Topping Mini 300 Amplifier Review

[OldTimer]

I think dust is more dangerous than heat for electronic components. Usually those components can sustain above around 100 degrees Celcius.
Standard stand-by should be around 0.3 watt. Topping should fix that.

 

[Roland68]

*Important note 1: Infrared thermometer is Aliexpress quality, accurate to a few degrees.
*Important note 2: I've posted photo with temps at idle below. When under load, I see maybe 2-3°C fluctuations (both up and down), not far from idle temps so did not bother to retake everything.
*Important note 3: Not at 100% volume. The pot is removed, so can only guess it's around 50%.
*Important note 4: I obviously cannot take the temps inside the chassis, so feel free to guesstimate the internal temps. I previously measured the top chassis temp at 44°C (at 27°C room temp) before turning it off and dismantling.


1. So 30°C room temp, mini 300 in the open, turned on for hours so temp stable, idle (no audio playing for more than an hour) center of heatsink is 50°C.
View attachment 544707


2. Various areas of the amp at idle. When under load, I see maybe 2-3°C fluctuations (both up and down), not far from idle temps so did not bother to retake everything:
View attachment 544713


3. Then I point a handheld fan at the board for a minute
View attachment 544708


4. I turned off the fan and measured just the center of the heatsink and the opamps
View attachment 544714


Please make your own decisions. Personally I like the product very much and hope to find simple ways to make it last. Hope the data helps others.

At an ambient temperature of 30°C, all temperatures are within the safe range.
Many of the components generate heat themselves—quite apart from the heatsink—including some of the capacitors.

How do you know the lifespan of the Mini 300?
How do you intend to extend its lifespan without knowing the baseline?
The PA5 units have been running for five years without any failures.

You have completely overlooked an extremely important point regarding Class D amplifiers. These are switching amplifiers that operate at high switching frequencies, meaning the capacitors are subjected to high ripple currents (which contribute significantly to heat generation). Experience shows—as is the case with switched-mode power supplies, for example—that this factor has a greater impact on lifespan than ambient heat alone (provided the temperature remains within "normal" limits). In other words, the actual operating time of these amplifiers is the key factor determining their lifespan.

 

[ATTI]

Standard stand-by should be around 0.3 watt. Topping should fix that.

Whazzup meant 7W in powered state without signal, not stand-by.

 

[whazzup]

At an ambient temperature of 30°C, all temperatures are within the safe range.
Many of the components generate heat themselves—quite apart from the heatsink—including some of the capacitors.

How do you know the lifespan of the Mini 300?
How do you intend to extend its lifespan without knowing the baseline?
The PA5 units have been running for five years without any failures.

You have completely overlooked an extremely important point regarding Class D amplifiers. These are switching amplifiers that operate at high switching frequencies, meaning the capacitors are subjected to high ripple currents (which contribute significantly to heat generation). Experience shows—as is the case with switched-mode power supplies, for example—that this factor has a greater impact on lifespan than ambient heat alone (provided the temperature remains within "normal" limits). In other words, the actual operating time of these amplifiers is the key factor determining their lifespan.

Hmm... I think again, you need to put yourself in my shoes as a non technical consumer. My goal is to find simple science-based ways that should 'thereotically' help the product last longer. Sure, the specs say individual components are going to last until the grandson of Trump becomes the president. But yet amps are still failing before that happens.

I did not claim to know the 'real' lifespan of my unit. I'm showing the data that active cooling helps drop about 15°C, and that (obviously) the amps are built to fit a design constraint (small / quiet / desk-friendly but worser thermals) and/or a budget constraint. Please do not argue for the sake of trying to win.

I mentioned earlier as well, I don't have the skills to repair my own amps, so I'm just adding that little bit of effort from the start to hopefully prolong the product's life.

 

[OldTimer]

Whazzup meant 7W in powered state without signal, not stand-by.

If it’s power-on then that would be normal. He wrote stand-by.

 

[whazzup]

I think dust is more dangerous than heat for electronic components. Usually those components can sustain above around 100 degrees Celcius.
Standard stand-by should be around 0.3 watt. Topping should fix that.

If it’s power-on then that would be normal. He wrote stand-by.

Sorry I meant powered on, in idle. I do wish it has standby mode, like my active subwoofer.

 

[OldTimer]

Sorry I meant powered on, in idle. I do wish it has standby mode, like my active subwoofer.

Use the TRIG act as stand-by.

Actually the main cause of electricity waste is SUB WOOFER. It sustains consuming more than 100 or 200 watts when using it (power-on or music played). Meanwhile the Topping power-on is 7w x 24 hours =165 watt for 1 day. Beside that, it also bothering your neighbors. Not good for all kind of environment.

 

[Angst92]

At an ambient temperature of 30°C, all temperatures are within the safe range.
Many of the components generate heat themselves—quite apart from the heatsink—including some of the capacitors.

How do you know the lifespan of the Mini 300?
How do you intend to extend its lifespan without knowing the baseline?
The PA5 units have been running for five years without any failures.

You have completely overlooked an extremely important point regarding Class D amplifiers. These are switching amplifiers that operate at high switching frequencies, meaning the capacitors are subjected to high ripple currents (which contribute significantly to heat generation). Experience shows—as is the case with switched-mode power supplies, for example—that this factor has a greater impact on lifespan than ambient heat alone (provided the temperature remains within "normal" limits). In other words, the actual operating time of these amplifiers is the key factor determining their lifespan.

"At an ambient temperature of 30°C, all temperatures are within the safe range."

*Within a safe range with "uncontrolled convection"

With the case on with restricted airflow and a case temp measured at 40c+ the temperature of individual components is likely to be much higher. Personally, I've never disagreed that the design isn't functional, only less than ideal. End of the day its a product built to a budget, and there will be room for improvement in the design that was restricted by that budget and other design considerations.
Is the design likely to be fine, as evidenced by the PA5 being on the market for 5 years so far? Yes, although we don't have the numbers for the failure rate and average lifespan.
Is it still reasonable to want to increase the cooling efficiency to ensure your personal device lives as long as possible? Also, yes.

 

[Chr1]

There is nothing to indicate that these amplifiers will fail early.
Don't stack them without air space, or cover the vents. If you are running them so hard they shut down, you probably need a bigger amp. Additional cooling may be needed in very hot climates. It is a time tested design (via the PA5 Mk2). I would understand the concerns here more if they were expensive.
My 2c.

 

[whazzup]

Use the TRIG act as stand-by.

Actually the main cause of electricity waste is SUB WOOFER. It sustains consuming more than 100 or 200 watts when using it (power-on or music played). Meanwhile the Topping power-on is 7w x 24 hours =165 watt for 1 day. Beside that, it also bothering your neighbors. Not good for all kind of environment.

I have it connected to a PC, so no 12V trigger sadly. Sorry, ain't no neighbor gonna disrupt my need for bass.

 

[Roland68]

"At an ambient temperature of 30°C, all temperatures are within the safe range."

*Within a safe range with "uncontrolled convection"

With the case on with restricted airflow and a case temp measured at 40c+ the temperature of individual components is likely to be much higher. Personally, I've never disagreed that the design isn't functional, only less than ideal. End of the day its a product built to a budget, and there will be room for improvement in the design that was restricted by that budget and other design considerations.
Is the design likely to be fine, as evidenced by the PA5 being on the market for 5 years so far? Yes, although we don't have the numbers for the failure rate and average lifespan.
Is it still reasonable to want to increase the cooling efficiency to ensure your personal device lives as long as possible? Also, yes.

First of all, the housings of both the Mini 300 and the A5/A7 are not closed, otherwise there would be no convection.
Secondly, both devices—and their respective casings—feature extremely well-controlled passive convection. This is evidenced by the remarkably uniform casing temperatures, which show fluctuations of well under one degree even under controlled conditions and continuous load.
The cooling efficiency increases slightly as the ambient temperature rises, indicating a well-engineered design for both devices.

 

[Angst92]

First of all, the housings of both the Mini 300 and the A5/A7 are not closed, otherwise there would be no convection.
Secondly, both devices—and their respective casings—feature extremely well-controlled passive convection. This is evidenced by the remarkably uniform casing temperatures, which show fluctuations of well under one degree even under controlled conditions and continuous load.
The cooling efficiency increases slightly as the ambient temperature rises, indicating a well-engineered design for both devices.

No, they are not closed, but there are two main differences between the designs of the e3 a5/a7 as well as toppings pa7 and the mini 300.
The a5/a7/pa7 have more ventilation with vents the full length of the body, allowing for more convection/airflow through the device.
The a5/a7/pa7 also uses a heatsink design that directly connects to the main chassis, using the chassis as part of the heatsink allows it to directly move heat outside and increase surface area. Whereas the 300 mini/pa5 use an internal smaller heatsink that entirely relies on air movement through the chassis to cool it.

So the a5/a7/PA7 have a heatsink design with a higher thermal mass and a larger surface area that relies much less on airflow through the chassis yet has better airflow anyway for cooling the other components inside as well.

 

[Roland68]

No, they are not closed, but there are two main differences between the designs of the e3 a5/a7 as well as toppings pa7 and the mini 300.
The a5/a7/pa7 have more ventilation with vents the full length of the body, allowing for more convection/airflow through the device.
The a5/a7/pa7 also uses a heatsink design that directly connects to the main chassis, using the chassis as part of the heatsink allows it to directly move heat outside and increase surface area. Whereas the 300 mini/pa5 use an internal smaller heatsink that entirely relies on air movement through the chassis to cool it.

So the a5/a7/PA7 have a heatsink design with a higher thermal mass and a larger surface area that relies much less on airflow through the chassis yet has better airflow anyway for cooling the other components inside as well.

Once again, you are mistaken on several points.
The fact is that the cooling performance of the PA5/Mini 300 is marginally better than that of the A5—more on that later.
The block inside the A5/A7 does not act as a heatsink itself; instead, it serves solely to transfer heat to the chassis, meaning the chassis acts as the sole heatsink.

The following information should also be of interest to @whazzup and other owners of Mini 300/PA5 and A5/A7 amplifiers who believe they need to modify the cooling system.

Since we are currently developing products for the audio sector, I have hundreds of hours of measurement data regarding the temperature behavior of the PA5/Mini 300 and the 3E Audio A5 in relation to ambient temperature.
What stands out is that, across the entire ambient temperature range, the PA5 maintains a chassis temperature 0.5°C lower than the A5. At an ambient temperature of 30°C, the readings are 41.4°C for the PA5/Mini 300 and 41.9°C for the A5.
Within an ambient temperature range of 20°C to 35°C, the maximum difference is 0.7°C in favor of the PA5/Mini 300.

The internal temperatures of the individual components in the A5 are similar to those measured by @whazzup. Despite the A5 having larger overall cooling vents, this occurs because the circuit board is mounted upside down; consequently, the heat cannot simply rise upwards but instead accumulates before eventually escaping through the vents.

Perhaps you should consider why two different manufacturers—both producing TPA3251 amplifiers with the best measurement results currently available—arrive at such similar cooling outcomes and temperature profiles despite using different design concepts. Once again, for both devices, it would definitely have been cheaper to manufacture them with a finned heatsink designed for strong convection.
However, these heatsinks only cool the amplifier chip—which easily withstands temperatures of 120°C and is, alongside the op-amps, the most durable component.
Consequently, the cooling design in these two devices cannot possibly be a matter of budget or cost; for the PA5/Mini 300, it certainly wouldn't have been more expensive, and for the A5, it would definitely have been cheaper—including assembly costs.

 

[Angst92]

Once again, you are mistaken on several points.
The fact is that the cooling performance of the PA5/Mini 300 is marginally better than that of the A5—more on that later.
The block inside the A5/A7 does not act as a heatsink itself; instead, it serves solely to transfer heat to the chassis, meaning the chassis acts as the sole heatsink.

The following information should also be of interest to @whazzup and other owners of Mini 300/PA5 and A5/A7 amplifiers who believe they need to modify the cooling system.

Since we are currently developing products for the audio sector, I have hundreds of hours of measurement data regarding the temperature behavior of the PA5/Mini 300 and the 3E Audio A5 in relation to ambient temperature.
What stands out is that, across the entire ambient temperature range, the PA5 maintains a chassis temperature 0.5°C lower than the A5. At an ambient temperature of 30°C, the readings are 41.4°C for the PA5/Mini 300 and 41.9°C for the A5.
Within an ambient temperature range of 20°C to 35°C, the maximum difference is 0.7°C in favor of the PA5/Mini 300.

The internal temperatures of the individual components in the A5 are similar to those measured by @whazzup. Despite the A5 having larger overall cooling vents, this occurs because the circuit board is mounted upside down; consequently, the heat cannot simply rise upwards but instead accumulates before eventually escaping through the vents.

Perhaps you should consider why two different manufacturers—both producing TPA3251 amplifiers with the best measurement results currently available—arrive at such similar cooling outcomes and temperature profiles despite using different design concepts. Once again, for both devices, it would definitely have been cheaper to manufacture them with a finned heatsink designed for strong convection.
However, these heatsinks only cool the amplifier chip—which easily withstands temperatures of 120°C and is, alongside the op-amps, the most durable component.
Consequently, the cooling design in these two devices cannot possibly be a matter of budget or cost; for the PA5/Mini 300, it certainly wouldn't have been more expensive, and for the A5, it would definitely have been cheaper—including assembly costs.

"The block inside the A5/A7 does not act as a heatsink itself; instead, it serves solely to transfer heat to the chassis, meaning the chassis acts as the sole heatsink."

The very fact that the block makes contact with the chip and transfers heat to the chassis makes it an integral part of the heatsink, yes the block itself radiates minimal heat compared to the chassis which does the majority of the dissipation, but it is part of the heatsink. Saying otherwise is just not factually correct. Your argument here is like saying that the thermal pipes in a pc/server heatsink are not part of the heatsink, as they are not the part dissipating the heat, merely moving it away from the chip to the fins/radiator.


"What stands out is that, across the entire ambient temperature range, the PA5 maintains a chassis temperature 0.5°C lower than the A5"

It makes sense that the a5 chassis temperature is higher than the pa5/mini 300 precisely because the chassis is directly being used as part of the heatsink to dissipate the heat, the heat from the amp chip is transfered directly to it. It also has the pcb at the top internally, radiating heat directly to it as well, which i would imagine impacts measurements taken on the top of the chassis.
The pa5/mini 300 chassis and heatsink are separated by an airgap and it is purely heating up due to the heat buildup within the air in the case.


"At an ambient temperature of 30°C, the readings are 41.4°C for the PA5/Mini 300 and 41.9°C for the A5"

Looking at it another way, the heatsink for the A5 is at 41.9c at an ambient temperature of 30c, meanwhile, whazzups measurements show that at 30c ambient the mini 300's heatsink is at 50c while open to uncontrolled convection outside its chassis which is a best-case measurement for its design and it will be higher when it is contained in the chassis with the restricted airflow. What you are saying is that the a5 design is a better heatsink design.


"The internal temperatures of the individual components in the A5 are similar to those measured by @whazzup. Despite the A5 having larger overall cooling vents, this occurs because the circuit board is mounted upside down; consequently, the heat cannot simply rise upwards but instead accumulates before eventually escaping through the vents."

Whazzup measured them in open air, so are you saying the A5 design has enough ventilation to match that then? That sounds good to me, maybe the mini300 could match those temps with the case on if it had similar levels of ventilation.


"Consequently, the cooling design in these two devices cannot possibly be a matter of budget or cost; for the PA5/Mini 300, it certainly wouldn't have been more expensive, and for the A5, it would definitely have been cheaper—including assembly costs."

So are you saying then that the pa5 which came out first, having vents on the bottom that are mostly blocked, was an intentional design decision and not likely an oversight or the result of a revised design that was kept due to cost of changing it? What functional reason is there for cutting ventilation holes and then blocking them?
Then the pa7 came out, it flips the pcb upside down, increases ventilation significantly and changes the heatsink design completely? Are you saying that wasn't done because the PA5's heatsink design perhaps wasn't adequate and could be improved upon? If the pa5 design is so optimal and well designed then why didn't they just put a bigger finned heatsink inside the bigger chassis, why did they go with a completely different design?
The mini 300 then comes out, using the same chassis as the pa5 as far as I can tell, and just uses the same heatsink design as well, to save cost on manufacturing or sourcing new parts.

You are being very pedantic and trying to strawman arguments while ignoring valid points. Again, let me reiterate, I have never said that it is not a functional design, only that it could be better and is likely a result of meeting a performance/cost balance and other design constraints.

End of the day, I've drilled speed holes in mine directly above the heatsink, I can feel the hot air gently moving through them, and the chassis itself is noticeably cooler to the touch. Will this increase its life expectancy? Maybe, maybe not. But it certainly won't make it worse.

 

[OldTimer]

End of the day, I've drilled speed holes in mine directly above the heatsink, I can feel the hot air gently moving through them, and the chassis itself is noticeably cooler to the touch. Will this increase its life expectancy? Maybe, maybe not. But it certainly won't make it worse.

I think ventilation at the side to arrange DAC/amp stacked upwards. Fosi V3 has ventilation at the top, same as you mentioned above, but doesn’t have at the side. It means Fosi wants you arrange DAC/amp lined up side by side,

 

[Angst92]

I think ventilation at the side to arrange DAC/amp stacked upwards. Fosi V3 has ventilation at the top, same as you mentioned above, but doesn’t have at the side. It means Fosi wants you arrange DAC/amp lined up side by side,

I agree, I think if they had added a second set of side vents towards the front on the chassis the same as on the pa7 then the design would be a lot better while still working stacked as they seem to intend.

 

[Steve Dallas]

Two points:

1. Much ado about hot nothing: My Mini 300, running all day every day with its volume control set to max, driven by a MOTU M4 with its volume control set to 50%, pushing a pair of OG KEF R3 speakers, barely gets warm to the touch on top. Many electrons have been disturbed over something that appears to be a non-problem.

2. Fat bottom girl: I also do not agree with the comments that the amp sounds lean. I would love to know if those subjective sentiments came from an SPL-matched comparison. It sounds perfectly transparent in my setup and EXACTLY THE SAME as the far more powerful Nova 300 it replaced. The only difference I notice is the Mini 300 is dead silent when I put my ear up to the tweeter, and the Nova 300 had some hiss.

 

[Bleib]

No experience with mini300 but both PA5 and PA5 II had plenty of bass

 

[Angst92]

Two points:

1. Much ado about hot nothing: My Mini 300, running all day every day with its volume control set to max, driven by a MOTU M4 with its volume control set to 50%, pushing a pair of OG KEF R3 speakers, barely gets warm to the touch on top. Many electrons have been disturbed over something that appears to be a non-problem.

2. Fat bottom girl: I also do not agree with the comments that the amp sounds lean. I would love to know if those subjective sentiments came from an SPL-matched comparison. It sounds perfectly transparent in my setup and EXACTLY THE SAME as the far more powerful Nova 300 it replaced. The only difference I notice is the Mini 300 is dead silent when I put my ear up to the tweeter, and the Nova 300 had some hiss.

1. I agree, it all started from a casual observation that it was hotter to the touch than another amp and got blown out of proportion.
2. Just another casual observation, and it was stated as such, could be volume mismatch, could be a difference in distortion or an interaction with the impedance curve of the speakers or could be ears/brain.

 

[Timcognito]

Lack of too many vents is good in my wood shop. Runs slightly warm, has more grunt than the "50w" Emotiva it replaced and I got a shelf back. Zero Regrets.