UPDATE 2: TOPPING DX5 II. Two faulty units, a promised refund, and now a dispute over who takes the financial risk.
21 October 2026 | Follow-up to my 17 September warranty update
"Original post" (https://www.reddit.com/r/headphones/comments/1umaxso/beware_of_the_dx5_ii_44_mm_output_my_experience/)
In September, I reported that TOPPING had finally replaced my defective DX5 II after a prolonged warranty dispute, only for the replacement to exhibit exactly the same 4.4 mm balanced headphone output fault.
Unfortunately, the situation has continued to deteriorate.
I'm now dealing with a refund process involving contradictory commitments from the original AliExpress seller, EG Audio Store, and an unresolved disagreement over international return shipping, insurance and financial responsibility.
Nearly a month after receiving the defective replacement, I still have no working 4.4 mm output and no confirmed refund arrangement that I consider safe to proceed with.
What happened after my September update?
Following further escalation, TOPPING acknowledged the unusual circumstances of receiving two units exhibiting the same fault.
TOPPING initially described the recurrence as very rare and requested further video evidence and the return of the replacement for factory inspection.
Having already provided extensive troubleshooting evidence during the original warranty process, I questioned the need to repeat the same demonstrations yet again.
TOPPING subsequently offered a refund and, importantly, indicated that this could be arranged before the factory inspection results were confirmed.
Given everything that had happened, this seemed like a reasonable conclusion.
TOPPING also confirmed in writing that the refund was authorised by the manufacturer, that EG Audio Store would assist with the original AliExpress transaction, and that TOPPING would remain involved until the matter was resolved.
Unfortunately, the arrangements that followed have been anything but straightforward.
The seller's refund conditions keep changing
Frank Wu at EG Audio Store initially confirmed that the refund would be initiated on the same day that the return tracking showed the DX5 II had been handed over to the courier and was in transit.
That was a significant assurance because the DX5 II is the central DAC in my desktop audio system.
However, when I requested a prepaid, fully insured international return label or courier collection, EG Audio Store refused.
Instead, I was instructed to arrange the return to China myself, pay the shipping costs upfront, arrange insurance at my own expense and accept responsibility for any loss or damage during transit.
The seller also stated that shipping costs would only be reimbursed after the unit had been received and inspected.
Then the refund conditions changed.
I was informed that the refund itself would only be processed after the unit had arrived, been inspected and the refund amount confirmed.
This directly contradicted the earlier commitment to initiate the refund once the parcel was in transit.
When I challenged that change, Frank subsequently reversed his position and stated that EG Audio Store would honour the original refund-on-dispatch arrangement.
However, the other conditions remained unchanged.
No prepaid return label. No arranged collection. No seller-provided insurance. No acceptance of responsibility for transit loss or damage.
So the seller is willing to promise a refund upon dispatch, but is unwilling to assume the financial risk associated with the return shipment.
After the previous AliExpress dispute was closed in the seller's favour, and following months of warranty correspondence, I simply do not have enough confidence in EG Audio Store to accept those conditions.
Why should the customer carry all the risk?
To put this into perspective, I have already:
- Purchased a DX5 II that developed a hardware fault.
- Extensively troubleshot the original unit and supplied video evidence.
- Gone through an unsuccessful AliExpress dispute.
- Declined an offer to replace the motherboard myself.
- Complied with TOPPING's instruction to physically mark the original unit before replacement.
- Received a manufacturer-supplied replacement exhibiting effectively the same fault.
- Continued corresponding with TOPPING and EG Audio Store to obtain a resolution.
Now, despite all of that, I'm being asked to send the second defective unit internationally at my own expense, with no financial protection from the seller if something goes wrong in transit.
I have made it clear that I am not refusing to return the DX5 II.
I am refusing to accept an arrangement where the financial consequences of a lost or damaged return shipment fall entirely on me.
I've now asked TOPPING management to guarantee the refund directly
On 14 October, I formally escalated the situation and requested a direct written commitment from TOPPING management.
I have asked for confirmation of the full refund amount, the original refund-on-dispatch arrangement, prepaid and insured return shipping, and who will be financially responsible if the shipment is lost or damaged.
I have also requested a complete written return procedure.
This includes confirmation of exactly which photographs are required, what packaging is acceptable, what evidence of dispatch must be provided and whether any accessories or documentation are expected.
That might sound excessive, but after months of contradictory instructions, I want no ambiguity about the conditions of the return.
I do not want to dispatch the unit only to discover that an additional photograph, document or administrative requirement is suddenly being used to delay or dispute the refund.
I've also asked TOPPING to confirm what happens if EG Audio Store or AliExpress cannot process the agreed refund.
TOPPING previously stated that it would coordinate an alternative solution if difficulties arose. I'm now asking it to stand behind that commitment.
The impact on my audio system
One reason this matters so much is that the DX5 II isn't simply a spare headphone amplifier.
It's the central DAC for my desktop system, feeding my Adam Audio T5V monitors, T10S subwoofer and external headphone amplifiers.
Removing it leaves my desktop audio system without its main source until I can obtain a suitable replacement.
I also use this equipment for music production and audio work.
This is why a clear and reliable refund arrangement is important. I need to know when I can realistically replace the equipment rather than sending it away and waiting indefinitely.
Where things stand as of 21 October
On 16 October, I requested an actionable resolution from TOPPING management within five business days, setting a deadline of Friday, 23 October 2026.
That deadline has not yet passed.
At the time of writing, however, I have not received the direct management guarantee and agreed return arrangements I requested.
The replacement DX5 II remains with me, and the refund remains unresolved.
I have no objection to TOPPING inspecting the defective unit. In fact, I would welcome a proper technical explanation of why two separate units have exhibited the same fault.
But I do object to being expected to accept additional financial risk after an already prolonged and unsuccessful warranty experience.
Final thoughts
When working correctly, the DX5 II is an impressive DAC/amp in terms of features and performance.
That's what makes this situation so disappointing.
My complaint is no longer solely about a defective 4.4 mm headphone output.
It's about how a manufacturer and its authorised sales channel handle a customer who has already received two defective units.
A refund offer is only meaningful if the process for obtaining that refund is clear, consistent and reasonably protected.
At the moment, that is not my experience.
I will update this post again when TOPPING responds or the refund is finally resolved.
I'm also interested to hear whether other DX5 II owners have experienced similar 4.4 mm output failures, or whether anyone has dealt with comparable return and refund difficulties involving TOPPING or EG Audio Store.
