Yeah. It's a real bummer. I just bit the bullet and ordered mine from Farnell along with other components. At least the shipping was spread out over some of the other parts I needed. But in the end, this project will be expensive and hopefully worth it.
A question for the group here. I have been reading through this thread and I am wondering where I can get a copy of the schematic for this pre-amp, and also where one could procure a board to build one of these devices? I am trying to figure out which volumes of the Linear journals I would have to purchase to get the entire article and not just pieces. If Doug Self is reading this thread are you going to print another book and include all of this information in one place or is it already in your previous book on small signal devices? I would love to get in on building this and learning what is going on here and have no problems with 5532 chips or whatever is found to do the job.
Steven
Steven
Steven -
The 3-part series of articles including all PCBs has been written up in several recent issues of Elektor magazine. Starting with the April 2012 issue. The first such article started here. If you are a not a subscriber, you can download the articles and parts list for a few bucks I believe. There are 6/7 different boards required for the full project. Gathering all the parts may take some time, but don't let that deter you. Newark/Farnell has most parts in stock, although the 1k pots generally have to be back ordered and are pricey. The PCBs themselves can be ordered directly from Elektor.
Personally, I have all the boards completed, but untested as I am waiting for a suitable enclosure before completing all the required internal wiring and ribbon cable requirements. It's unclear at this point whether Elektor will offer a nice, high-quality case. I'm hoping they do.
Rick
The 3-part series of articles including all PCBs has been written up in several recent issues of Elektor magazine. Starting with the April 2012 issue. The first such article started here. If you are a not a subscriber, you can download the articles and parts list for a few bucks I believe. There are 6/7 different boards required for the full project. Gathering all the parts may take some time, but don't let that deter you. Newark/Farnell has most parts in stock, although the 1k pots generally have to be back ordered and are pricey. The PCBs themselves can be ordered directly from Elektor.
Personally, I have all the boards completed, but untested as I am waiting for a suitable enclosure before completing all the required internal wiring and ribbon cable requirements. It's unclear at this point whether Elektor will offer a nice, high-quality case. I'm hoping they do.
Rick
Rick,
Thank you for that information. No I am not a subscriber but perhaps I should be? I see the link to the boards on that first page and there are it seems seven boards that need to be used for the complete preamp design. Is there a reason besides offering each board as a stand alone circuit that there is not a monolithic board with everything on a single board? Would that have any advantage to not having to string all the boards together with ribbon cables and are you better off using twisted pairs of wires in some of these interconnections rather than a ribbon cable and the parallel wires and inductive problems this could have? The magazine as single copies does not seem overpriced, I assume that a yearly subscription is much cheaper than individual issues.
Again thank you for the information.
Steven
ps. has there been any thought to a group purchase for those 1k pots rather than one at a time at the maximum price?
Thank you for that information. No I am not a subscriber but perhaps I should be? I see the link to the boards on that first page and there are it seems seven boards that need to be used for the complete preamp design. Is there a reason besides offering each board as a stand alone circuit that there is not a monolithic board with everything on a single board? Would that have any advantage to not having to string all the boards together with ribbon cables and are you better off using twisted pairs of wires in some of these interconnections rather than a ribbon cable and the parallel wires and inductive problems this could have? The magazine as single copies does not seem overpriced, I assume that a yearly subscription is much cheaper than individual issues.
Again thank you for the information.
Steven
ps. has there been any thought to a group purchase for those 1k pots rather than one at a time at the maximum price?
I have an RFQ in with omeg to see what i will cost to get some on this side of the pond.
dtharper,
From that description I am going to assume you are in England or across the sea....
Another question then. I was looking at the view of the PC boards and correct me if I am wrong, but are the boards created for all surface mount components? I see no holes and the spacing would lead me to that conclusion. Care to elucidate on that? I have never built anything with surface mount devices, looks a bit harder to accomplish without making a mess of it....
From that description I am going to assume you are in England or across the sea....
Another question then. I was looking at the view of the PC boards and correct me if I am wrong, but are the boards created for all surface mount components? I see no holes and the spacing would lead me to that conclusion. Care to elucidate on that? I have never built anything with surface mount devices, looks a bit harder to accomplish without making a mess of it....
So I guess if you use tone defeat you nail the servant in a fixed position?
That would be barbaric! I use cyanoacrylate and duct tape.
Yes, yes, yes !!!!!!! finally
What use is technical perfection when you don't actually like sitting and listening to it.
Absolutely true! The reason for having tone controls is so you can actually make it sound nice!
Not to upset anyone... One can get used to a characteristic sound from one's everyday system and judge other systems by what one is expecting it to sound like. Better could just as easily sound worse.
First thing I did was sign up for a subscription to Elektor. The multiple PBCs was just they way it was designed by D.S. and implemented by Elektor. Initially, I thought that it was just a single board too, but quickly learned there are multiple PBCs involved. 7 boards are needed because you need two (2) input boards for stereo operation. The ribbon cable is for control only and not used for any signal. Other necessary cables inside the case would require shielded wire- especially between to/from the phono board.
I never heard of a group purchase on the pots yet, but I guess if there is enough interest here it could be arranged. I'm presently planning and mocking up the design of a suitable enclosure. Will probably try to use something I can buy off the shelf from suppliers I use in China to start with and go from there with the required customization.
Rick
dtharper,
Well if enough people would be interested in purchasing the pots I would join the crowd, could bring the price down a bunch. I do see some cabinets on Ebay that may suite your needs but I'm not sure how much real-estate you will need internal to the case. I'll have to do a conversion on the subscription price for Elektor as it was in these funny units of pounds. I didn't see a dollar price except for the boards.
Well if enough people would be interested in purchasing the pots I would join the crowd, could bring the price down a bunch. I do see some cabinets on Ebay that may suite your needs but I'm not sure how much real-estate you will need internal to the case. I'll have to do a conversion on the subscription price for Elektor as it was in these funny units of pounds. I didn't see a dollar price except for the boards.
I have been following the thread from the outset and I do not think that things are quite as "bad" or obvious as owdeo states, but he is trying to push the point across that something is unexpectedly different and he is looking for a possible explanation and everyone gave something.
I do not think for one moment that everyone offering an explanation or cause actually heard different op-amps doing what op-amps do but he got some opinions in any event, whether these where helpful, only he can tell and of course only he can solve in the long run. Obviously it has to sound acceptable to him.
I honestly do not think that Doug did anything to affect the sound of an op-amp, he may have chosen one that he enjoyed or made the most sense for his design. Whether this is everyone's cup of tea is impossible to predict.
Luckily most op-amps follow a standard pin-out so one can replace or even mix them at will.
Since reading oweo's reviews, which I think was very nicely compiled, I have decided to listen to a few op-amps that I have in my junk box.
I have some pretty old NE5532 (>10yrs) from Texas, some from On-Semi and also Fairchild.
I use HD800's with Lazy Cat's L-MOSFET SSA being on hand and I think a very revealing amp.
I first used a simple inverting and then a non-inverting socketed configurations so that I can swap op-amps and listen.
Each manufacturer's NE5532 sounded subtly different from another more so did inverting from non-inverting.
When saying subtle, I mean exactly that I think I heard something different, maybe better high end definition whatever....Hard to tell with one of the worlds best sounding speakers one centimetre from my ear and zero room acoustics and other distractions.
Just to spoil the broth completely.... I dropped in an AD711 and I thought it sounded best.
What does that prove, I think absolutely nothing it was purely a choice I made based on what I thought I experienced.
If I do the same test tomorrow it might have a different outcome.
I do not think for one moment that everyone offering an explanation or cause actually heard different op-amps doing what op-amps do but he got some opinions in any event, whether these where helpful, only he can tell and of course only he can solve in the long run. Obviously it has to sound acceptable to him.
I honestly do not think that Doug did anything to affect the sound of an op-amp, he may have chosen one that he enjoyed or made the most sense for his design. Whether this is everyone's cup of tea is impossible to predict.
Luckily most op-amps follow a standard pin-out so one can replace or even mix them at will.
Since reading oweo's reviews, which I think was very nicely compiled, I have decided to listen to a few op-amps that I have in my junk box.
I have some pretty old NE5532 (>10yrs) from Texas, some from On-Semi and also Fairchild.
I use HD800's with Lazy Cat's L-MOSFET SSA being on hand and I think a very revealing amp.
I first used a simple inverting and then a non-inverting socketed configurations so that I can swap op-amps and listen.
Each manufacturer's NE5532 sounded subtly different from another more so did inverting from non-inverting.
When saying subtle, I mean exactly that I think I heard something different, maybe better high end definition whatever....Hard to tell with one of the worlds best sounding speakers one centimetre from my ear and zero room acoustics and other distractions.
Just to spoil the broth completely.... I dropped in an AD711 and I thought it sounded best.
What does that prove, I think absolutely nothing it was purely a choice I made based on what I thought I experienced.
If I do the same test tomorrow it might have a different outcome.
And my conclusion - sorry for leaving it out
The point I was actually making is that simply specifying NE5532 is not quite enough, one has to specify the manufacturer, because each uses a different process, their transistors have different impurities different substrates with different temperature coefficients are used, therefor an NE5532 from Philips is not necessarily the equivalent to NE5532 from On-Semi. They have the same name but they are not twins not even family, they are look alike at best.
I believe that there are as many subtle differences between similar parts than there are between different parts. Therefor choose the one that you find most appealing or what you are expecting to hear.
The point I was actually making is that simply specifying NE5532 is not quite enough, one has to specify the manufacturer, because each uses a different process, their transistors have different impurities different substrates with different temperature coefficients are used, therefor an NE5532 from Philips is not necessarily the equivalent to NE5532 from On-Semi. They have the same name but they are not twins not even family, they are look alike at best.
I believe that there are as many subtle differences between similar parts than there are between different parts. Therefor choose the one that you find most appealing or what you are expecting to hear.
Last edited:
Nico -
So you did or did not use a completely wired up, new version of this new D.S. pre-amp. If not, what relevance does swapping out the op amps have to the central discussion of this thread, that is; 'New Doug Self pre-amp design...' ?
Shouldn't one try and keep the swapping of parts as scientific as possible, by only changing one component/characteristic at a time? Introducing other pre-amps, or even amplifiers mitigates how the op amps may/will sound with Doug's new design! I think it's time for someone who has actually built an operational version of this pre-amp and can offer some concrete evidence, to chime in here with objective (and subjective) listening comments. Only then will we get some idea of the sonic signature this pre-amp adds(or detracts) to the original sound. For good, or bad.
Am I way out in left field here?
So you did or did not use a completely wired up, new version of this new D.S. pre-amp. If not, what relevance does swapping out the op amps have to the central discussion of this thread, that is; 'New Doug Self pre-amp design...' ?
Shouldn't one try and keep the swapping of parts as scientific as possible, by only changing one component/characteristic at a time? Introducing other pre-amps, or even amplifiers mitigates how the op amps may/will sound with Doug's new design! I think it's time for someone who has actually built an operational version of this pre-amp and can offer some concrete evidence, to chime in here with objective (and subjective) listening comments. Only then will we get some idea of the sonic signature this pre-amp adds(or detracts) to the original sound. For good, or bad.
Am I way out in left field here?
Kindhornman -
At some point we have to rely on the designer's knowledge, experience and history to 'wonder' if his/her design is worthy of our hard-earned dollars? D.S.'s collective body of audio hardware design knowledge is vast, broad and well-known. To be picking apart his design (not that you are) - that apparently - no one has even heard yet seems pointless, and furthermore unfounded! I don't think there are many of us that would dis a Nelson Pass amp - especially not ever having heard it first!
redjr,
my point actually has everything to do with Doug's pre-amp as it was mentioned that NE5532 sounds "wrong" in this particular design. The idea to note is, which NE5532 does not appeal to you?
If you followed the thread from the outset you will see there are "complaints", I am saying it is not Doug's design it can be attributed to a part by a specific manufacturer, That is it.
I have not seen the schematic, but knowing Doug's designs from the early 90s, I would say he is half capable at what he does and that most every component he uses is passive and probably has a lesser affect on the overall sound character of the active component.
If he parallels active components it is tricks that we used in the early 80s in IF systems to reduce all non-coherent and improve all coherent characteristics and therefor ended with 20log{sqrt(number of units in parallel)} improvements in noise, linearity, second and third order inter modulation products etc.
So I believe that Doug's design is probably earmarked to make the best of the active element you chose without going overboard.
my point actually has everything to do with Doug's pre-amp as it was mentioned that NE5532 sounds "wrong" in this particular design. The idea to note is, which NE5532 does not appeal to you?
If you followed the thread from the outset you will see there are "complaints", I am saying it is not Doug's design it can be attributed to a part by a specific manufacturer, That is it.
I have not seen the schematic, but knowing Doug's designs from the early 90s, I would say he is half capable at what he does and that most every component he uses is passive and probably has a lesser affect on the overall sound character of the active component.
If he parallels active components it is tricks that we used in the early 80s in IF systems to reduce all non-coherent and improve all coherent characteristics and therefor ended with 20log{sqrt(number of units in parallel)} improvements in noise, linearity, second and third order inter modulation products etc.
So I believe that Doug's design is probably earmarked to make the best of the active element you chose without going overboard.