Topping B100 Amplifier Review

[Roland68]

I would hope for something more than just listening - unless it is a proper, controlled double blind test, it is pretty much just random opinion.

My problem with most modders is that they don't bother to do any objective verification of the effect of their mods - and we know that pretty much any "improvement" you do sounds subjectively better.

This is one of many reasons why I always work with at least two identical devices for such projects, whether tuning or development. The first blinded comparison is always done in the original condition; if even the slightest difference is audible, the devices are unsuitable for the project.
We recognized 25 years ago that this approach is unavoidable. Otherwise, you're just wasting your time.

 

[Roland68]

If you compare the tests published here

Topping B100 Amplifier Review

This is a review and detailed measurements of the Topping B100 "monoblock" amplifier. It was sent to me by the company and costs US $299. I was surprised by the desktop/low profile of the amplifier. I expected something a lot taller/chunkier especially since this is a class B amplifier and not...

www.audiosciencereview.com

Fosi Audio V3 Amplifier Review

This is a review and detailed measurements of the Fosi Audio V3 stereo amplifier. It was sent to me by the company and costs US $89.99 with stock 32 volt supply. Price goes up to $109.99 with the 48 volt supply. There is a $10 discount coupon right now. Despite its budget price, the V3...

www.audiosciencereview.com

The Topping B100 is hands down better, but I would sat it depends on atleast four different things

1. The higher cost for two B100
2. The measurable differences is audible
3. The lower power from Topping B100 is adequate
4. The speakers you use dont't make the B100 shut down because of its protection

Since the beginning of March this year I have two Topping B100 powering my ~6 ohm speakers with a fantastic sound any completely without any kind of problem or trouble.
Which means that of course everything that I write is pro-Topping biased

The other power amp I was considering was the 3e Audio A5 Stereo Amp

3e Audio A5 Stereo Amplifier Review

This is a review and detailed measurements of the 3e Audio A5 Stereo class D amplifier. It was sent to me by the company and costs US $229.99. Despite its simplicity, the A5 has very well thought out features. Clipping indicators are provided for each channel. And selection of inputs is made...

www.audiosciencereview.com

The B100 certainly did better in the review, but the fosi is getting fantastic feedback on other websites, a giant killer from all accounts, which made me wonder
Also it's a little unfair as the B100 is more than three times the price of the fosi, perhaps that is why people are preferring the fosi as the price performance ratio is incredible
As you rightly stated specs are fine but how much of that is audible, that's why i am hoping there is someone who has had a chance to listen to both amps

The Fosi V3 Stereo is clearly one of the best value-for-money amplifiers.
Its measured values are so good that it can easily keep up with and even surpass most older amplifiers and many current ones.
In addition, with the right power supply, it delivers a very high output of 141 watts at 4 ohms, a maximum power of 160 watts at 4 ohms, and a peak power of 190 watts at 4 ohms. This surpasses most amplifiers on the market, both current and older.
The approximately 90 watts at 8 ohms is also above average.
Its sound is also very good, and I would be very surprised if more than 10-20% of all amplifiers on the market (current and older) were better.

But in my experience, it can't compete with other advanced TPA325x amplifiers like the PA5 II, 3E Audio, Sylph Audio, XRK Audio, etc. Of course, that also depends on all the other components.
At this point, however, it's important to consider that these amplifiers, with the same power output, cost at least three to four times as much as a Fosi V3 Stereo with a power supply. For many people, this is a significant difference, and the sonic improvement isn't exorbitant or world-changing. You can listen to good music with any of these amplifiers.

The B100/B200 has significantly better measured values, but is six times as expensive as the Fosi V3 Stereo, and at least 40 watts less power. Additionally, the B100s are only monoblocks and you need something to control the volume and have to buy more cables. I can't say whether the B100/B200 offers a better listening experience than a PA5 II, but I'll test that for myself in the coming months. In any case, the air above the sophisticated TPA325x amplifiers is significantly thinner.

 

[FERCSA]

The B100 certainly did better in the review, but the fosi is getting fantastic feedback on other websites, a giant killer from all accounts, which made me wonder
Also it's a little unfair as the B100 is more than three times the price of the fosi, perhaps that is why people are preferring the fosi as the price performance ratio is incredible
As you rightly stated specs are fine but how much of that is audible, that's why i am hoping there is someone who has had a chance to listen to both amps

I had both.
The V3 stereo is a fantastic device for his price point. I had three in an 3-way active XO system.
When I changed to B100s I got bigger soundstage and better separation. No matter how many times I swapped them. Yes it was audible difference a small one but it was always there. Probably because the mono block structure. When my friends come over the first time everyone noticed something despite they didn't see the amps since I'm using a rack tray.

I know my system a corner case but if you have a chance to try it with a return window I would not hesitate.
Also if you're price sensitive the overall cost between the B100s and V3s.. just not justify that price gap.
This is my personal opinion. Amir measured both devices and overall it was enough for me to kill the bug once and for all.

 

[MKWingchun]

You guys shared the YouTube testing video... Now you don't want to believe results and instead blame it elsewhere? Makes no sense...
I didn't do any tests based on buying decisions, I'm very objective.
I would say that in a video like the one you guys shared it's actually much easier because these are all computer generated tones so you don't have to account for the ADC that created the music or anything like that. It's all perfectly digitally created.

In one of the Blind ABX tests:
Funnily enough, we had a Denafrips DAC and I bet my friends that they wouldn't be able to tell the Denafrips apart from my Topping DX7 (since they came over telling me how it was a night and day difference VS any "normal" DAC) and then I had a double bet that we would all "prefer" the DX7..
In blind testing, they either could not tell the two apart, or they preferred mine.
I was the same, 7/10 times..

About the ABX test, I did the same test with a Denefriips Ares (which I believed would sound better, and was interested in buying) and a topping E30. I spent a couple days coming to the conclusion that there was no difference in sound. A couple days of testing is pretty wearing, when you are listening for differences that aren't there. Live and learn.
Your post interested me because of the 5-7 second length, in sampling a track. I have been working on a new speaker design, with a partner, for about 5 years..longer if I am counting previous versions. We used several pairs of quality headphones as a reference for tone. We found that by limiting the time we listened, and only listening for a limited bandwidth, it was more efficient as a test. There is this ADD (exaggerating) tendency of audiophiles to hear new gear and hear something new. But when you a play a short track, you can hear if there are actual differences. Another helpful procedure is only listening to deep bass (a kick drum, or an Edm dance music track), mid bass (stand up jazz bass), midrange (voice), highs (cymbals), or solo instruments, helped us keep focused.
There are obvious problems with this, for example, Leonard Cohen's voice goes down below 100 hz. This is very easy to test, using bass drivers that are Dsp-ed with 48 db crossovers, and then have crossovers set to 100 hz (they start rolling off at about 85 hz). Also, lowering distortion in a speaker is a step that must be taken before you worry about tone.

 

[MKWingchun]

I had both.
The V3 stereo is a fantastic device for his price point. I had three in an 3-way active XO system.
When I changed to B100s I got bigger soundstage and better separation. No matter how many times I swapped them. Yes it was audible difference a small one but it was always there. Probably because the mono block structure. When my friends come over the first time everyone noticed something despite they didn't see the amps since I'm using a rack tray.

I know my system a corner case but if you have a chance to try it with a return window I would not hesitate.
Also if you're price sensitive the overall cost between the B100s and V3s.. just not justify that price gap.
This is my personal opinion. Amir measured both devices and overall it was enough for me to kill the bug once and for all.

About TPA based amps, I think older audiophiles, like myself, need to give new technologies more chances, and consider the problem of unstable generalizations. For example, the first class D amplifier I heard, a Teac back about 2010, sounded sterile. It was cheap and plastic. I bought another class D about 5 years ago, and I liked it for bass control, but then it developed a hum. It was cheap, also about $300, just a module thrown in the box. Meh. Current class D sounds really great. So I a formed a generalization, "class D sucks" that was ...kinda true, but is no longer true, Hence an unstable generalization.
Which leads me back to TPA amps, the early models I heard didn't sound great, and had failure problems, so I've got a bias that may not be true.
Back in the 70's amps, pre-amps, phono stages, and a lot of other gear did sound different, but then as engineers worked on problems, they didn't. There was an audio magazine, "The Sensible Sound," that pointed out that by the 80's, amplifiers were a largely solved problem. They had become audibly transparent. CD players and Dacs were solved somewhat later, and so on.
So I have no need to replace my old Rotel, Onkyo, and Adcom amps, they sound fine, but when they go, replacement will probably be cheaper than repair.

 

[john11]

My problem with most modders is that they don't bother to do any objective verification of the effect of their mods - and we know that pretty much any "improvement" you do sounds subjectively better.

So you must know a lot of modders on this planet in order to make such a sweeping statement, or is this yet another totally subjective opinion.

Also are you trying to say everyone in the world is stupid, that if someone performs a mod and it makes the hardware sound better, then that person must be imagining it, that there is no such thing in the world as common sense, that there is no such thing in the world as an ear capable of discerning a difference

 

[Julf]

So you must know a lot of modders on this planet in order to make such a sweeping statement, or is this yet another totally subjective opinion.

How many of the modders you know have actually verified their mods in objective, reproducible ways?

Also are you trying to say everyone in the world is stupid, that if someone performs a mod and it makes the hardware sound better, then that person must be imagining it, that there is no such thing in the world as common sense, that there is no such thing in the world as an ear capable of discerning a difference

No. What makes you think so?

 

[board]

I think older audiophiles, like myself, need to give new technologies more chances, and consider the problem of unstable generalizations. CD players and Dacs were solved somewhat later, and so on.

A certain someone listened to exactly ONE CD (the very first one played at a public demonstration) then next day went out and had a bumper sticker made that said "Compact discs suck!"
Guess who .

 

[Jimster480]

About the ABX test, I did the same test with a Denefriips Ares (which I believed would sound better, and was interested in buying) and a topping E30. I spent a couple days coming to the conclusion that there was no difference in sound. A couple days of testing is pretty wearing, when you are listening for differences that aren't there. Live and learn.
Your post interested me because of the 5-7 second length, in sampling a track. I have been working on a new speaker design, with a partner, for about 5 years..longer if I am counting previous versions. We used several pairs of quality headphones as a reference for tone. We found that by limiting the time we listened, and only listening for a limited bandwidth, it was more efficient as a test. There is this ADD (exaggerating) tendency of audiophiles to hear new gear and hear something new. But when you a play a short track, you can hear if there are actual differences. Another helpful procedure is only listening to deep bass (a kick drum, or an Edm dance music track), mid bass (stand up jazz bass), midrange (voice), highs (cymbals), or solo instruments, helped us keep focused.
There are obvious problems with this, for example, Leonard Cohen's voice goes down below 100 hz. This is very easy to test, using bass drivers that are Dsp-ed with 48 db crossovers, and then have crossovers set to 100 hz (they start rolling off at about 85 hz). Also, lowering distortion in a speaker is a step that must be taken before you worry about tone.

I'm glad that there is someone else who understands the methodology, our minds don't have that long of sound memory. So short clips where you can focus on a single sound in the clip (like a cymbal hit in a song) really make a difference in listening for distortion or differences in audio products. Sometimes its a cymbal other times its a drum or a bass drop... other times its a violin hitting a high note or a strike of a specific note on a piano.
I personally like to do my listening tests "blind" in the sense that even if I know what I am testing; I do it with my eyes closed to focus on the sounds themselves.

 

[john11]

How many of the modders you know have actually verified their mods in objective, reproducible ways?

Tons of them

No. What makes you think so?

Because you keep attacking anyone who gives an opinion, even though you totally love giving opinions yourself

 

[john11]

our minds don't have that long of sound memory

I watched a movie and recalled every imperfection in the soundtrack weeks later

 

[Julf]

Tons of them

Good for you. I like the use of the exact measurement unit "ton".

Because you keep attacking anyone who gives an opinion, even though you totally love giving opinions yourself

Your opinion is noted.

 

[john11]

Good for you. I like the use of the exact measurement unit "ton".

Your opinion is noted.

Thank you for your opinions. Are you going to supply any test results to prove the accuracy of your statements ? Any polygraph tests ? Any Sodium Pentothal results ?
Or are we supposed to listen your opinions, instead of real world test results that can be verfied

 

[Julf]

Or are we supposed to listen your opinions, instead of real world test results that can be verfied

We are hopefully relying on real world verified test results rather than anecdotal "I watched a movie and recalled every imperfection in the soundtrack weeks later" statements.

 

[somebodyelse]

We are hopefully relying on real world verified test results rather than anecdotal "I watched a movie and recalled every imperfection in the soundtrack weeks later" statements.

Similarly we don't rely on Rob Watts' claims of hearing differences at -300dB. While he has a proven record of making DACs that measure well, the claim is provided without proof, and is counter to both the experimental record of audibility tests and the behaviour of air at standard temperature and pressure.

 

[john11]

We are hopefully relying on real world verified test results rather than anecdotal "I watched a movie and recalled every imperfection in the soundtrack weeks later" statements.

Thanks for speaking and making demands on behalf of the entire world, i did know you had such high authority

And I don't listen to test results, i listen to music

 

[Julf]

And I don't listen to test results, i listen to music

Are you sure you are in the right forum? This is Audio Science Review, not Yet Another Audiophile Echo Chamber.

 

[Mort]

And I don't listen to test results, i listen to music

Me neither! I listen to music on a system that has good test results.

 

[taleoffice]

Does anyone has tried these amplifiers with Elac Debut Reference DBR-62 Speakers?

Any thoughts on this, is this amp good replacment for Fosi ZA3?

 

[Roland68]

Any thoughts on this, is this amp good replacment for Fosi ZA3?

If you can manage with 100 watts per channel, why wouldn't it be a good alternative?
Given the large differences in the measurements, there might be an audible difference.
But you'll need a preamp or volume control.

I'm fine with a PA5 II (without Plus) for my DBR62, but in my desktop setup.
Cheaper alternatives would be the PA7, 3E Audio A5, A7se, and A7.