Topping PA5 Review (Amplifier)

[pma]

What is worse than the RCA as a connector?

Nothing. Maybe jack 3.5 mm and 2.5 mm. What is better than XLR? Nothing.

 

[Paco De Lucia]

the RCA isn't a bad connector, pretty reliable and cheap

 

[Paco De Lucia]

the RCA and XLR both have quite large mating surfaces. the jacks, not so much depending in the gear

 

[pma]

the RCA isn't a bad connector, pretty reliable and cheap

No. It has dimension tolerance issues, often does not make a good connection. It connects live first, before ground. This makes enormous hum or even failure if disconnected unintentionally. You guys need more experience.

 

[Paco De Lucia]

No. It has dimension tolerance issues, often does not make a good connection. It connects live first, before ground. This makes enormous hum or even failure if disconnected unintentionally. You guys need more experience.

Yep 30 years as a sound engineer )))

 

[sarumbear]

Nothing. Maybe jack 3.5 mm and 2.5 mm. What is better than XLR? Nothing.

I agree that XLR is a reliable connector. We may have not used to them in Hi-Fi equipment but the professional audio industry, especially live music, had been using 1/4” jacks for years; so did every electric guitar ever produced. They are also pretty reliable.

 

[Eggs Ackley]

RCA phono connectors have been used on consumer electronics for 83 years now.

 

[sarumbear]

RCA phono connectors have been used on consumer electronics for 83 years now.

1/4” connectors origin goes back to the 19th century.

 

[Klint]

I agree that XLR is a reliable connector. We may have not used to them in Hi-Fi equipment but the professional audio industry, especially live music, had been using 1/4” jacks for years; so did every electric guitar ever produced. They are also pretty reliable.

And none of the guitar or base players or singers have avoided, needing to turn bend hit and throw away that 1/4" to get rid of the bad connection.

 

[restorer-john]

If the Recording is not using the full dynamic of the medium it is a flaw in the recording and the mastering engineer did not do his job.
Or it is an artistic dissension and intended to play softer.

What Album do you know whit no peaks over -4dBFS

And if the recording is relay to low you can fix the mastering engineer faults by applying digital gain.

I have plenty of early CDs where the loudest parts (peaks) are nowhere near 0dBFS. Plenty of classical, jazz and popular. I regard those discs as the originals and best. SO, I trun the volume pot a bit further- who cares? Proper HiFi systems and preamplifiers cater for widely varying levels.

No flaws either, the 'engineers' were doing their job correctly as many of these recordings were live to two track where peaks could be unpredictable. And much of the early recording involved absolutely no digital level control as it was too primitive and/or destructive 16bit or less.

Also, many of the early CD releases were derived from analog masters of existing content. There was no good reason to add more residual noise by increasing the analog level before mastering for CD.

 

[Lambda]

There was no good reason to add more residual noise by increasing the analog level before mastering for CD.

Makes no sense.
How would it have less noise if they use less bits as output format.

No flaws either, the 'engineers' were doing their job correctly as many of these recordings were live to two track where peaks could be unpredictable.

Maybe look up what exactly a mastering engineer is doing.
"Optimize for the output medium" is one big thing. one big part of this is level mashing.
for vinyl to make sure it cuts correctly and for CDs it means level matching and dithering.
If the peaks are below -6dB FS even losses bitshift can be uses even with the most primitive digital to digital process
By making sure to use the full potential of the output medium (mastering) the noise SNR is improved not the opposite.

 

[anotherhobby]

I just wanted to say thanks for the VERY fast help I received from people here with my balanced input problem and the bad adapters. Thanks folks! My test cable to verify the issue was just using alligator clips, so after a bit of a soldering session, I made this balanced TRS > RCA franken-cable that will work well enough until the correct adapters that I ordered show up:

Now that I can actually listen to the PA5, it sounds fantastic and has more than enough power for my Revel M105's near field, even with unbalanced inputs. My ears hurt long before I get to the top. The pic below is my new stack all hooked up.

Signal path is: Mac > (USB) D10s > (optical) E30 > L30 > SX45 > splits to PA5 and Sub

USB on my MacBook Pro is noisy. You can gear GPU/CPU noise clearly in the tweeters, and the only way I've found to isolate it is to convert to optical to decouple grounds from the Mac, so that's why the D10s is in there. The SX45 is in there because no matter how much I tried, I just could NOT get a good mix with my sub without a real crossover. Just using the sub's crossover to try and match the Revel M105's did not provide a good smooth blend.

Why did I get a PA5 (I know you didn't ask but I'm going to share)? Building a hi-fi system in my office has been a new project of mine. I recently got a NAD 3020 V2 thinking it would be perfect for this, and I really liked it at first, but the sub sounded bolted-on (the NAD doesn't have a crossover). I added a Rolls SX45, which gave me the seamless speaker/sub blend I was looking for, but requires me to use the NAD's analog input, and means the NAD is then just an amp, so the other inputs didn't get a sub, volume control was awkward, the headphone jack was useless since it was after the high pass filter, and it standby mode doesn't work with analog input. Still in the return window, it's going back to Amazon. The replacement L30/E30/PA5 sound no different to my ears, which is great new because the NAD sounds excellent. Based on measurements, any difference would likely be placebo. The main win for me is that since my setup is now separates, it's easy to insert the crossover into the path, and usability is much better.

As an aside, this Rolls SX45 crossover is headed to Amir for measurements after the holidays. Other than the SX45 and the miniDSP, the next small desktop sized crossover is probably the K231 at $500, or miniDSP's more expensive units like the new Flex. I may end up there, but I want to see how this SX45 measures first. I don't have high expectations, only high hopes.

Oh... the other nice thing is the PA5 is quite a bit smaller than the NAD, and it doesn't get as warm:

 

[Digital_Thor]

So this little amp is perfect for tweeter and midrange in an active system, combined with a bit more powerful amplifier for the woofer?

 

[MarkWinston]

Why I need 700 watts. LMFAO!

 

[Lambda]

Why I need 700 watts. LMFAO!

because you have chosen very very inefficient speakers (0.25%) and relatively loud listening level.
But 10dB for dynamic is to optimistic Even modern pop music has >15dB from "A weighted RMS" to "True Peak"

Also Watts s actual the wrong unit to be precises it would be VA.
You nee the Voltage and the current to deliver 700W into a resistor. but for a real speaker you dont need them in Phase (at the same time)
so your not actually pulling 700W from the wall to get "700W" into the speaker.

Efficiency and sensitivity conversion - loudspeaker percent and dB per watt and meter loudspeaker efficiency versus sensitivity vs speaker sensitivity 1 watt = 2,83 volt box chart - sengpielaudio Sengpiel Berlin

Efficiency and sensitivity conversion - loudspeaker percent and dB per watt and meter dB/W/m loudspeaker efficiency versus sensitivity vs speaker sensitivity 1 watt = 2,83 volt box chart - sengpielaudio Eberhard Sengpiel

www.sengpielaudio.com

 

[Walter]

It connects live first, before ground. This makes enormous hum or even failure if disconnected unintentionally.

This, in my opinion, is the only really valid criticism of this connector. I don't think this makes it a BAD connector, but it is indeed a good explanation of why XLR is better. I've personally seen no evidence that it is more prone to wear, when compared to XLR connectors of similar quality. If you compare 50 cent 1/4" inch connectors to Nuetrik XLR, then yeah, they are inferior.

 

[pma]

This, in my opinion, is the only really valid criticism of this connector. I don't think this makes it a BAD connector, but it is indeed a good explanation of why XLR is better. I've personally seen no evidence that it is more prone to wear, when compared to XLR connectors of similar quality. If you compare 50 cent 1/4" inch connectors to Nuetrik XLR, then yeah, they are inferior.

The 2nd big advantage is the difference between input and output connectors - male/female. You cannot interconnect 2 outputs by mistake, which can be easily done with TRS. Another points to reliability score. To me, XLR is the winner.

 

[Walter]

The 2nd big advantage is the difference between input and output connectors - male/female. You cannot interconnect 2 outputs by mistake, which can be easily done with TRS. Another points to reliability score. To me, XLR is the winner.

By "interconnect," I assume you just mean touching two male connectors, right? I basically consider that a corollary of my earlier criticism. Yeah, not fun. Not that I ever did that, of course.

 

[Prana Ferox]

What is worse than the RCA as a connector?

That goofy balanced RCA one-off Khadas tried to use

Personally I am zero fan of TS/TRS, and the example here is partly why - there are a bazillion cables out there of random quality and configuration, especially once you start including adapters - but I can see why Topping uses them here / on the E50. I'd also prefer XLR. I'm actually surprised there's been few complaints of the adapters not fitting on the back / the weight of the adapters pulling this little amp around. I use decent quality TRS-> XLR cables to attach my E50 to my balanced amp and I have to practically sticky-tape the boxes down.

 

[Eggs Ackley]

Funny thing. After I plug my cables in, regardless of connection type I don't give them a second thought, but that's just me I suppose.