Topping Pre90 Review (preamplifier)

[Purité Audio]

Impact?
When you drop it ?
Keith

 

[mocenigo]

Thaks for reply to all....the preamp is really good and an excellence match to my Accuphase poweramp and my Spendor speaker....but would have liked more impact...some of you may think that a Spendor/Accuphase match is the problem...believe me those are not, have tried others preamps and there is the impact Im looking for but no the trasnparency....I do never eat sugar and carbs...just saturday´s beers

I do not understand what you mean by impact. Would you like to have more dynamics, as in more contrast between the soft and loud passages? This something odd order distortion can give you, if you add enough of it. But the amplifier is essentially distortion-free. Of course, if you add distortion, you lose transparency...

 

[jgma1975]

Impact?
When you drop it ?
Keith

I tried two other preamps... a Schitt in passive mode and a tube preamp. I think I can identify what distortion is, but that's not what I mean. It's the same thing when you compare a class D amp to a class A amp or a tube amp... it's kind of a third dimension, relief, ....not scene

 

[jgma1975]

Not saying a 600€ preamp that do what it does is bad, just the opposite Im very very happy with it and would like not to miss my others worst preamps do. I read many class D amps changing Opamps gets more engaging sound...just wondering if could be the same...

 

[Audiobliss2]

In Topping product life cycles, this is positively prehistoric. Maybe after the launch of their new DACs, power amps etc a new version will be released, so maybe hang on a while? I can't see a new Pre90 sounding any different though but maybe it would have some useful features, better display etc.

By the way, how are you connecting your subs? I have a single KEF KC62 connected to the Pre90 RCA outputs. Maybe sub outs, would be a good upgrade, if Topping are taking notice.

A 12v trigger out would be nice too. Since their dacs all have them.

 

[NicS]

I bought a Pre90/Ext90 on Amir's recommendation a few months ago. I use it to "bypass" my AV Processor when I'm just listening to 2 channel recordings from SACD or vinyl; a suggesting that came from asking advice on this forum. To do this I have my monitors connected to the Pre90 XLR output. I then use the Pre90 primary XLR input to take the signal from my Front Left and Front Right outputs from my AVP. This way, on startup, the signal from the AVP flows through to the front speakers automatically, at the preset input volume without having to press any buttons or adjust volume. Very handy. I can then change inputs to either SACD or vinyl, both of which starting at the input volume used in the previous session. Again, very handy.

The first task was to set the primary XLR input to match the output of the AVP dircetly to the front speakers. I did this using a dB meter close to my monitors and found adding +5.5dB gain to the Pre90 allowed it to be "transparent" to the AV setup, with regard to volume.

I use the Ext90 for the inputs from my SACD player and my Phono Pre-Amp.

I run a completely balanced Phono signal path: Tonearm cable terminated in a mini 4pin XLR into my MX VINYL, output in XLR to the Ext90. This is a very low noise solution which, considering my MC cartridge is very low output, really helps clear up any residual background noise. The first thing I noticed using the Pre90 is that I did not need to un the Pre90 louder than -25dB to get this listening level I enjoy. At 0dB, the cumulative background noise from the turntable to the phono stage and pre-amp was very low and far beneath the surface noise of the quietest pressings I have. The Pre90 did reveal a very faint power supply hum, which was fixed by re-running the tonearm cable away from a nearby power supply.

As for the SACD input, this works equally as well. I use a Reavon 200 for 2-channel SACD playback. I can't vouch for its signal quality in any objective way, but subjectively this sounds great. Much better than running the 2-channel though my AVP anyway. Which has made we wonder about the advantages of investing in one of Toppings outboard DAC solutions for all my 2-channel digital sources.

My AVP still plays a big part in my listening though. I have a 7.6.2 setup equally for home theatre and multi-channel recordings. I have a nostalgic interest in quad recordings from the 70's & 80's extending though to enjoying some amazing purpose recorded Atmos releases from the past 5 year. My main concern is to be able to listen to music with as much authenticity as possible, which is why my main speakers are the ATC SCM100 ASL midfield monitors; I've seen these in so many recording studios I have visited. The LCR set I have were originally used in a 5.1 mastering suit at Abbey Road before being sold to a recording studio in Santa Cruz. I rescued them out of the basement where they had languished after the recording studio was closed down to be repurposed as a Yoga studio. It took a year to completely rebuild them. My tastes far exceed my budget so I have to be resourceful.

I've used these monitors with a variety of Pre-Amps, including the recommended ATC pre, which sounds great but costs a whopping $6K. It's also a bit dated, especially in its range of inputs. Again, subjectively, the Topping Pre90/Ext90 combo does as good a job at the ATC solution, at 10% of the cost.

I'm very happy with my decision and the sage advice offered by Amir. Reading ASR has recalibrated my attitude toward HiFi. So much of audiophilia is a massive plate of Woo-Woo seasoned with magical thinking. It's refreshing to be able to read reviews that lack the abstracted, highly subjective language you'll see in traditional audio equipment reviews. And it's not that I dislike reading a florid, subjective assessment of a piece of electronic equipment; it's just that I enjoy more the serious evaluation of audio equipment without lavish claims of superiority that simply cannot be quantified.

 

[ZestClub]

I've become more disappointed in the Topping Pre90 after taking it apart to find that it uses 20 year old Texas Instruments headphone amp chips (tpa6120a2) and the very average Opamps OPA1612's. I am rolling them at the moment and noticed another TSOP footprint (underneath the SOIC8 footprint for the OPA1612's), so I wonder what option that was for? possibly the OPA828 (OPA2828 dual) Hmm...
That "boxed in sound" of the OPA1612's and low bass is now explained.
So much for them being state of the art tech (as in their literature), with a transparent sound as touted at the time by all the so called audio pundits.

 

[Pulkass]

I have a 3 way, electronic X overed 4 amped system, hi resolution, the Topping pre amp 90 is breath taking for detail, no noise. What do you mean op amps? I don t listen in the cans, my volume is rather high on a 50 sq metres treated room

 

[mocenigo]

I've become more disappointed in the Topping Pre90 after taking it apart to find that it uses 20 year old Texas Instruments headphone amp chips (tpa6120a2) and the very average Opamps OPA1612's. I am rolling them at the moment and noticed another TSOP footprint (underneath the SOIC8 footprint for the OPA1612's), so I wonder what option that was for? possibly the OPA828 (OPA2828 dual) Hmm...
That "boxed in sound" of the OPA1612's and low bass is now explained.
So much for them being state of the art tech (as in their literature), with a transparent sound as touted at the time by all the so called audio pundits.

As far as trolling goes, this is a poor attempt.

 

[Pulkass]

As far as trolling goes, this is a poor attempt.

As far as trolling goes, this is a poor attempt.

Thanks for clearing the argument!!!

 

[LTig]

I've become more disappointed in the Topping Pre90 after taking it apart to find that it uses 20 year old Texas Instruments headphone amp chips (tpa6120a2) and the very average Opamps OPA1612's.

It's the design of the circuit what counts, and the measurements do tell that the final result is state of the art. Remember that many recordings of the best sound quality have been produced by using lots of much older opamps (NE5534) in the mixing consoles and effect boxes.

I am rolling them at the moment and noticed another TSOP footprint (underneath the SOIC8 footprint for the OPA1612's), so I wonder what option that was for? possibly the OPA828 (OPA2828 dual) Hmm...
That "boxed in sound" of the OPA1612's and low bass is now explained.
So much for them being state of the art tech (as in their literature), with a transparent sound as touted at the time by all the so called audio pundits.

The Pre90 is transparent as has been proven by @amirm's measurements. As long as you do not prove otherwise by multiple level controlled blind listening tests your statements are just biased opinions, as any member of ASR including you should know by now.

 

[Pulkass]

It's the design of the circuit what counts, and the measurements do tell that the final result is state of the art. Remember that many recordings of the best sound quality have been produced by using lots of much older opamps (NE5534) in the mixing consoles and effect boxes.

The Pre90 is transparent as has been proven by @amirm's measurements. As long as you do not prove otherwise by multiple level controlled blind listening tests your statements are just biased opinions, as any member of ASR including you should know by now.

I say it again : Topping pre 90 is breathtaking in the handling of the signal. The first time l operated it, it was clear. I dumped my balanced tube pre amp after that ,love at first hearing.

 

[Pulkass]

I say it again : Topping pre 90 is breathtaking in the handling of the signal. The first time l operated it, it was clear. I dumped my balanced tube pre amp after that ,love at first hearing.

I won't ever thank Armin, and the wonderful people in this majestic community enough for such tests, !!!! Have l been flattering too much? Nooo c Mon. I m just a warm hearted ltalian of respectful 72 years, hooked to music since 1963. But my hearing is G O O D.

 

[mocenigo]

Thanks for clearing the argument!!!

He should have tried with vacuum tubes!

 

[MBO]

Я больше разочаровался в Topping Pre90 после того, как разобрал его и обнаружил, что он использует 20-летние чипы усилителей для наушников Texas Instruments (tpa6120a2) и очень средние Opamps OPA1612. В данный момент я катаю их и заметил еще один след TSOP (под площадью SOIC8 для OPA1612), поэтому мне интересно, для какого варианта это было? возможно, OPA828 (двойной OPA2828) Хм...
Теперь объясняется, что звук "в коробке" OPA1612 и низкий бас.
Вот и все, что для них является самым современным техническим (как в их литературе), с прозрачным звуком, который рекламировали в то время все так называемые аудиоэксперты.

I absolutely agree, I also took it apart, it is not at all as optimal in quality as it is advertised, it has a very hard colored sound. And also it is not quite stable in terms of the output stage circuit, I had problems with it.

 

[misterdog]

it is not quite stable in terms of the output stage circuit

?

 

[Pulkass]

https://www.stereophile.com/content/topping-pre90-line-preamplifier-page-2 I dont see any op amp inside.

Conclusions
The Pre90 is a simple, compact, analog stereo preamplifier with a transparent, noise-free sound. Signal selection, power on/off, muting, and volume adjustments are equally noise-free, save for the subtle ticks of the relays that accomplish those tasks.

Although it is small and inexpensive, the Topping preamp (with the Ext90 extension) has all the necessary features, with one exception. It lacks a channel-balance control, which may be critical to some users. Also, the effectiveness of the remote control could be improved.

Some people may summarily reject it because of its low cost, small size, limited warranty, Chinese manufacture, or the fact that it's only sold online. All those parameters must be weighed against its low price and outstanding performance. It fits my needs, and it fits my ears, so for me it's a great bargain.

 

[mocenigo]

I won't ever thank Armin, and the wonderful people in this majestic community enough for such tests, !!!! Have l been flattering too much? Nooo c Mon. I m just a warm hearted ltalian of respectful 72 years, hooked to music since 1963. But my hearing is G O O D.

I absolutely agree, I also took it apart, it is not at all as optimal in quality as it is advertised, it has a very hard colored sound. And also it is not quite stable in terms of the output stage circuit, I had problems with it.

Not quite stable. Care to elaborate?
Also “colored”, well… nope.

 

[mocenigo]

I've become more disappointed in the Topping Pre90 after taking it apart to find that it uses 20 year old Texas Instruments headphone amp chips (tpa6120a2) and the very average Opamps OPA1612's. I am rolling them at the moment and noticed another TSOP footprint (underneath the SOIC8 footprint for the OPA1612's), so I wonder what option that was for? possibly the OPA828 (OPA2828 dual) Hmm...
That "boxed in sound" of the OPA1612's and low bass is now explained.
So much for them being state of the art tech (as in their literature), with a transparent sound as touted at the time by all the so called audio pundits.

The circuit has a NE5532 at the input as inverter (for SE inputs, and it is perfect for those purposes), then two halves of a OPA1612 as its own input buffer. Then there is the amplification module proper, an entirely discrete circuit, which is designed as the equivalent of a composite amplifier with nested feedback loops, but done entirely in a discrete way (there are some realisations using two opamps, such as Tom Christiansen's excellent buffers). The OPA1612 is one of the least noisy components in the entire industry, and has virtually no distortion, so unless you are feeding it too strong a signal and saturate it, it cannot give a "boxy" sound.

 

[lordhumungous]

I've become more disappointed in the Topping Pre90 after taking it apart to find that it uses 20 year old Texas Instruments headphone amp chips (tpa6120a2) and the very average Opamps OPA1612's. I am rolling them at the moment and noticed another TSOP footprint (underneath the SOIC8 footprint for the OPA1612's), so I wonder what option that was for? possibly the OPA828 (OPA2828 dual) Hmm...
That "boxed in sound" of the OPA1612's and low bass is now explained.
So much for them being state of the art tech (as in their literature), with a transparent sound as touted at the time by all the so called audio pundits.

I'd be more worried about your Dac and speakers