So we want to be fanciful. Why are you a hater?
-
Welcome to ASR. There are many reviews of audio hardware and expert members to help answer your questions. Click here to have your audio equipment measured for free!
Topping PA5 II Stereo Amplifier Review
- Thread starter amirm
- Start date
The passive network component values are already provided by TI... So IDK what they hide.
I believe the mission of this site is to be as objective as possible. So not a hater, just a realist. But no one has been able to say what they expect to gain from this exercise, what shortcoming might even be targeted, or how they will evaluate any change. So, please tell us.
Just because someone actually understands technology doesn't make them a "hater".
Topping did it to protect IP, as admitted by Topping. Topping engineered their own PFFB solution, got worried it would be copied so they potted it which caused the amps to systematically fail, which led to an ASR member reverse-engineering the module and providing replacement without the potting.
Good advice isn't the same as being a hater. Randomly adding capacitors to gear you don't understand is fanciful, and ignorant. Quit your shade.
I too believe that the PA-5 II is the best that an TPA3251 amp can get.
I like DIY too.
As other forum members proposed earlier, if I wanted to "play" with an amp, I'd get a cheap TPA3255 module or a finished amp with rollable OPAMPs and add PFFB circuit.
Possibly something like a ZA3...
I like DIY too.
As other forum members proposed earlier, if I wanted to "play" with an amp, I'd get a cheap TPA3255 module or a finished amp with rollable OPAMPs and add PFFB circuit.
Possibly something like a ZA3...
I am DIY.
Doing It Yourself starts with making your own measurements.
Assuming that WE don't understand, just because... is what? The phrase "Randomly adding" is derogatory, when the question was specifically about bypass caps, a normal and well understood process. It's even shown on TI documentation and there are numerous white papers about those.
Nobody talked about replacing OpAmps, until MediumRare brought it up. The comment that started this was about capacitors.
Also, the static signal measurements are not everything. It's probable to improve things... You won't know until you actually do it.
Last edited:
Killingbeans
Major Contributor
You won't know until you verify with measurements, and/or proper blind testing.
I really don't understand why people feel the need to "play" with reproduction gear like this. Why not just let it reproduce audio like it was designed to do?
If you are dead set on playing with your audio signals, get a Fisher Price keyboard, do actual circuit bending on it and insert it into the chain.
How do you suggest we verify something actually improves the sound?
To pose a non-random mod, you must first have the circuit, not just guess.
To get a non-random outcome, you must first measure, not just eyeball it.
Also, bypass caps don't go on the underside of an electrolytic, unless that underside is electrically close to the power and ground pins, which is typically not the same as the underside of the electrolytics. There are plenty of app notes on bypass best practices, including from TI.
You guys speculate. Don't measure, right?
So yeah, random. Winging it.
It wasn't meant as a compliment.
Probably because your strawmanning and other fallacious arguments keep getting called out.
If you read enough of Amir’s reviews you’ll see that measuring equipment beyond -110 dB is frequently complicated by minor issues with connections or grounding. 0.0005% is a very small number. It’s perfectly reasonable to consider the quality of a hand solder may affect performance at this level. Or do you have data that shows otherwise?
Soldering isn't magical. Soldering random parts with no knowledge is indeed like magic, with similar outcomes.
So funny, you clearly have no idea what you are doing. And no means of learning.
Yoku-San
Active Member
Some people subjectively prefer colorized audio playback to objectively transparent reproduction. Tube amplification is a major example for that.
It's hard to argue against it from an objective standpoint. And I think that ASR is not the right place to discuss about subjective preference or to argue that it is superior to transparent playback.
It's hard to argue against it from an objective standpoint. And I think that ASR is not the right place to discuss about subjective preference or to argue that it is superior to transparent playback.
ASR is a great place to talk about what actually impacts the sound.
I have tube electronics, and have owned many tube amps over the years, they actually don't colorize the sound the way most people think. The actual aspects of tube amps that colorize the sound are directly measurable, have been for ages.
Preference is measurable. Discussed extensively. Extremely important. Should we not discuss the studies that Toole and others have done?
While preference is a field of study, completely agree challenging individual's preference is not the point. But for sure discussing things that actually change the sound, how they actually change the sound, and how that is perceived are all the main point of the site. And of course things that people think change the sound but do not are among the most important discussions, since the industry is so rife with carnival barkers.
Yoku-San
Active Member
Well if you exchange an OpAmp and that leads to the Amp objectively measuring "worse" afterwards but sounding better in your subjective opinion, then the change is still worth it, or not?
If it objectively measures the same afterwards it should not be worth the hassle. I guess.
If it objectively measures the same afterwards it should not be worth the hassle. I guess.
If you could share any published example of a proper subjective test being done demonstrating a statistically significant preference for a statistically significantly worse-measuring amplifier, we would all learn a lot.
Show us a study of actual OpAmp rolling, with measured changes, and A/B/X testing of level-matched signals indicating differences were discernable. Extra credit would be a study of preference, assuming there were actual differences. Make sure the study carefully outlines the controls, and the stats used. Inadequate discussion of controls, and lack of knowledge about statistics are sure signs that the study is fraud, ether by design or incompetence.
People actually research this stuff. Please understand that. It's not like the test you just described hasn't happened under correctly controlled conditions. The results just get buried in everybody's confusion about what is measurable and what is preferred.
Similar threads
- Poll
- Poll
- Poll
- Poll
