Topping PA5 Review (Amplifier)

[antcollinet]

but then you'll be at 700 usd for SOTA performance ... very close to a Purifi implementation

Not that close.

More like half of a purify implementation.

Nevertheless - your point is made. I’d far rather have a purify amp than one of these (mainly for the oodles of clean power)

 

[raest]

plenty of Hypex Ncore implementations in that 700$ price range that will have more power, and clean beyond the hearing ability of 99,9999% of the population (if not 100% outright), and for 99,9999% of implementations/use cases

 

[antcollinet]

plenty of Hypex Ncore implementations in that 700$ price range that will have more power, and clean beyond the hearing ability of 99,9999% of the population (if not 100% outright), and for 99,9999% of implementations/use cases

Fully agreed - hypex is down at that level - and possibly in my future.

 

[BoredErica]

I more just want an amp with right level of gain and not the high gain many amps default to. Pa5 having low gain was useful until my left speaker started exploding.

Still waiting to see if we can get any kind of ETA on when fixed units will go into production, and when they will arrive at various sellers. @TOPPING-Service

edit: wrong thread, but oh well lol

 

[fuzzychaos]

Does amir ever update reviews with links to issues and such? It seems like I could have avoided this product if I'd seen the issue threads instead of just the review (I know, partly on me)

This should be part of any recommended product, if there is an issue such as a high failure rate, should the author not take that into consideration and update their possible recommendation?

 

[IPunchCholla]

This should be part of any recommended product, if there is an issue such as a high failure rate, should the author not take that into consideration and update their possible recommendation?

I've been thinking about that issue. The problem is what exactly can a reviewer say without overstepping the facts? There is clearly an issue with this amp. But none of us really know how big of an issue there is. A self-selecting anonymous poll with no controls against double voting, doesn't tell us much. Topping has said that while there are issues, they don't appear to be outside of what they consider to be normal. They didn't put any numbers to that statement. So we don't know that actual failure rate. But there is clearly an issue. And one that appears to be bigger than is typical for this type of product on this site, but one that is still not well defined with any sort of accuracy.

So if I was a reviewer (and I am not), I would be faced with the question of when should I append a review with information about failures. I think it is pretty clear that it could be done in this case without much blowback. Okay, so I do that. Now a mother product comes along and gets 10 reported failures on a forum I run. Should I do it for that one? What if there are only 5? 2? What if I think one company is astroturfing failure reports about another companies product?

Emotionally, I really want there to be a note in the review about the issues. Even though my PA5 is working fine. It pisses me off that every time I turn it on I worry just a little bit.

But once I think it through, I think appending the review opens up a big can of worms, just on a practical level. Then I realize that there are 2 giant threads that both include posts that are directly linked about the issues and many posts about the issues are in the top the results if I type in PA5 amplifier issues, and that these are easily available on the site where the review is if a prospective buyer does just the slightest due diligence, and I think maybe the system we have is doing the job?

 

[delta76]

I would play the $350 lottery again for state of the art performance. They aren't all broken.

as always, your money, your choice. However assuming the failure rate (not complete failure, but having issues) in the first year is 30%, the math does not bold well to me. Note that once your item develops issue it could be a long and confusing process to get it fixed.

also is SOTA a new "audiophile" thing? a good hypex amp, while not measured as good, is more than good enough, and would be beyond 99.9% speakers, if not more, capacity to demonstrate the difference

 

[antcollinet]

I've been thinking about that issue. The problem is what exactly can a reviewer say without overstepping the facts? There is clearly an issue with this amp. But none of us really know how big of an issue there is. A self-selecting anonymous poll with no controls against double voting, doesn't tell us much. Topping has said that while there are issues, they don't appear to be outside of what they consider to be normal. They didn't put any numbers to that statement. So we don't know that actual failure rate. But there is clearly an issue. And one that appears to be bigger than is typical for this type of product on this site, but one that is still not well defined with any sort of accuracy.

So if I was a reviewer (and I am not), I would be faced with the question of when should I append a review with information about failures. I think it is pretty clear that it could be done in this case without much blowback. Okay, so I do that. Now a mother product comes along and gets 10 reported failures on a forum I run. Should I do it for that one? What if there are only 5? 2? What if I think one company is astroturfing failure reports about another companies product?

Emotionally, I really want there to be a note in the review about the issues. Even though my PA5 is working fine. It pisses me off that every time I turn it on I worry just a little bit.

But once I think it through, I think appending the review opens up a big can of worms, just on a practical level. Then I realize that there are 2 giant threads that both include posts that are directly linked about the issues and many posts about the issues are in the top the results if I type in PA5 amplifier issues, and that these are easily available on the site where the review is if a prospective buyer does just the slightest due diligence, and I think maybe the system we have is doing the job?

This - we/Amir has no idea what the failure rate is.

 

[iLoveCats]

also is SOTA a new "audiophile" thing? a good hypex amp, while not measured as good, is more than good enough, and would be beyond 99.9% speakers, if not more, capacity to demonstrate the difference

SOTA, to me, finally ends the endless upgrade cycle. As long as it satisfies your power requirements, there isn't anything better to get.

 

[mike70]

We don't know the failure rate, but there's something we can see based on statistics.

In this forum we have many, many threads about products, and the thread with many reported failures is precisely the thread about the PA5. So, is reasonable to argument that something must be happening with that amplifier ... or someone knows about a campaign against the amplifier.

We don't have a real scientific measurement, but the crowd sourcing is telling something to us. Google / Amazon and many TI solutions are based on this.
Something called "the crowd knowledge" or "wisdom of the crowd" ... and it works in many areas, also with scientific proof.

Is very interesting really (https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10796-021-10176-y)

 

[delta76]

This - we/Amir has no idea what the failure rate is.

It is perfectly reasonable to add a note to the review "Many owners of this amplifier in this forum have reported reliability issues. While the data is not enough to draw a conclusion, as always, use your own judgement before purchasing this amplifier or any other device reviewed here"

 

[mike70]

While the data is not enough to draw a conclusion, as always, use your own judgement before purchasing this amplifier or any other device reviewed here

you can assume that phrase is by default in any review

 

[delta76]

you can assume that phrase is by default in any review

yes but in this case it does not hurt to be reminded

 

[antcollinet]

It is perfectly reasonable to add a note to the review "Many owners of this amplifier in this forum have reported reliability issues. While the data is not enough to draw a conclusion, as always, use your own judgement before purchasing this amplifier or any other device reviewed here"

Yep - that would not be unreasonable.

 

[IPunchCholla]

It is perfectly reasonable to add a note to the review "Many owners of this amplifier in this forum have reported reliability issues. While the data is not enough to draw a conclusion, as always, use your own judgement before purchasing this amplifier or any other device reviewed here"

Yep it could be done and maybe should be done. But it also can understand why it might not be done. “Many” is doing a lot of work in the above sentence and is undefined. If it was removed, you could add it to EVERY review, so the question is whether the reviewer is comfortable making the call on what “many” is, for every review.

Because you know, as soon as it is added to the PA5, people are going to start asking why it hasn’t been added to product x’s review.

And now the reviewer has to develop a policy on when to add that info to a review which would likely mean developing a method to collect statistically valid information or institute some sort of testing process.

 

[IPunchCholla]

We don't know the failure rate, but there's something we can see based on statistics.

In this forum we have many, many threads about products, and the thread with many reported failures is precisely the thread about the PA5. So, is reasonable to argument that something must be happening with that amplifier ... or someone knows about a campaign against the amplifier.

We don't have a real scientific measurement, but the crowd sourcing is telling something to us. Google / Amazon and many TI solutions are based on this.
Something called "the crowd knowledge" or "wisdom of the crowd" ... and it works in many areas, also with scientific proof.

Is very interesting really (https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10796-021-10176-y)

Sure, but can you tell me what the failure rate of the amp is with any sort of legal certainty?

As in, if you publish the number, how would you state/qualify it if Topping could challenge your estimate and hold you liable in a court of law?

 

[delta76]

Yep it could be done and maybe should be done. But it also can understand why it might not be done. “Many” is doing a lot of work in the above sentence and is undefined. If it was removed, you could add it to EVERY review, so the question is whether the reviewer is comfortable making the call on what “many” is, for every review.

Because you know, as soon as it is added to the PA5, people are going to start asking why it hasn’t been added to product x’s review.

And now the reviewer has to develop a policy on when to add that info to a review which would likely mean developing a method to collect statistically valid information or institute some sort of testing process.

You are making it more complicated than it should. Do you see any other product has a thread dedicated to the issues like PA5? Sure you can change the wording a bit, like multiple instead of many. But the situation is extraordinary enough to warrant a notice.

 

[IPunchCholla]

You are making it more complicated than it should. Do you see any other product has a thread dedicated to the issues like PA5? Sure you can change the wording a bit, like multiple instead of many. But the situation is extraordinary enough to warrant a notice.

No doubt. I work in a field where every descission made is open to the public, we administer tax dollars, so everybody is up our asses, and the decisions we make directly and deeply impact people’s economic and emotional futures. So every claim of fact tends to get micro-analyzed with what the implications in that case are as well as what that means about how we behave going forward. The world gets gray pretty quick, and it colors my outlook.

 

[mike70]

Sure, but can you tell me what the failure rate of the amp is with any sort of legal certainty?

As in, if you publish the number, how would you state/qualify it if Topping could challenge your estimate and hold you liable in a court of law?

I don't say to publish or establish nothing ... I only say that something's wrong with the product, regarding some people question about it.

 

[Adis]

I don't say to publish or establish nothing ... I only say that something's wrong with the product, regarding some people question about it.

What we know based on some people question is that something's wrong with the product of specific S. N.