Class D amps

It is very simple in concept and offers a very high efficiency but has proved to be quite difficult to implement without running into problems more conventional amps don't face. Which is why amps which should theoretically be small and cheap end up as big and expensive as conventional amps. As you can see from the above comments opinion on the sound quality is really divided.

Magfan, I remember IR but there are many others. The list is old.

As for rudeness, it would be very rude of me to ask on this forum if TT or tubes still exist, displaying total ignorance, especially when information is on the cover of most audio magazines and internet. One would have to make serious effort to avoid knowing that.

My Rowland 102 comes from the first generation and sounds incredible. As I understand it, there is very little difference between two generations and the reason for "big improvement" is to make easier for some people, including well known audio critics, to remove foot from the mouth.

Break in takes very long with class D and my amp started sounding much better (smoother, more refined) after 400 hours. The issue is not if class D amps are the best but rather if they are good for the money. Not too many amps around $1500 have such immediacy, transparency, smooth highs, liquid mids, and iron fist controlled lows as my 200W Rowland 102 - smallest of the Rowland family.

Kijanki,

I agree. My Hypex UCD400HG with H x R monoblocks I built took well over 400 to bloom. More like 600-700 hrs. Until that point they were okay, somewhat flat and lacking air.

Now they ere phenomenally 3D, tons of air, huge soundstage and incredibly detailed. Best amps I have owned.

Fidler, I'm familiar with Hypex modules. Hypex kits were very nice with low inductance slit foil electrolytic caps and big satisfaction of building it yourself.

I have the ARC DS450 D class amp. It is mated with ARC's LS27 - tube line stage. This combo works beautifully.

Mike