Topping PA5 II Stereo Amplifier Review

[Julf]

The etymology of the two terms explains it well.

Not really. "Dry" is a purely subjective term that can mean pretty much anything. "Neutral" is somewhat better - usually meaning "transparent" as in free from noise, distortion and coloration.

This Audio *Science* Review. Sure, "science" can include psychology and cognitive sciences, but most often we mean physics.
What measurable criteria does "dry" correlate with?

 

[Lasker]

Not really. "Dry" is a purely subjective term that can mean pretty much anything. "Neutral" is somewhat better - usually meaning "transparent" as in free from noise, distortion and coloration.

This Audio *Science* Review. Sure, "science" can include psychology and cognitive sciences, but most often we mean physics.
What measurable criteria does "dry" correlate with?

Lifeless... Ok, or also this is a pure subjective terms?

 

[Julf]

Lifeless... Ok, or also this is a pure subjective terms?

Indeed. If possible, even more subjective. Is "life" something the source material contains and the equipment either reproduces or not, or something the equipment adds?

 

[Lasker]

I could be wrong, but I think I've made myself understood. I have no intention of continuing on this PATH. Thanks.

 

[Ropeburn]

I could be wrong, but I think I've made myself understood. I have no intention of continuing on this PATH. Thanks.

That's the problem: these terms are mere analogies when applied to audio, and only vaguely defined ones too at best. They are inherently unsuitable for making yourself understood.

In music production for example, "dry and wet" mean a pure signal and one with room (or other) effects on it. FX devices usually have a dry/wet mix control.

That's clearly defined and helpful. As completely opposed to describing an amplifier's sound characteristics for example.

 

[Julf]

I could be wrong, but I think I've made myself understood. I have no intention of continuing on this PATH. Thanks.

That is indeed the problem. You think you have made yourself understood, and refuse to clarify.

 

[Lasker]

You think you have made yourself understood, and refuse to clarify.

Ok. Because of this I won't sleep tonight, good continuation.

 

[redjr]

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.

I routinely throw a little salt on my speakers to improve the sound. Instead they sound a bit grainy. It's a very distasteful experience.

 

[Ahmonge]

65 - 75 db

Assuming a listening distance from 2 to 4 meters, 8 Ohms impedance and 86 dB/W sensitivity, just one watt gives a listening level between 80 and 74 dB, so yes, the PA5 II has more than enough power.

 

[Fletcher Munson]

this conversation is very resolving

 

[DVinylfan]

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.)

I have the PA5 II and use it with speakers very similarly spec'd to yours. I'm extremely happy with it; it replaced an amplifier an order of magnitude more expensive, and I am in no way disappointed. I think it sounds as good or better, given I listen at relatively low volume similar to what you describe.

If your speakers are treble-heavy...the PA-5II is not for you.

My speakers are PMC GB1 and are certainly treble-heavy/'bright' sounding.
Yet not to the extent that it's a problem in my listening system.
It's above my paygrade to use terms like 'neutral' or 'transparent' to describe an audio component but otherwise that's how I would describe the (non-)sound of the PA5 II.
I expect you're going to be very happy with it. Enjoy.

 

[mike70]

I don't understand why it's so difficult to apply science on audio for some folks... usually the hardcore "audiophiles".

If you ask them, they use a thermometer to get the temperature, a clock to check for the time, a proper medical study to check for health, etcetera.

Why they think our senses are more resolving than an audio analyzer? Why they think they doesn't suffer mental bias? It's really strange.

Dealers are behind a business and brands with good margin, all the subjective circus pays for them, but the final user... I don't get it.

 

[Julf]

Ok. Because of this I won't sleep tonight, good continuation.

If you don't care about being understood, why should we?

 

[jdjung]

I don't understand why it's so difficult to apply science on audio for some folks... usually the hardcore "audiophiles".

If you ask them, they use a thermometer to get the temperature, a clock to check for the time, a proper medical study to check for health, etcetera.

Why they think our senses are more resolving than an audio analyzer? Why they think they doesn't suffer mental bias? It's really strange.

Dealers are behind a business and brands with good margin, all the subjective circus pays for them, but the final user... I don't get it.

Because science teaches people that everyone's head shape, ear canal depth, type of ears, torso, how our brains are different (some people hate Pizza) is DIFFERENT. Measurements are great place to start to find most neutral, then you can modify it to your taste. Before it became, "measurement centered", bass emphasis was what most people wanted, as in general population. They wanted a v curve.

 

[mike70]

Because science teaches people that everyone's head shape, ear canal depth, type of ears, torso, how our brains are different (some people hate Pizza) is DIFFERENT. Measurements are great place to start to find most neutral, then you can modify it to your taste. Before it became, "measurement centered", bass emphasis was what most people wanted, as in general population. They wanted a v curve.

But, anyway, you're talking about equalization and that's personal. We can't discuss what sound you like, that's a nonsense.

Here, we're discussing about audio devices with the lowest distortion / high engineering project. Then you can do what you want with equalization, knowing you have the best fidelity to the source as base.

I mean, we apply science where it matters and I think is foolish to deny the scientific method in that stuff.

I'm saying, please use the thermometer and real feel projection to check for the weather and you answer me "but I like hot weather". Do as you please, but, to talk about audio gadgets please use science.

 

[KL....]

Why they think our senses are more resolving than an audio analyzer? Why they think they doesn't suffer mental bias?

Thank you, @mike70, our senses are (actually) more resolving but until it is recognised & acknowledged that requires the Consideration of knowledge, training, & (rigourous) testing then it could be considered that they are suffering mental bias, reasonable, why? The audio analyzer/s only exist/s because those building/createing them have attained knowledge, training, & (appropriate/rigorous) testing through rigourous Due Diligence, reasonable? Let's hope that the built/created audio analyzer/s are not flawed (in any way), reasonable? Consider, even a tiny/minute blemish/corruption portion of the whole (section/device), can be considered as flawed, why, well the question arises, where exactly is it not Truthful/Truth (not working as intended/desired), reasonable?

Note that knowledge, training, & (rigourous) testing can only occur through Observation (intent/desire) and with Respect, the Delivery of the Application/Relationship, reasonable?

 

[jdjung]

But, anyway, you're talking about equalization and that's personal. We can't discuss what sound you like, that's a nonsense.

Here, we're discussing about audio devices with the lowest distortion / high engineering project. Then you can do what you want with equalization, knowing you have the best fidelity to the source as base.

I mean, we apply science where it matters and I think is foolish to deny the scientific method in that stuff.

I'm saying, please use the thermometer and real feel projection to check for the weather and you answer me "but I like hot weather". Do as you please, but, to talk about audio gadgets please use science.

But, anyways. Complaining about people liking a specific sound that don't measure well. I'm just explaining why some people like different sounds.

Crazy that some I would say MOST people adjust the thermostat to how they feel vs what's on the thermometer. But hey man, you do you.

 

[Julf]

Thank you, @mike70, our senses are (actually) more resolving

Do you have a source and evidence for that claim?

 

[Julf]

Crazy that some I would say MOST people adjust the thermostat to how they feel vs what's on the thermometer. But hey man, you do you.

Sure. But if you say "it is warm here", it only tells us how you perceive it, not how warm/cold it actually is.

That is why the ultimate objective test for audio gear is not "how does this sound to you", but "can you hear a difference between the input and output signal in a controlled, double-blind listening test", no matter what head shape, ear canal depth, type of ears, torso or brains.

 

[mike70]

Thank you, @mike70, our senses are (actually) more resolving but until it is recognised & acknowledged that requires the Consideration of knowledge, training, & (rigourous) testing then it could be considered that they are suffering mental bias, reasonable, why? The audio analyzer/s only exist/s because those building/createing them have attained knowledge, training, & (appropriate/rigorous) testing through rigourous Due Diligence, reasonable? Let's hope that the built/created audio analyzer/s are not flawed (in any way), reasonable? Consider, even a tiny/minute blemish/corruption portion of the whole (section/device), can be considered as flawed, why, well the question arises, where exactly is it not Truthful/Truth (not working as intended/desired), reasonable?

Note that knowledge, training, & (rigourous) testing can only occur through Observation (intent/desire) and with Respect, the Delivery of the Application/Relationship, reasonable?

You forget something important about our senses. They are connected to the brain, where cognitive processes run, taking your expectations and beliefs in the resulting observation.

So, if you don't use real agnostic "senses" and / or a scientific method to take apart the brain internal tricks
... your observation is wrong.

Amplifiers with flat frequency response, decent distortion and enough power for the application will be indistinguishable with levelled gains. That's what science says (not by belief, but for proven theory / practice).

And I don't even imagine why 2 amplifiers in the mentioned conditions will sound different, unless the also mentioned cognitive bias.

I don't deny the effect (they sound different for you), I deny the cause (it's in your brain).