Topping PA5 II Stereo Amplifier Review

[Videoteque73]

I have it paired with a Wiim Ultra and it’s a match made in heaven!

 

[pedros_2005]

Same here, paired with a Topping E50, balanced connection, and a Wiim pro (optical out)...

 

[Panelhead]

A TP RA3 was all I really wanted. Guess they were not received well. A doubt if Topping would loop back around and make it again. I am confident all the issues have been sorted.
But if John does go back and make a RA3 II one will find its way to my home.

 

[Solveit]

Got mine Pa5 II to test if it's an replace of Topping Pa3s at HF in active two way.
Yes it is.
Nice dive after 10khz that I like and almost silence, I say the best i heard in silence for a tweeter with waveguide, wg-300 with Dayton RST28F-4.

 

[jmc06]

May I ask if the pa5ii is sufficient to drive the polkr200 at a distance of 2.4 meters

 

[jmc06]

Why is it that at 4Ω, 100W, the PA5II's THD+N is equal to both 10% and 1%? Is this a quantum superposition? Does quantum collapse occur during listening, like Schrödinger's cat, where we only know what's happening at the moment we hear?

 

[staticV3]

Why is it that at 4Ω, 100W, the PA5II's THD+N is equal to both 10% and 1%?

Likely very sharp clipping behavior above 0.3%, hence no appreciable power gain as you go from 1% to 10.

Sadly, no one has swept the PA5II's THD vs Power all the way up to 10% and posted the result, so this remains a hypothesis.

 

[Roland68]

View attachment 477634


Why is it that at 4Ω, 100W, the PA5II's THD+N is equal to both 10% and 1%? Is this a quantum superposition? Does quantum collapse occur during listening, like Schrödinger's cat, where we only know what's happening at the moment we hear?

This is due to the weaker power supply of the non plus version.
They are both 100% identical amplifiers, differing only in the power supply.
The specifications of the PA5 II Plus:

 

[Ahmonge]

May I ask if the pa5ii is sufficient to drive the polkr200 at a distance of 2.4 meters

It depends of the peak listening level. Without this information the question cannot be answered.

 

[Lasker]

Pardon for the question.
Can this pa5 II have a good matching with my Polk r100?
(86dB sensitivity, recommended amplifier power of 30-150W, and an 8 Ohm nominal impedance that drops to 3.6 Ohms minimum.)

 

[daniboun]

Pardon for the question.
Can this pa5 II have a good matching with my Polk r100?
(86dB sensitivity, recommended amplifier power of 30-150W, and an 8 Ohm nominal impedance that drops to 3.6 Ohms minimum.)

Absolutely. I am using it the R100 with a Wiim amp pro that uses exactly the same chipset TPA3255. The match is awesome )
The R100 have a superb soundstage with a great holography (BTW I am selling a pair of R100 brand new, I am in France)

 

[Lasker]

It depends of the peak listening level. Without this information the question cannot be answered.

65 - 75 db

 

[Ropeburn]

65 - 75 db

That's virtually nothing, and the usual level certain people listen to with their 2x5W tube amps.

Technically, using a 2x100W amplifier when you're never listening louder is complete overkill. So yes, works just fine.

 

[Sokel]

That's virtually nothing, and the usual level certain people listen to with their 2x5W tube amps.

Some listen to more than 100dB (C) SPL with such amps
It only need to have two meter high horns

 

[natna]

@Lasker
Well, as stated just above, it depends on your usual listening level of favor.
If you like to listen to music very loud you'll probably need a 2 X TPA3255 PFFB amp with a big PSU.

Topping PA-5 II and 3E Audio A5 amp are the best TPA3251 implementations.

Topping PA-5II plus version measured gives 53 watts at 8 Ohms at 0,1% distortion (Archimago review).
Though Topping doesn't state which TPA325x chip is inside the PA-5II, the bigger PSU is still 38 volts which is the maximum allowed voltage for TPA3251.

PA-7II/plus with allegedly TPA3255 inside, has a 52 volts PSU!!!

3E audio A7 stereo (2x TPA3255 PFFB) is a nice option. (one of the best implementations of the chip out there)
2x FOSI V3 mono (TPA3255 PFFB) if you're on a tighter budget. Slightly worse SINAD though...

I have the PA-5 II plus and it's neutral sounding. If your speakers are treble-heavy or if you like warm mids and bass, the PA-5II is not for you. You'll need equalisation.

 

[Lasker]

@Lasker
Well, as stated just above, it depends on your usual listening level of favor.
If you like to listen to music very loud you'll probably need a 2 X TPA3255 PFFB amp with a big PSU.

Topping PA-5 II and 3E Audio A5 amp are the best TPA3251 implementations.

Topping PA-5II plus version measured gives 53 watts at 8 Ohms at 0,1% distortion (Archimago review).
Though Topping doesn't state which TPA325x chip is inside the PA-5II, the bigger PSU is still 38 volts which is the maximum allowed voltage for TPA3251.

PA-7II/plus with allegedly TPA3255 inside, has a 52 volts PSU!!!

3E audio A7 stereo (2x TPA3255 PFFB) is a nice option. (one of the best implementations of the chip out there)
2x FOSI V3 mono (TPA3255 PFFB) if you're on a tighter budget. Slightly worse SINAD though...

I have the PA-5 II plus and it's neutral sounding. If your speakers are treble-heavy or if you like warm mids and bass, the PA-5II is not for you. You'll need equalisation.

If sound neutral is ok, but I hope not dry

 

[Julf]

If sound neutral is ok, but I hope not dry

A lot of people perceive accurate and transparent as "dry". A bit like people who are used to a lot of salt in their food, and feel it is bland without it.

 

[Lasker]

A lot of people perceive accurate and transparent as "dry". A bit like people who are used to a lot of salt in their food, and feel it is bland without it.

For example, I'm not a fan of tube sound; I think I can distinguish between a dry and a neutral sound. Anyway, I just ordered the PA5, I hope I like it.

 

[Julf]

For example, I'm not a fan of tube sound; I think I can distinguish between a dry and a neutral sound. Anyway, I just ordered the PA5, I hope I like it.

What, in your view, is the difference between "dry" and "neutral"?

 

[Lasker]

What, in your view, is the difference between "dry" and "neutral"?

After 25 years of listening, I don't think I need to explain it.
The etymology of the two terms explains it well.