Looks like Topping have taken the criticisms of the earlier models and fixed them on the new product. A very good set of measurements by any standards and it appears to deliver power into real-world loads if I’m reading the review correctly.
A few months ago, I bought 3e Audio 260-2-29A 3rd audio amp to replace a Hegel 390.
The 3e Audio is better everywhere and yet it is 20 times cheaper.
We'll have to review our prejudices about Chinese class D amps
The 3e Audio is better everywhere and yet it is 20 times cheaper.
We'll have to review our prejudices about Chinese class D amps
No. The products were released as different products, with different topologies only a few months apart.
Unless you're giving Topping credit for would be an incredible feedback and development cycle... they were (and are) intended to be different products. They are not "old" and "new" iterations. The B100 was not "fixed".
I am not sure what review you're referencing, but if it mentioned anything of the sort, it's likely to be incorrect.
I even seem to remember they availeable before the B100. They certainly are pricey, but if you can live with the somewhat lower max power, they are cheaper than a Purifi or Nilay monoblock at comparable or even better performance.
^ You may be quite correct. I am going off of memory (laziness, my apologies), and assuming (arrogance on my part) that the USA market reflects the world. I thought the B100 came out in about July / August with the B200 available around the holiday season here. That could be wrong / and or quite different elsewhere. My fault.
Either way, my wild assumption is that they were not necessarily developed in a vacuum independently of each other, but that they were designed for different purposes. i.e. that no "customer feedback" from the B100 was likely used to set design / engineering criteria for the B200.
Either way, my wild assumption is that they were not necessarily developed in a vacuum independently of each other, but that they were designed for different purposes. i.e. that no "customer feedback" from the B100 was likely used to set design / engineering criteria for the B200.
^ In my overly simplistic view - They both just "do what they do".
What seems to be a major point of discussion (which I take very little part in) is whether what they do is ... what they "should" do. That to me is more based upon what people (advertisers and marketers) choose to say about them vs. their actual performance. It's relative. In my humble view if the B100 were marketed as a "5W" amplifier, there'd be very little discussion about it other than the typical "Is 5W enough power?". There'd be very few that would likely argue that it wasn't an exceptional product. Again (In my view) the issue was the advertised power delivery claims which could not be sustained over anything other than very short (relatively speaking) times into standard resistive loads.
Then, there is always the discussion of whether or not they are "good". That simply goes back to the age-old objectivist / subjectivist arguments. I take no part in those chats. People like what they like, and they have every right to enjoy it in their own way.
What seems to be a major point of discussion (which I take very little part in) is whether what they do is ... what they "should" do. That to me is more based upon what people (advertisers and marketers) choose to say about them vs. their actual performance. It's relative. In my humble view if the B100 were marketed as a "5W" amplifier, there'd be very little discussion about it other than the typical "Is 5W enough power?". There'd be very few that would likely argue that it wasn't an exceptional product. Again (In my view) the issue was the advertised power delivery claims which could not be sustained over anything other than very short (relatively speaking) times into standard resistive loads.
Then, there is always the discussion of whether or not they are "good". That simply goes back to the age-old objectivist / subjectivist arguments. I take no part in those chats. People like what they like, and they have every right to enjoy it in their own way.
Last edited:
The LA90 Discrete, B200 and B100 share nearly identical and uniquely low distortion vs frequency characteristics. To me it suggests significant similarity between products, including the propensity of at least two to fail in use.
^ Absolutely fair. Within the context of this thread, I assumed we were talking about the B100 / B200. Again... I should likely not assume things.
Sure, they had nearly identical and uniquely low distortion characteristics, but they went about achieving them (to the best of my limited understanding) in some slightly different ways.
If in general we're saying that "Topping may have learned and iterated" - Sure. I can agree 100%.
However, if the B100 were to be the successor (even though to me they're catered a bit toward different audiences) to the LA90, and if... they were trying to "fix" the LA90, then they didn't do a particularly great job, IMO.
I could be (and I often am) wrong, but if the B200 were to have been based upon learnings from the LA90, then sure, those could have been successfully implemented.
Overall, I think it's much ado about a whole lotta nothing (with the exception of what I'd consider to be misleading advertising claims for the B100).
Sure, they had nearly identical and uniquely low distortion characteristics, but they went about achieving them (to the best of my limited understanding) in some slightly different ways.
If in general we're saying that "Topping may have learned and iterated" - Sure. I can agree 100%.
However, if the B100 were to be the successor (even though to me they're catered a bit toward different audiences) to the LA90, and if... they were trying to "fix" the LA90, then they didn't do a particularly great job, IMO.
I could be (and I often am) wrong, but if the B200 were to have been based upon learnings from the LA90, then sure, those could have been successfully implemented.
Overall, I think it's much ado about a whole lotta nothing (with the exception of what I'd consider to be misleading advertising claims for the B100).
Well, both incarnations of the LA90 had a fair share of failures. The LA90D and the B200 have very similar specs, so one might argue that the B200 is an improved LA90D. The B100 is something different. It uses SMT transistors, seems to have a very small idle current only (Topping speaks of class B), and (in my eyes) inadequate heat sinking for the power that was advertised. On top of this, it has a very trigger happy protection circuit that in some cases decided to permanently protect the amplifier (as it did in mine which were fortunately bought on Amazon marketplace, so returning them was not a headache).
Absolutely fair. So, yes, one could easily assume that they took what they learned from the LA90 products and applied it to the B200 lest they be skewered. That leaves me to wonder why they didn't try to make the B100 as "robust" / follow the same or similar logic for power claims. I suppose I'll never know. It's fun to wonder WTH they were thinking though.
Agree 100%. Separate, but related, to the "why" it wouldn't meet advertised specs (heatsinking), I just care that it didn't. To me, their claims border on misleading. I'm a bit shocked that they haven't altered the claims, but... that shows what I know.
I'm glad it has the protection circuit, or mine and many others' likely would have been permanently damaged. With that said, from a practical standpoint (my brother's and mine) of having the amps go into protection under "normal" circumstances was unacceptable. I wish I had been smart enough to purchase through a place where it wasn't such a hassle to return them, or I would have. Now, they've found a happy home for a good use... just not their original intended purpose. Had I known that their power delivery would be so feeble (as compared to what was expected per advertisements and standard required testing in the USA and EU) ... I'd have perhaps tried the B200s, which likely would have been wonderful. With that said, I'm almost cutting off my nose to spite my face b/c I won't buy the B200s simply b/c of my experience with the B100s.
Last edited:
Charitably, these companies may still be inexperienced in all elements of design trade-offs. They rapidly came from nowhere to excel in measured performance, it will be interesting to watch if the followup is focus on reliability and immunity to environmental factors like RF.
Maybe I wasn't clear enough: in mine, the protection circuit permanently protected the amplifier from any further use by myself or anyone else. I wasn't the only one to report this.
^ OH! I misread / misinterpreted. I thought you meant that the constant / annoying way that the amp went into protection during listening was 'permanent' i.e. never stopped happening. I did not understand that the amp (for lack of a more elegant term) broke. So, it sounds like the protection circuit... didn't protect the amp at all. For some reason now, I recall you mentioning this, and I likely completely forgot. Apologies.
Chinese class D amps make use of Texas Instruments amplifier chips, so I wouldn't go so far to label them as Chinese amplifiers. The B-series on the other hand seems to be their own class B design, although, who knows, that can be subcontracted from Europe/US.
Nevertheless they have their place. For one example, I've been using them in my work for Teams and background music for years. Wearing a headset for 6 hr a day is a NOGO, small desktop gear helps a lot.