D
Deleted member 148505
Disclosing the IC that was used will reduce the perceived value of the amp since you can get the IC for cheap, then the build quality and the parts that were used will have a difficulty justifying its price.
Replacing the chip will work since it is pin by pin compatible. (Unless there is some form of elaborate IP protection technique that will melt if the IC section was soldered LOL) Also, TPA3251 and TPA3255 have different gains so if you put the wrong chip you won't get the same performance (or might not be stable at all because of PFFB configuration).
Heating plate is just around 4USD. With a variac, you can easily control the temp and desolder the IC without damaging it.
The original IC can be put back if anything goes wrong.
Replacing the chip will work since it is pin by pin compatible. (Unless there is some form of elaborate IP protection technique that will melt if the IC section was soldered LOL) Also, TPA3251 and TPA3255 have different gains so if you put the wrong chip you won't get the same performance (or might not be stable at all because of PFFB configuration).
Heating plate is just around 4USD. With a variac, you can easily control the temp and desolder the IC without damaging it.
The original IC can be put back if anything goes wrong.
Last edited by a moderator:
Hi,Agree ) 🙂
The TPA325X has enormous potential! moreover the next Allo TPA3255 announces these measures: (I have already shared them)
THD+N 5W , 1Khz 0.00014
THD+N 100W 20-20Khz 0.0097
THD+N 10W 20-20Khz 0.0091
So, to summarise this thread, the Topping uses a TPA3251 IC, and has performance as per post #5 where it shows that higher frequencies have significant increased THD.
The Allo you refer to uses the TPA3255 and has a low THD compared to the Topping, yet we don't know how it achieves the low THD at higher frequencies.
If neither the Topping nor the Allo have the circuit diagram provided, then how can anyone copy, or take inspiration for a feedback network that can improve the TPA implementation to attain a similar performance as per the Purifi modules etc ?
I am building 6x the Elektor Class D amplifiers for a self build active 3 way speaker, since they are cheap. So i agree that purchasing the Purifi modules can be expensive.
Regards,
Shadders.
Hell, no! How long does it take you all finally get it?So, to summarise this thread, the Topping uses a TPA3251 IC
https://www.audiosciencereview.com/...opping-pa5-review-amplifier.28512/post-999727
I assume this is what KSTR is referring to.
Michael
I assume this is what KSTR is referring to.
Michael
https://www.diyaudio.com/community/...s-a-modification-worth-it.380233/post-6878402Where was that discovered please?
Hi,Hi,
So, to summarise this thread, the Topping uses a TPA3251 IC, and has performance as per post #5 where it shows that higher frequencies have significant increased THD.
The Allo you refer to uses the TPA3255 and has a low THD compared to the Topping, yet we don't know how it achieves the low THD at higher frequencies.
If neither the Topping nor the Allo have the circuit diagram provided, then how can anyone copy, or take inspiration for a feedback network that can improve the TPA implementation to attain a similar performance as per the Purifi modules etc ?
I am building 6x the Elektor Class D amplifiers for a self build active 3 way speaker, since they are cheap. So i agree that purchasing the Purifi modules can be expensive.
Regards,
Shadders.
To add correction, the Topping PA5 uses the TI TAS5613A IC.
Regards,
Shadders.
Hi,You did see the designer denial at audiosciencereview?
//
No, there were 101 pages of the thread, so i just examined the reference as above. Maybe if someone is helpful they could post the definitive data on what is what.
Regards.
Shadders.
When the best engineers release something to the public, they’re already working on what they’re gonna release 2 years later. Need to be in that league to compete. Those who study the old work of the best engineers in order to copy them, certainly don’t have a chance to exceed them.
Well, someone started this thinking they could mod it to improve it. Its just that I suppose. I'm good with Nc400 monos thank you.Why do you guys even care anyways? Are you gonna make something better for less money?
//
Hi,
This is DIY audio, so being able to implement your own design is part of the fun, and achieving close to the Purifi module, or other, at a fraction of the cost is what it is all about.
Regards,
Shadders.
This is DIY audio, so being able to implement your own design is part of the fun, and achieving close to the Purifi module, or other, at a fraction of the cost is what it is all about.
Regards,
Shadders.
He said -- between the lines -- it's not a TPA325x, which is correct because it's a TAS5613You did see the designer denial at audiosciencereview?
I suppose if your time has no value. Reminds me of someone I know. Drives 20km to save 3 cents a litre on gasoline.Hi,
This is DIY audio, so being able to implement your own design is part of the fun, and achieving close to the Purifi module, or other, at a fraction of the cost is what it is all about.
Regards,
Shadders.
D
Deleted member 148505
Nope. TAS5613 DKD pinout is absolutely different.He said -- between the lines -- it's not a TPA325x, which is correct because it's a TAS5613
- Home
- Amplifiers
- Class D
- Topping PA5 (TPA325X) : Is a modification worth it? ?