IC # needed
Hi all,
In the past on this or some other forum (SW op amp?) mention was made of an opamp with high output current and excellent noise specs, by NS I think (TI now). Can anyone help me with a P/N they have used successfully? Being ancient I have been prototyping with an NE5532 which is working OK but would like a more recent part. TI's selector suggest the 5532 and 5534... I need to drive +/- 4V into 500 ohms resistive, a dual would be nice, low $ nice as well, it is for a production design.
TIA,
Howie
CE - WXYC-FM 89.3
UNC Chapel Hill, NC
www.wxyc.org
Hi all,
In the past on this or some other forum (SW op amp?) mention was made of an opamp with high output current and excellent noise specs, by NS I think (TI now). Can anyone help me with a P/N they have used successfully? Being ancient I have been prototyping with an NE5532 which is working OK but would like a more recent part. TI's selector suggest the 5532 and 5534... I need to drive +/- 4V into 500 ohms resistive, a dual would be nice, low $ nice as well, it is for a production design.
TIA,
Howie
CE - WXYC-FM 89.3
UNC Chapel Hill, NC
www.wxyc.org
I have never before heard "veiling" equated with "brightness", but whatever. There were lots of ferrite heads made by several manufacturers, some good, some less good. If someone can show that the ferrite material was responsible for brightness or dullness or anything else, as opposed to the design of the head and the electronics driving it, I'm all ears. I heard plenty of good ferrite-head decks in the past which sounded just fine (all 1/4" 4 track mind you, I can't compare them to the big iron).
LM4562 AKA LME49720 due to the original part number having bad connotations in some other languages.
It is clear to me that we have very good amps and preamps... but the usual source material is not up to par.
However, the HD downloads are much better and if I care to hear the best (other than the master recording) then the HD downloads are superior sources of music. 24b/96Khz and higher is the direction things are now going for every-day source material..... along with more wireless and continued integration. IMO this will lead to a higher average level of excellent sound for the average consumer and music lover.
THx-RNMarsh
Last edited:
Any of the recognised modern devices will easily cope with that. -/+ 4 volts across 500 ohm is only a -/+8ma current capability, even a TL072 would be happy with that. A more critical factor is the supply voltage, realistically you need the opamps running on at least -/+9 volts for this.
The NJM4556 is a recognised low impedance/high drive capable device.
If you don't want to use the 5532 then have look at the LM4562 or OPA2604 (FET device).
Why should I... I already work in electronics and have done for over 30 years, and while I don't do commercial audio I have worked on professional audio as well as lots of work with communications systems both for the units and with teams developing the headsets in their many guises including lots of work on hearing protection. I understand components and their effects on circuitry especially in regard to EMC/signal integrity (an area I am quite good at, hence the projects I get asked to work on). So I am qualified to have an opinion.
As to your comment (rather childish) I don't complain everything is 'duffous', I ask questions and request proof when way out components with NO technical backup are promoted. I have worked on many projects where such devices would be a great benefit especially if they were real and worked, but I don't see them... They seem to be only available in esoteric audio circles, not mainstream electronics, maybe you should ask yourself why, maybe do a bit of research into the claims instead of believing such claims without any questioning.
This is where I beg to differ - IME modern electronics are competent, but nearly always are still not capable of onvincing sound when assembled into systems, in raw form. If sufficiently further optimised then the standard of replay can then allow for even very ordinary quality recordings, of any age, to be highly satisfying to listen to - I have yet to hear a single HD track, via any means, that has been "special"; it's the musical content, and the "design" of the production that makes for excellence in the listening, for me.
That's funny - I got notification of a new message from Richard Marsh responding to a message from Max explaining some low (subsonic) filters of yore and now I can't find that message here?
Those low, low filters were usually called "subsonic" and acted at 30 Hz down, some were loer still. They varied by slope, typically 6 dB/Oct., but some were 12 dB/Oct. and a few even 18 dB/Oct. Theye were tyipically linked to the phono input, for fear of tone arm resonanes and what not, others were simply there for any and all inputs.
I found out on my own speakers that FM radio could also contain powerful subsonic signels when one day I heard a wildly deep bass and saw my bass cones trying to jump out of the caninet.
As Richard pointed out, they were hated by some because of the phase funnies it sometimes introduced, which could most often be heard as loss of deep bass and slurred bass tones. Most did nothing about it, especially so since the old style of loudness compensation was also hated for doing about the same, even if its action was the opposite of the subsonic filter.
So, just in case, I switch my sobsonic filter (nominally -3 dB at 20 Hz, 6 dB/Oct.) for phono and FM tuner sources. I find that produces a clearer and better controlled bass lines, easily heard by switching on the "direct" command, which for phono and CD bypasses everything between the input and the input of the output linear discrete op amp (in my Luxamn C-03 preamp) except the volume control.
AS Richard said, this does work and can produce better quality sound. In my case, according to Dual's doscumentation, my tonerm wtih an Ortofom LM 20 stylus should habe a small resonance point at around 9 Hz with a peak of just +2...3 dB, this allegedely controlled by the built in anti resonance filter on the tonearm itself.
AS for the loudness control, which may make the problem worse as it accentuates the bass lines, H/K introduced their "phase correct loudness", an entrire ciruit, not just a point of connectio to the volume pot, does in fact work better that the usual fare, as can be heard by gently accented bass lines, which remain clean and clear, no bloating.
Those low, low filters were usually called "subsonic" and acted at 30 Hz down, some were loer still. They varied by slope, typically 6 dB/Oct., but some were 12 dB/Oct. and a few even 18 dB/Oct. Theye were tyipically linked to the phono input, for fear of tone arm resonanes and what not, others were simply there for any and all inputs.
I found out on my own speakers that FM radio could also contain powerful subsonic signels when one day I heard a wildly deep bass and saw my bass cones trying to jump out of the caninet.
As Richard pointed out, they were hated by some because of the phase funnies it sometimes introduced, which could most often be heard as loss of deep bass and slurred bass tones. Most did nothing about it, especially so since the old style of loudness compensation was also hated for doing about the same, even if its action was the opposite of the subsonic filter.
So, just in case, I switch my sobsonic filter (nominally -3 dB at 20 Hz, 6 dB/Oct.) for phono and FM tuner sources. I find that produces a clearer and better controlled bass lines, easily heard by switching on the "direct" command, which for phono and CD bypasses everything between the input and the input of the output linear discrete op amp (in my Luxamn C-03 preamp) except the volume control.
AS Richard said, this does work and can produce better quality sound. In my case, according to Dual's doscumentation, my tonerm wtih an Ortofom LM 20 stylus should habe a small resonance point at around 9 Hz with a peak of just +2...3 dB, this allegedely controlled by the built in anti resonance filter on the tonearm itself.
AS for the loudness control, which may make the problem worse as it accentuates the bass lines, H/K introduced their "phase correct loudness", an entrire ciruit, not just a point of connectio to the volume pot, does in fact work better that the usual fare, as can be heard by gently accented bass lines, which remain clean and clear, no bloating.
IC P/N
Hi Stuart,
The input will see the line out impedance of random preamps, so anywhere between say 47 and 1k source impedance. Gain of 1, so +/-4V max input in this application. It is interesting that after all these years the 5532/4 are still relevant...and cheap!
And thanks for the LM4562 lead all, that was the chip I had forgotten...
Thanks everyone!
Howie
Howard Hoyt
CE - WXYC-FM 89.3
UNC Chapel Hill, NC
www.wxyc.org
Hi Stuart,
The input will see the line out impedance of random preamps, so anywhere between say 47 and 1k source impedance. Gain of 1, so +/-4V max input in this application. It is interesting that after all these years the 5532/4 are still relevant...and cheap!
And thanks for the LM4562 lead all, that was the chip I had forgotten...
Thanks everyone!
Howie
Howard Hoyt
CE - WXYC-FM 89.3
UNC Chapel Hill, NC
www.wxyc.org
OK, so the voltage noise will be more important than current noise, and bias currents won't be a big deal. The 4562 works well, but can be a little squirrely. 797 is a performance king, but not terribly cheap. And indeed, the 5534 continues to be a great general purpose part, a true classic.
NE5534 has the minor disadvantage of needing a 22pF compensation cap in unity gain applications.
Often, yes, assuming one is engineering for sound rather than fashion or a fancy story.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.