICE units.

turkey · « **Reply #18 on:** 22 Oct 2010, 09:00 pm »

Quote from: Freo-1 on 22 Oct 2010, 08:49 pm

1) When switching out the M-80 for the Rowland, the difference was not subtle. Vocals had a presence that reminds one of a good tube amp, as does reproduction of horns, cymbals, etc. The disclaimer here is this was noticed with my Source Technologies 277 SE speakers.

Ok, that's about what I thought.

Quote

2) The crack about TAS adds nothing to the conversation.

I'll restate it. I don't find TAS to be a reputable source of info, and Robert Harley is the worst of the bunch over there.

Freo-1 · « **Reply #19 on:** 22 Oct 2010, 09:27 pm »

Quote from: turkey on 22 Oct 2010, 09:00 pm

Ok, that's about what I thought.

I'll restate it. I don't find TAS to be a reputable source of info, and Robert Harley is the worst of the bunch over there.

No worries, Mate.

I really was genuinely surprised at the sound of the Rowland. I didn't expect it to sound good at all. The fact that the mid range and treble was so open (and different) from the Yamaha was interesting. That's the only reason I suggested to anyone who is curious about ICE amps to check them out for themselves (in other words, trust one's own ears first).