I wonder what electrical characteristics of different opamps contribute to these sonic perceptions. THD? IMD? Bandwith, noise, phase shift, slew rate? The monolithic opamp has been around for a long time, I would hope that by now chip designers know what to target for performance features that make an audio opamp work well.
Konnichiwa,
Please refer to the actual internal structure and circuit, as opposed to printing errors. Wishfull thinking - yup.
I tend to that with a lot of things, including... ahhhhm....wire.... I find the results always illuminating, frequently surprising and often amusing.
I do not ignore the NE5534 (and the circuitwise identical NE5532), I intensly dislike the way it makes all recordings sound vague, distant and boring, lifeless, including those that are supposed to sound not like that.
I am not talking about "accuracy". I will talk about accuracy and authenticity as such in recordings and performances. In terms of electronics I am actually talking about transparency, a term BTW also highly applicable to the recording side. Both recording and reproduction should be "transparent". If either process becomes distinctly audible (artificial) I consider this a "bad thing", but I do not consider two negatives a positive, outside strict abstract math.
If I want an effect, i desire a "bypass" switch, even if I rarely use it.
Of course, but we are required to look at the RIGHT measurements.
They do. Adequate in the orthodox sense, pretty poor with realistic tests, as would espect from the topology of course. The NE5534 (and co) are designed for a certain set of objective parameters totally discongruent with the way the huma ear/brain system works. If you measuyre the "right" things you will find this easily quantifiable, as long as you measure the "wrong" things, you will find a cognitive dissonance.
Maybe because it actually PRODUCES this "Ambiance"? I have tried the 5534 (among many others) in mixing desk modules, where the "wire bypass" test is often (and in our case definitly) build in as a "feature". I found it considerably additive, more so than simple non-differential discrete solid state circuitry (despite higher count of passives "in the signalpath") and in fact certain other, theoretically "lesser performance" Op-Amp's, nearly 20 years ago....
Well, where you AT the recording? Did you monitor the signal going to the ADC or tape via the local monitors or some decent 'can's? How else do you know what is actually RECORDED (you could attach high sensitivity, low impedance 'can's directly to a DAC, to act as I/V Converter and transducer - this BTW is another true "wire bypass test" that I have repeatedly done)?
I suspect you don't. I repeat, there is no accounting for taste and yes, the sonic footprint of the NE5534/32 is large enough that i the abomnible snowmans literal footprint would be AS LARGE respectively he'd long have been found.
Sayonara
TimA said:
Please refer to the actual internal structure and circuit, as opposed to printing errors. Wishfull thinking - yup.
TimA said:
I tend to that with a lot of things, including... ahhhhm....wire.... I find the results always illuminating, frequently surprising and often amusing.
TimA said:
I do not ignore the NE5534 (and the circuitwise identical NE5532), I intensly dislike the way it makes all recordings sound vague, distant and boring, lifeless, including those that are supposed to sound not like that.
TimA said:
I am not talking about "accuracy". I will talk about accuracy and authenticity as such in recordings and performances. In terms of electronics I am actually talking about transparency, a term BTW also highly applicable to the recording side. Both recording and reproduction should be "transparent". If either process becomes distinctly audible (artificial) I consider this a "bad thing", but I do not consider two negatives a positive, outside strict abstract math.
If I want an effect, i desire a "bypass" switch, even if I rarely use it.
TimA said:
Of course, but we are required to look at the RIGHT measurements.
TimA said:
They do. Adequate in the orthodox sense, pretty poor with realistic tests, as would espect from the topology of course. The NE5534 (and co) are designed for a certain set of objective parameters totally discongruent with the way the huma ear/brain system works. If you measuyre the "right" things you will find this easily quantifiable, as long as you measure the "wrong" things, you will find a cognitive dissonance.
TimA said:
Maybe because it actually PRODUCES this "Ambiance"? I have tried the 5534 (among many others) in mixing desk modules, where the "wire bypass" test is often (and in our case definitly) build in as a "feature". I found it considerably additive, more so than simple non-differential discrete solid state circuitry (despite higher count of passives "in the signalpath") and in fact certain other, theoretically "lesser performance" Op-Amp's, nearly 20 years ago....
TimA said:
Well, where you AT the recording? Did you monitor the signal going to the ADC or tape via the local monitors or some decent 'can's? How else do you know what is actually RECORDED (you could attach high sensitivity, low impedance 'can's directly to a DAC, to act as I/V Converter and transducer - this BTW is another true "wire bypass test" that I have repeatedly done)?
TimA said:
I suspect you don't. I repeat, there is no accounting for taste and yes, the sonic footprint of the NE5534/32 is large enough that i the abomnible snowmans literal footprint would be AS LARGE respectively he'd long have been found.
Sayonara
Konnichiwa,
Me too.
Strictly and clearly NO, now HD, with a view to low level but high order patterns maybe, but THD - absolutely not.
More milage here, especially using wideband noise as test signal (noise loading) as opposed to dual tones.
Let's put noise to one side, if the circuit is competently designed (few are - I shall admit) noise is a non-issue.
Now bandwidth, phase response and slew rate are all related, stronly so. And of course, they have a direct impact on complex signal IMD. And of course, most of the time, in most applications (as long as we keep the playing field level enough basically) the fater the circuit inside the feedback loop, the less intrusive the percieved sound effect.
Of course, it is easy to get "fast" Looped feedback amplifiers to the limits of their stability margin and putting outs bursts of VHF oscillation with a random noise signal of sufficient level. Any "fast" circuit, even open loop, even valve based does not suffer fools gladly, if at all.
They absolutely do. I find that there are several monolithic Op-Amp's I personally do not have the skills and energy to match with discrete solid state circuitry, objectively and subjectively. However, the NE5534 & NE5532 is not one of them, I'm afraid.
Sayonara
maylar said:
Me too.
maylar said:
Strictly and clearly NO, now HD, with a view to low level but high order patterns maybe, but THD - absolutely not.
maylar said:
More milage here, especially using wideband noise as test signal (noise loading) as opposed to dual tones.
maylar said:
Let's put noise to one side, if the circuit is competently designed (few are - I shall admit) noise is a non-issue.
Now bandwidth, phase response and slew rate are all related, stronly so. And of course, they have a direct impact on complex signal IMD. And of course, most of the time, in most applications (as long as we keep the playing field level enough basically) the fater the circuit inside the feedback loop, the less intrusive the percieved sound effect.
Of course, it is easy to get "fast" Looped feedback amplifiers to the limits of their stability margin and putting outs bursts of VHF oscillation with a random noise signal of sufficient level. Any "fast" circuit, even open loop, even valve based does not suffer fools gladly, if at all.
maylar said:
They absolutely do. I find that there are several monolithic Op-Amp's I personally do not have the skills and energy to match with discrete solid state circuitry, objectively and subjectively. However, the NE5534 & NE5532 is not one of them, I'm afraid.
Sayonara
I meant input bias current, not supply current!
The dc bias current flowing into and out off the + and - pins limits the 5534 to circuitry with a low to medium dc source impedance.
I've found that if you use a 5534 with a high dc source impedance the sound suffers. (Even though the ac source impedance might be low. It seems to be more than an output dc offset issue).
The 5534 is one of the few op-amps that don't seem to have increased distortion because of the common-mode signal though, so it's quite happy in non-inverting mode.
The dc bias current flowing into and out off the + and - pins limits the 5534 to circuitry with a low to medium dc source impedance.
I've found that if you use a 5534 with a high dc source impedance the sound suffers. (Even though the ac source impedance might be low. It seems to be more than an output dc offset issue).
The 5534 is one of the few op-amps that don't seem to have increased distortion because of the common-mode signal though, so it's quite happy in non-inverting mode.
Kuei Yang Wang said:
KYW,
Aren't ALL opamps designed with "objective parameters totally discongruent with the way the huma ear/brain system works"?? I certainly hope so. God saves us from opamp designers trying to second-guess my or your brain processes!
I would be interested in any that would have been designed with the ear/brain worked into the specs.
Jan Didden
uncoloured restitution means having the same equipment as used in post-production and the same listening conditions.
Same listening conditions (room acoustics): guess
Same sound equipment (d/a, pre, amp, loudspeakers): guess
In recordings older than 10 years, there may be some 553X involved, with their 'colorations' or equipment to reciproke them, filtering them out. (perhaps, perhaps not): guess
Conclusion: there's no uncoloured recording, so stop fighting eachother about this criteria, it involves only the colouration you like, wich wasn't by definition the sound wanted by the post-production team.
Beat me with that rythm-stick, beat me.....
ps: the placement and brand or model of the pick up mikes has more influence than all of this.
Personally I don't like post-produced-music made with b&w 801 because my loudspeakers are better (read different) and sound awfull with that kind of input.
Same listening conditions (room acoustics): guess
Same sound equipment (d/a, pre, amp, loudspeakers): guess
In recordings older than 10 years, there may be some 553X involved, with their 'colorations' or equipment to reciproke them, filtering them out. (perhaps, perhaps not): guess
Conclusion: there's no uncoloured recording, so stop fighting eachother about this criteria, it involves only the colouration you like, wich wasn't by definition the sound wanted by the post-production team.
Beat me with that rythm-stick, beat me.....
ps: the placement and brand or model of the pick up mikes has more influence than all of this.
Personally I don't like post-produced-music made with b&w 801 because my loudspeakers are better (read different) and sound awfull with that kind of input.
K.Y.W.
I see your point, but this is to miss the point of the NE5534's sound and how it relates to the sound of a live concert. Whether or not the NE5534 accurately reproduces the sound as recorded it 'recreates' the sound as it should have been recorded. One can argue the pros and cons of this until one is blue in the face but I cannot see how anyone that has sat half way back in almost any concert hall you care to mention cannot listen to the NE5534 and say it doesn't reproduce this perspective more convincingly than other op-amps. Moreover, as a professional pianist, I don't need any wire bypass test to tell me that the two op-amps that reproduce the sound of the piano most convincingly are the NE5534 and the (suitably bypassed) LM6171, each has different strengths, however it would be very interesting to try the wire bypass the test when/if I have the inclination.
I don't indulge in wishfull thinking.
Regards,
Tim.
I see your point, but this is to miss the point of the NE5534's sound and how it relates to the sound of a live concert. Whether or not the NE5534 accurately reproduces the sound as recorded it 'recreates' the sound as it should have been recorded. One can argue the pros and cons of this until one is blue in the face but I cannot see how anyone that has sat half way back in almost any concert hall you care to mention cannot listen to the NE5534 and say it doesn't reproduce this perspective more convincingly than other op-amps. Moreover, as a professional pianist, I don't need any wire bypass test to tell me that the two op-amps that reproduce the sound of the piano most convincingly are the NE5534 and the (suitably bypassed) LM6171, each has different strengths, however it would be very interesting to try the wire bypass the test when/if I have the inclination.
I don't indulge in wishfull thinking.
Regards,
Tim.
The NE5532 in my phono stage.
Hi Tim,
I built a passive eq'd RIAA preamp and have tried the NE5532 , OPA2134 and AD826 opamps in it.
I found the sound to be different between chips with the 2134 being closer to the AD826.
The NE5532 sounds very nice but compared to the other two the sound of percussion is sharper and cleaner on the 2134 and 826 .
The 826 is better than the 2134 by a slight margin -- I think.
Now it is hard for me to determine if the sound of the NE5532 is closer to what is really recorded on disc . Maybe the 826 and 2134 are "over reacting" to a transient signal , making it sound sharper .
There is no doubt however that the NE5532 is very musical . The other chips do sometimes seem to have a slight 'edge' to vocals. The NE5532 sounds better to the ear in this case.
Has anyone tried the AD829 chip ?
Cheers.
Ashok.
Hi Tim,
I built a passive eq'd RIAA preamp and have tried the NE5532 , OPA2134 and AD826 opamps in it.
I found the sound to be different between chips with the 2134 being closer to the AD826.
The NE5532 sounds very nice but compared to the other two the sound of percussion is sharper and cleaner on the 2134 and 826 .
The 826 is better than the 2134 by a slight margin -- I think.
Now it is hard for me to determine if the sound of the NE5532 is closer to what is really recorded on disc . Maybe the 826 and 2134 are "over reacting" to a transient signal , making it sound sharper .
There is no doubt however that the NE5532 is very musical . The other chips do sometimes seem to have a slight 'edge' to vocals. The NE5532 sounds better to the ear in this case.
Has anyone tried the AD829 chip ?
Cheers.
Ashok.
Very interesting.
Sound Vague : both true and false, my Signetics's NE5534N sound very clear better than OPA627 and musical with a better 3 dimensional sensation but my TI(Texas Instrument)'s NE5534P sound vague. I don't have Philips NE5534, no comparison can be made. Perhaps I shall get 2.
Sound quality : No fair judgement as it depends on personal taste and system configuration.
Regarding NE5532, I have another smaller system using a CD player with DAC of PCM1716 a good sounding DAC chip came with 3 pcs Philips's NE5532. When I first saw the NE5532s(old guy) , I dismantled them immediately and modified the analogue filters using 2134 according to the application notes in data sheet of Burr Brown PCM1737(may be not a correct way) to make it direct coupling. After seeing this thread, I replaced the 2134 with Philips's 5532. It works very well, very clear and musical too. Although 2134 has a comfortable sweet sound, some frequency performance seems unnatural. At this moment, 5532 stayed in this CD player instead of 2134. Perhaps I shall change it back later. BTW, intuitively, I don't think the Philips is better than the Signetics.
Cheers
John
Sound Vague : both true and false, my Signetics's NE5534N sound very clear better than OPA627 and musical with a better 3 dimensional sensation but my TI(Texas Instrument)'s NE5534P sound vague. I don't have Philips NE5534, no comparison can be made. Perhaps I shall get 2.
Sound quality : No fair judgement as it depends on personal taste and system configuration.
Regarding NE5532, I have another smaller system using a CD player with DAC of PCM1716 a good sounding DAC chip came with 3 pcs Philips's NE5532. When I first saw the NE5532s(old guy) , I dismantled them immediately and modified the analogue filters using 2134 according to the application notes in data sheet of Burr Brown PCM1737(may be not a correct way) to make it direct coupling. After seeing this thread, I replaced the 2134 with Philips's 5532. It works very well, very clear and musical too. Although 2134 has a comfortable sweet sound, some frequency performance seems unnatural. At this moment, 5532 stayed in this CD player instead of 2134. Perhaps I shall change it back later. BTW, intuitively, I don't think the Philips is better than the Signetics.
Cheers
John
Tim
If you send me, a self-address envelope I have some “a” grade versions 5534's of course you will have to pay for the return postage for the parts. I have a half a dozen are so. These parts are graded to Mill 883B by signets and are built back in the early 80’s.
You can email me from DIYAUDIO if you are interested This way I won’t have to toss them.
If you send me, a self-address envelope I have some “a” grade versions 5534's of course you will have to pay for the return postage for the parts. I have a half a dozen are so. These parts are graded to Mill 883B by signets and are built back in the early 80’s.
You can email me from DIYAUDIO if you are interested This way I won’t have to toss them.
This Philips vs. Signetics issue is somewhat interesting, especially
if talking about older devices as in a recent post. As most of you
probably know, Signetics used to be owned by Philips, so if these
devices were actually sold under both brand names, were they
still different?? It seems that Signetics is now again a separate
company, since 1995, but it is not the previous old US company,
but a Korean company based around the plant that the
old US Signetics company founded in
Korea before Philips bought Signetics in 1975.
This raises a lot of questions about similarities/differences
between Philips and Signetics 553x, both for pre-95 and post-95
devices.
if talking about older devices as in a recent post. As most of you
probably know, Signetics used to be owned by Philips, so if these
devices were actually sold under both brand names, were they
still different?? It seems that Signetics is now again a separate
company, since 1995, but it is not the previous old US company,
but a Korean company based around the plant that the
old US Signetics company founded in
Korea before Philips bought Signetics in 1975.
This raises a lot of questions about similarities/differences
between Philips and Signetics 553x, both for pre-95 and post-95
devices.
Thank Christer for his information. As I mentioned, I have never compared any Philips with Signetics, I SUBJECTIVELY thought that Philips is no better than Signetics(irrational). According to Christer's information, my Signetics have date code 8609 and 8416, logically, they should be same as Philips.
Cheers
John
Cheers
John
- Status
- This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.