To answer the questions about our prejudice against Class D, we'd have to go into both practical and philosophical domains.
In the practical domain, we have two problems:
1. Radiated noise and FCC compliance. Although we're past the "exploding parakeet" stage, high-frequency pulse modulation at high amplitudes is going to generate a ton of noise. To the best of my knowledge (and based on some experience), many, if not all, high-power Class D modules are not FCC compliant. And, even if they are, they still have to be tested after they are put inside of an amplifier. This is why you'll see a lot of modules sold, but not a lot of finished amps. And, as I've mentioned before, FCC compliance is really the one thing you have to do for sales in the USA. Otherwise, very bad things (nasty visits, big fines, business shutdown) will happen. We'd prefer to avoid this.
2. Nonlinear control loops and high feedback. Yep, there are some modules that have good measured performance, but this is thanks to tons of feedback--same as with most other amps that have good static measured performance. However, in this case, you're talking nonlinear control systems and z-domain analysis, which has different stability criteria than analog control systems (that is, typical multiloop amp feedback. Again, something we'd prefer to avoid. Add to this the fact that these nonlinear control algorithms are usually the "secret sauce" of the Class D amp designer, and it makes us even more nervous about "black box" applications
In the philosophical domain, Class D amps are mathematical transformations of analog to pulse modulation, which is not really congruent with our approach of "preserve the original bits/signal." It's the same as our objection to DSD.
What would be interesting is a comparison of Class D designs with a multitone test signal (not just IMD, but something with, say, 8 sines) to see how the nonlinear control loop deals with it. But even if it did well, we'd probably shy away due to the radiated noise problem.