How do Digital Amps Mfrs. compare in sound?

HiFiCritic compared the Bel Canto e.One REF1000, the NuForce 8.5 monoblocks and the Channel Island Audio D100LGR in the September/October 2007 issue. This is a magazine that accepts no advertising in order to be able to say what they think. They were not impressed with the performance of any of the amps. They were quite powerful but the actual sound quality was lacking. As they put it," Poor treble seems a feature of Class D amplification." Some other publications have hinted at this; I remember an Absolute Sound review of 2 Class Ds where the reviewer commended on the necessity of using a tube preamp to tame the top end[ I don't have the issue in front of me]. When I posted a reference to this article previously a mighty roar was heard from owners and SELLERS of Class D amps accusing both the Magazine and myself of being in league with entrenched commercial interests. The loudest roarer was a large audio dealer. The magazine takes no advertising and while I myself am an audio dealer I do not sell electronics. You may well see this repeated here; if so, remember that those who try to stifle debate have something to hide. To me the whole thing is reminiscent of the CD debacle where a new technology was rushed to the market before it was developed.The test is not on line but the HIDICRITIC site has excerpts from a paper presented at a professional conference concerning Class D amps. I would have a long listening session with any of them before I bought one.

Look to the technology the amps are based on. ICE, Tripath, UcD, etc. I have used both Tripath and UcD based amps and I think UcD is better. Either amp is better than most mosfet,jfet, solid state amps. They have no "sound". They will, without adding their own sonic signature, amplify what they are fed. They are "neutral", which is what you want an amp to be. I have stated many times a tube pre with a "class D" amp is a great combination. I also believe any SS amp sounds better with a tube pre. I only know, that for me, "Class D" opens up the sound, highly detailed, very wide sound stage and with the tube pre, produces a warm musical experience. I have been in "hi fi" since 1971. The debate over this new technology has been anything but stifled. Just as SS rose against tubes, cd's replaced cassettes which came out against records; chips will overshadow mosfet/jfets. Each camp will have its champions and shrill voices. There will be product for each technology. Most will go with the new technology, some never will.
Excuse me as I listen to some Bach, produced by my system of cd through tube pre to a "Class D" amp. Debating over technology is not what is important, listening to music is. Less chat, more tunes.

I have a NuForce integrated I purchased used here on the Gon. It definitely had a nasty glare on top. I sent it in to NuForce (xlnt service) for a V2 upgrade - glare is all gone and it is a very sweet unit with great dynamics - and I only use it with digital sources.

The gentleman I bought it from is, among other skills an equipment reviewer. When we were discussin the upgrade (which was the plan going in) he wrote me that "I think the learning curve is still relatively steep on this kind of stuff which means upgrades not to far out from release (a few years at best) have meaning."

As noted, at least in my experience this has turned out to be true.

I prefer UCD technology as well. I have compared it to Melos MAT-180 and a Karan KA-i180 and prefer the UCD based amp. I use mine with a tubed preamp also.

For those of us a step behind in this debate, which products offer the UCD technology?