DevillEars
Dedicated ignorer of fashion
Have been thinking about Class D amplification. Why for all its qualities and eco friendliness has it not become the norm. Since were all moving closer and closer to a full on digital invasion is there any reason why we stick to analogue, is class D just not there yet or is it just a technology that doesnt work as well. ..... Are there any British made units?
.. so is Class D not used because were so entwined in the industry, its production process and its current form that a wholesale change would effectively re-invent it? or is Class D just in its infant days and as of yet, needs to find its feet?
Hi r-tee,
Ignoring the "digital vs analogue" debate for the moment, I think there are a number of purely business reasons why Class D has not become "universal"...
In the majority of cases, the "technology" of Class D is "bought-in" rather then developed in-house. Examples of hifi manufacturers that have adopted this "bought-in" approach using B&O's ICEpower modules are:
- Bel Canto
- Jeff Rowland Design Group
- PS Audio
- Rotel
- Wyred-for-Sound
For these manufacturers there has to have been a conscious "strategic" decision taken to reduce in-house R&D into amplifier design and to adopt third party technologies. Most of these manufacturers do some bespoke peripheral tweaking to the overall circuitry - leaving the modules intact - in order to achieve some improvement over the basic module performance.
Other manufacturers may well have a view that their past R&D investment has yet to yield an adequate return for them to simply abandon their in-house (and analogue) designs in favour of "bought-in" digital designs. Also, some manufacturers have built a reputation around their own proprietary circuit designs - Krell and Pass Labs spring to mind - and are unwilling to throw away that element of "differentiation" that sets them apart from the herd.
So, in this scenario we have "financial inertia" coming into play coupled with the desire to easily differentiate offerings from the masses.
Another factor lies in the gross profit margins possible when using in-house designs versus using licensed designs from third parties. This is probably most valid in the 50-100 wpc integrated amplifier segment where competition is fierce and pricing is dictated by positioning rather than branding. This segment is also a popular target segment for UK amplifier manufacturers such as Arcam, Creek, etc. For these manufacturers to suddenly switch from their own analogue designs that have evolved over time, to a digital technology sourced from a third party, would pose some problems due to write-off of R&D (as mentioned above), loss of "house sound" and profit margin erosion due to having to pay for someone else's R&D.
To my knowledge, there are very few British amplifier manufacturers employing third party digital amplifier technology (Meridian is one that comes to mind).
There are probably other business-related issues, but these two should be sufficient to illustrate the point that there are factors other than sound quality that influence the adoption of digital amplifier technology.
On the issue of sound quality, there appears to be a polarisation of opinion on this forum (and many others) as to the sonic merits of digital amplifiers - with avid supporters on one hand and vicious detractors on the other hand (and with very few in the middle...).
Personally, I am very impressed with the ICEpower technology as implemented by Jeff Rowland and, after >3 years of living with a pair of 250 watt (8ohm load) monoblocks, would not consider a move back to a non-digital offering.
So, I honestly believe that digital amplification - as exemplified by B&O's ICEpower - has "come of age", but universal adoption is probably a very long way off (and for a number of reasons - not the least of which is the polarisation of opinion in the potential markets).
My $0.02 worth...