Neil Gader: You know, I agree with everything that has been said, particularly the use of the word “muted.” I think that summarizes my impressions of what’s going on in the highest octaves. In some ways I kept harkening back to the introduction of transistor equipment and I was thinking that maybe Class D might be in its infancy in some regards, although in comparison to the introduction of transistors, the sound is much more pleasant and the problems more subtractive than additive—which gives me a certain hopeful enthusiasm. The midrange was usually very solid and kind of rich.
Overall the sound was a little bit dark, and in the uppermost octave I never really heard that transistor-style grain structure, which could be so annoying, but, like Jonathan and Robert said, the treble was kind of squeezed and truncated.
Wayne Garcia: It’s interesting, Neil brought up early transistor designs. Particularly with the Cary, the Red Dragon, and the NuForce, what I was reminded me of was early CD. I think the NuForce, as I wrote in my comment, is probably going to be the most controversial, because I know that Chris is crazy about it, and Robert liked it quite a lot, too. For me, that amplifier sounds very sterile. It lacks microdynamics. If you put on a solo violin piece, for example, the violin didn’t have any poetry; the dynamics were kind of squished. The top end just gave me a headache. It almost had a jittery quality, like early CD. I also found the amp not to sound of a piece. The bottom end, by and large, was exaggerated. The top end was both razor-cut and glassy.
Except for the Kharma, I couldn’t live with any of these Class D amps, personally. I agree that it’s an exciting technology, but for me a lot of the current crop just isn’t ready for prime time.
Chris Martens: Well, my reactions do differ from the group’s a bit. What I found was that there seemed to be a dividing line between Class D amps. I’d say that a good half of the ones that I’ve heard fit the description that’s been given. You know, the sense of the top being sawed off—the compressed sound up top and lack of expressiveness. The two that were the biggest exception to the rule were the ARC and the NuForce. I’d put them and the Kharma in a different category. I haven’t found them to have problems with micro-dynamics or to lack transparency. Admittedly I often listen to what might be, relative to the group, midpriced speakers, but I’ve also heard them on things like the MBL 101Es and found them to be more transparent to my ears than they may have seemed to the rest of the group.
To me, the three defining characteristics that leave me pretty excited about the technology are: really tight bass—typically much tighter than I hear from most Class AB amplifiers—really decent handing of the leading edges of transients, and much-better-than-average transparency. Now, I’m not saying we get up into MBL 9011 territory, but then, few things do. I found that the better Class D units tended to win when compared to like-priced or even a fair amount of more expensive Class AB amps.
Top | Previous | Next
Advertisement
All documents notede with file size are in PDF format.
Download Acrobat Reader
