(repeating myself for likely the 100th time)Overall, I really don't understand the camp that seems bitter that Topping decided to build a power amplifier in the LA90 that weights sound quality over power, and achieved that goal at the highest level. Can someone, ideally impartial, help us understand?
how is an amp that has more problems driving complex loads and that will clip significantly sooner (i.e. significantly less power... unless all you listen to is modern rock and pop with a dynamic range of basically zero) one that "weighs sound quality", particularly when outside very, very niche applications, those SINAD numbers have been beyond human hearing for a long while???
unless your "music listening" consists of test tones and putting your ear 15cm from the tweeter for 90% of the time, of course. because in real world applications, you won't be hearing the difference between that 120 SINAD and a 90 SINAD (unless it's some funky thing heavily distortion dominated) competent amp. hell, people in blind test couldn't tell the AHB2 from your average Crown amp apart. you will hear it clip, though (unless, as stated, you're here just "for the engineering" and derive great pleasure from test tones)
and in what ways is this amp superior to Toppings own PA5 (absolutely rubbish QC notwithstanding)? the PA5 is smaller, more energy efficient, and even provides more power (though not significantly so) for almost a third of the price... and you still get your "look ma, my amp is in the top 10 chart"
this mindless glorifying of inaudible "performance" metrics will only have negative consequences. you're essentially swapping the membership card from one cult to another. otherwise, we might as well praise tweeter extensions in loudspeakers beyond 20kHz "for the engineering". or fancy cables that will "improve" the FR by 0,001db... "for the engineering". or other pointless inaudible performance metrics. and completely ignore the science of psychoacoustics... "for the engineering", of course