Do all amplifiers sound the same? Level matched listening test

[krabapple]

...quite true, until individual choice becomes a popular preference.

 

[RexrothPigeon]

...quite true, until individual choice becomes a popular preference.

it would have to be more than a popular preference; it would have to be organized collective action.

 

[krabapple]

Popular sentiment without 'organized collective action' has certainly moved some needles historically.

 

[lunaria]

I have an Alesis RA-100 class A/B which puts out pretty much the same power as my Topping Mini 300. It idles at 11W, which is very similar to the Topping. Both are power amps, with no preamp section.

Your numbers are rather dubious. The most efficient class AB amp that I've seen, idles at 18W. My Topping Mini 300 idles at 7W. (Measured at the wall, verified with EXTREMELY precise high-end measurement equipment from work.)

 

[BlueTunes]

And this perfectly reflects the sick attitude in this world and the massive waste of resources (materials, not money). Added to this is the massive environmental pollution caused by disposal in landfills in developing countries. Years of burning toxic electronic components and plastics there are permanently contaminating the air and groundwater.

These emissions contaminate cultivated food, including organic produce, and all animal products via air and rain, not to mention groundwater, worldwide without exception.
Here, too, science and measurements clearly demonstrate the problem.
Because even in 2026, functioning and sustainable recycling will not exist.

Meanwhile, a large proportion of devices, not just in the audio sector, fail due to cheap and undersized SMD components. Savings per device range from a few cents to a maximum of €/$1-2 in production.

These very components make repairs extremely difficult and sometimes impossible.
Furthermore, a large proportion of electronic failures, including those in audio devices, are now attributable to these very cheap SMD components. These failures often damage other components as well.
This is completely unnecessary!

The second issue is the lack of service documentation/manuals, especially from manufacturers who don't offer repairs during or after the warranty period.

The statement quoted above is also problematic because many Class D devices could be repaired easily and inexpensively if the aforementioned points were addressed.
But if everyone continues to accept the situation without complaint or consequences, it will only get worse.

In the EU (and perhaps elsewhere), there is now a business that thrives on buying up defective DSL routers from certain companies. These routers fail in large numbers within the first five years, even during the warranty period, due to the aforementioned SMD problem. The business repairs the routers, eliminates known weaknesses, and resells them as repaired/refurbished devices with a warranty.

Statistics now show that the losses incurred by these DSL router manufacturers are greater than the savings in production.
Darüber hinaus hat die hohe Anzahl defekter Geräte dem Ruf des ehemaligen Premiumherstellers erheblich geschadet.
Does this happen to remind anyone of a well-known Chinese audio manufacturer with very accurate measuring devices?

You have to look at these things full cycle.

Yes, on the surface, disposable products seem to be wasteful but there is efficiency in designing for a reasonable lifespan without repair or service.

You can make the things far cheaper, usually saving materials and energy in doing so. Entropy is the prime law of existence so even if you can repair something or a part, it's still bolted to something else of a continually diminished quality or function.
Do those huge amps really perform and test the same once the key bits (transformers and caps and transistors and resistors) have been replaced?

Repair and service isn't an environmental free ticket. You still need parts, travel, time, etc. and technology advances so efficiency becomes far better.

It's can be worse for the environment to repair old shite than buy new tech.

 

[Chr1]

Your numbers are rather dubious. The most efficient class AB amp that I've seen, idles at 18W. My Topping Mini 300 idles at 7W. (Measured at the wall, verified with EXTREMELY precise high-end measurement equipment from work.)

Just measured again. Actually lower than I thought, so pretty close to the Topping Mini 300.

(My higher quote of 11W earlier must be one of my other amplifiers. My memory is not great these days! )

 

[Chr1]

I realise that it is a bit early but I reckon that the Mini 300 will be reliable. I am hopeful that after the issues with the PA5, Topping have updated the design for better reliability. Time will tell.

Hopefully they will do something similar with the B100, as it seems to have a relatively high failure rate. My 2c.

 

[Roland68]

I realise that it is a bit early but I reckon that the Mini 300 will be reliable. I am hopeful that after the issues with the PA5, Topping have updated the design for better reliability. Time will tell.

Hopefully they will do something similar with the B100, as it seems to have a relatively high failure rate. My 2c.

You don't need to worry about that for now.
The problem with the PA5 was due to Topping's silly idea with the potting compound and had nothing to do with the amplifier or the circuit/components themselves.

I don't see any problems with the Mini 300, and the problem with the B100 is likely due to something else, like with the A90D.

 

[Chr1]

Curious what the point of potting compound is? I have heard of several amp failures due to it's use. Also, what is the fault with the A90D? Plus, any idea re the B100?

Seems to me that Topping make some great amplifiers but it sometimes takes a couple of iterations to get the reliability where it ought to be.

 

[Roland68]

Curious what the point of potting compound is? I have heard of several amp failures due to it's use. Also, what is the fault with the A90D? Plus, any idea re the B100?

The potting compound served solely to conceal and keep secret the circuit developed by Topping.
It's both funny and ironic that this very process revealed the circuit. There are far better ways to do this.

Furthermore, there are similar cases where similar circuits were copied, for example, also from Topping, but these copies fell short of the measured values because the circuit wasn't understood. So it's questionable whether this was even necessary.

Added to this was considerable reputational damage, simply because most people didn't understand the failure problem and blamed it on the electronics/circuit and Class D amplifiers. In another thread on ASR, which dealt with the durability of Class D amplifiers, there were some people who couldn't separate these facts and insisted that the PA5 failure was attributable to the Class D amplifiers. However, the same circuit can also be used in preamplifiers, HPA, or AB amplifiers and would fail just the same with the potting compound.

The problem with the five defective A90D units with R4/R5 faults that were on my bench for testing was the use of cheap, ultra-small SMD resistors, which fail far more frequently and usually cause a short circuit. These resistors were all used in the +/- 14.7V power supply, and Topping only saved a few cents in production by using them. Furthermore, these short circuits can damage other parts of the devices, which is both unnecessary and avoidable.
I don't know if this is representative enough, but this is now a problem with all devices in all areas (not just audio), and this cost-cutting policy is simply excessive, inappropriate, and couldn't be more consumer-unfriendly.

I haven't seen any further information about the failures of the B100 so far, presumably because all the units were returned, and it wouldn't make sense to open them and risk voiding the warranty.
In other cases, the information provided by Topping was either missing, misleading, or incorrect. They still don't seem to grasp that the truth would build trust and cause significantly less damage to their image.

With the PA5, the actual problem only became clear after user @gamerpaddy declined a return/exchange and opened the module.

Seems to me that Topping make some great amplifiers but it sometimes takes a couple of iterations to get the reliability where it ought to be.

I completely agree with you and consider Topping one of the most innovative companies in the audio sector in recent years, one that has also made high-end sound affordable.

That makes it all the more appalling how underdeveloped and prone to errors their devices often are, and how utterly awful their handling of customers, breakdowns, warranties, and goodwill is, especially when problems arise from Topping's incompetence in development, component selection, and production.
The monetary cost of fixing all these issues would be very small, and the losses due to reputational damage and unsold equipment likely far exceed that by now.

Just from the devices I haven't bought from Topping in the last two years, they've already suffered a revenue loss of over €8,000. And that's despite the fact I bought five new devices during that period. Among my acquaintances and friends, the losses amount to at least another €50,000, and that's a very conservative estimate. And that's only about 50 people within a 50-60km radius. Even with a conservative estimate, we're talking about tens of millions in lost revenue worldwide.

If they had invested those profits in better development, more expensive components costing just a few cents per device, and slightly better service, Topping could be one of the most reputable premium manufacturers worldwide and have driven out many more charlatans.

If I were Topping, I'd be sick every morning in front of the mirror to see that so many charlatans and other manufacturers with inferior products and performance figures are still making my money.

 

[Jose Jimenez]

I am an 'X' man!