Topping PA5 II Stereo Amplifier Review

[RandomEar]

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? [...]

This is trivial to disprove: Scientific instruments can measure signals way below our threshold of hearing and they can measure signals way above our pain threshold. They can differentiate SPL differences of tiny magnitude which sound identical to us. Instruments can detect distortion orders of magnitude below what is audible to humans (see for yourself). They can detect frequency errors so small, that it's difficult to even grasp how far away from audible they are.

Our senses are vastly inferior than current measurement instruments for audio. There is mountains of irrefutable, objective evidence for this. Any argument based on the idea that our senses are better than what we can measure is void because it's based on an assumption which has already been proven wrong a long time ago.

 

[Roland68]

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.

Calling it madness is a gross understatement.
Incorrectly and excessively high heating systems and excessively low air conditioning systems are among the world's greatest forms of energy waste and senseless consumption and waste of fossil fuels.

And what is this example supposed to tell us? That chasing after supposedly immeasurable sound is irrational, just like human behavior?
Luckily, the consequences here aren't as dire.

 

[Ropeburn]

Being vastly better than our senses and also being objective and impartial - as opposed to our psychologically impacted perceptions - is the whole point of measurement devices.

 

[KL....]

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? [...]

This is trivial to disprove: Scientific instruments can measure signals way below our threshold of hearing and they can measure signals way above our pain threshold. They can differentiate SPL differences of tiny magnitude which sound identical to us. Instruments can detect distortion orders of magnitude below what is audible to humans (see for yourself). They can detect frequency errors so small, that it's difficult to even grasp how far away from audible they are.

Our senses are vastly inferior than current measurement instruments for audio. There is mountains of irrefutable, objective evidence for this. Any argument based on the idea that our senses are better than what we can measure is void because it's based on an assumption which has already been proven wrong a long time ago.

Thank you, Yes, @RandomEar, it would be only be the very, very, very, very few with knowledge, training, & (rigourous) testing to be considered more resolving than a Device/s where their (more resolving efforts) have been engineered to/into, for the Benefit/Helpfulness of Others/All, reasonable? To, suggest otherwise could, reasonably, be considered that they are suffering mental bias, where this Condition/Behaveour will continue (and even be Justifyed) until this Condition/Behaveour is recognised & acknowledged, reasonable?

 

[Ropeburn]

Thank you, Yes, @RandomEar, it would be only be the very, very, very, very few with knowledge, training, & (rigourous) testing to be considered more resolving than a Device/s where their (more resolving efforts) have been engineered to/into, for the Benefit/Helpfulness of Others/All, reasonable? To, suggest otherwise could, reasonably, be considered that they are suffering mental bias, where this Condition/Behaveour will continue (and even be Justifyed) until this Condition/Behaveour is recognised & acknowledged, reasonable?

What you need to understand is that our senses have physical limits, which have been investigated and documented thousands of times. In terms of hearing that means no human on earth can hear anywhere near as good as a proper measurement microphone. Not "only a very few". Literally nobody. Just like nobody can see IR light Iike a camera, simply because our eyes can't do it.

 

[KL....]

Calling it madness is a gross understatement.
Incorrectly and excessively high heating systems and excessively low air conditioning systems are among the world's greatest forms of energy waste and senseless consumption and waste of fossil fuels.

And what is this example supposed to tell us? That chasing after supposedly immeasurable sound is irrational, just like human behavior?
Luckily, the consequences here aren't as dire.

Thank you, Yes, @Roland68, and reasonable, some/much of what was immeasurable is now measurable and attainable :=)

For Consideration.... Music is non-linear and Amplifycation/Transduction Linear, to ask why only this approach, or to do otherwise, raises the Question (to Oneself/Yourself).... do you desire/intend to listen to the Recorded music (without change) or not to do so, reasonable? Although and so, a question is.... is Noise deliberately added to the recorded Music? Harmonic Distortion occurs and is part of Music (even Acoustic), isn't it, but Noise is not desireable, is it, unless it provides (Musical) Contrast (but that would be Recorded, wouldn't it?).

 

[RandomEar]

Thank you, Yes, @RandomEar, it would be only be the very, very, very, very few with knowledge, training, & (rigourous) testing to be considered more resolving than a Device/s where their (more resolving efforts) have been engineered to/into, for the Benefit/Helpfulness of Others/All, reasonable? To, suggest otherwise could, reasonably, be considered that they are suffering mental bias, where this Condition/Behaveour will continue (and even be Justifyed) until this Condition/Behaveour is recognised & acknowledged, reasonable?

There's really no wiggle room there: Machines > humans. You can measure distortion at -130dB (=0.0000316%), assuming you have the correct instruments and setup. Humans typically reach -40 dB (1%) with trained listeners in ideal scenarios with pure tones getting somewhere close to -60 dB (0.1%). I've put the percentage numbers behind the dB to reveal what the logarithmic scale tends to hide: There's about 4 orders of magnitude between the best humans in ideal conditions and decent lab equipment for this specific measurement. Other measures show similar discrepancies.

The logical consequence is that everybody who claims to have better hearing than the best measurement instruments is either joking, mistaken or lying. I assume that most would be mistaken - either by incorrectly conducting their tests, drawing flawed conclusions from their tests which are not supported by their data, or mental bias (even when aware of bias existing!).

What has to be said, though, is that certain qualities of audio reproduction like "spatal qualities" or perceived room size are the result of complicated interactions between (mostly) the speakers and the room. A good microphone may capture those interactions and software like REW can calculate dozens of hard numbers and graphs from the captured data, but it may not be trivial to attribute specific numbers to the subjective perception of sound. For most electronics like DACs and amps, this will be irrelevant as the goal for them should be to convert digital audio to amplified analog signals as accurately as possible, which can be measured with great precision. For speakers, their characteristics can also be measured with great precision and everything that leads to the subjective perception of their sound will therefore be measured, too. But the logical link between objective measured data and the subjective perception of sound might not be well understood for all qualities, yet.


That being said: This is getting a bit off-topic and we should get back to discussing the amp reviewed in this thread!

 

[Ahmonge]

Although this topic is interesting, and surely exciting for some members of this forum, shouldn't we move it to a new thread and continue here with topics specific to PA5 II?

 

[Lasker]

To transform a topping pa5 ii into a pa5 ii plus is it enough to just change the power supply?

 

[staticV3]

To transform a topping pa5 ii into a pa5 ii plus is it enough to just change the power supply?

Correct. The Amp is identical.

 

[Lasker]

Correct. The Amp is identical.

Have you a link to buy a 38 volt 4 ampere from topping? Try to search, but no result on aliexoress?

 

[staticV3]

Have you a link to buy a 38 volt 4 ampere from topping? Try to search, but no result on aliexoress?

I do not. You may have to contact customer support or the Aliexpress shop directly.

 

[Roland68]

Have you a link to buy a 38 volt 4 ampere from topping? Try to search, but no result on aliexoress?

Audiophonics TOPPING Switching Power Adapter 38V 4A GX12 €27,97
Last items in stock !

 

[Lasker]

Audiophonics TOPPING Switching Power Adapter 38V 4A GX12 €27,97
Last items in stock !

Just ordered the last one in audiophonic store. Many thanks.

 

[DVinylfan]

I also purchased the 38V 4a power supply from Audiophonics for my PA5 II on Tuesday evening. It arrived promptly, on Friday morning, apparently the last one in stock.
When I opened it the locking ring for the connector to the amp was squashed into an oval, so I had to use a pair of pliers to gently reshape it so it would fit.
Oh well, it seems to be working fine. I'll report the issue to Audiophonics when I receive the 'how was your purchase?' mail.

 

[Roland68]

I also purchased the 38V 4a power supply from Audiophonics for my PA5 II on Tuesday evening. It arrived promptly, on Friday morning, apparently the last one in stock.
When I opened it the locking ring for the connector to the amp was squashed into an oval, so I had to use a pair of pliers to gently reshape it so it would fit.
Oh well, it seems to be working fine. I'll report the issue to Audiophonics when I receive the 'how was your purchase?' mail.

View attachment 493916

I've had that happen with power supplies two or three times already, sometimes it was my own fault. The ring seems to be a little soft; I was able to bend mine back into shape without any tools.
It shouldn't affect the function in any way.

 

[magreen]

To my dismay, my beloved Channel Islands E-200S amplifier, with dual mono Hypex NCore class-D output stages and dual internal SM power supplies, bit the dust. It has been a beautiful sounding amplifier for me.*

I don't need the high power of the CI amplifier, as I listen in a smallish office at non-earbleeding levels. I care most about sound quality. My speakers are EPI 100V that I refoamed and recapped. Would either of the Topping PA5 II or the 3e Audio A5 be an adequate replacement in terms of sound quality? Which one would you recommend?

(*Details of my CI amp's issues for those interested: One channel is fine. The other channel produces sound for a few seconds but then only distortion. With no input signal and no speaker connected, I measured a wildly swinging DC offset on power output on the bad channel when the distortion occurs--the multimeter couldn't even lock onto the range. I removed the cover and tried to diagnose it. I suspect it's a failure in the electrolytics on the low voltage side of the SMPS on that channel, as cooling the small caps there with a blower temporarily brings it back into range, but only for a matter of seconds. I don't know how to repair it or who could reliably repair it for me, nor do I want to zap myself into the next world getting near the massive caps on that SMPS. I mention these details only in case anyone has experience or would like to guide me on this.)

 

[Palladium]

To my dismay, my beloved Channel Islands E-200S amplifier, with dual mono Hypex NCore class-D output stages and dual internal SM power supplies, bit the dust. It has been a beautiful sounding amplifier for me.*

I don't need the high power of the CI amplifier, as I listen in a smallish office at non-earbleeding levels. My speakers are EPI 100V that I refurbished. Would either of the Topping PA5 II or the 3e Audio A5 be an adequate replacement in terms of sound quality? Which one would you recommend?

(*Details of my CI amp's issues for those interested: One channel is fine. The other channel produces sound for a few seconds but then only distortion. With no input signal and no speaker connected, I measured a wildly swinging DC offset on power output on the bad channel when the distortion occurs--the multimeter couldn't even lock onto the range. I removed the cover and tried to diagnose it. I suspect it's a failure in the electrolytics on the low voltage side of the SMPS on that channel, as cooling the small caps there with a blower temporarily brings it back into range, but only for a matter of seconds. I don't know how to repair it or who could reliably repair it for me, nor do I want to zap myself into the next world getting near the massive caps on that SMPS. I mention these details only in case anyone has experience or would like to guide me on this.)

Seems like you will never even hit 1W of actual power. PA5 II will be more than enough.

 

[magreen]

Seems like you will never even hit 1W of actual power. PA5 II will be more than enough.

Thanks, I agree I don't need to be concerned about power. But my question is more about sound quality.

 

[antcollinet]

Thanks, I agree I don't need to be concerned about power. But my question is more about sound quality.

If not clipping the PA5 will sound the same as your ncore.