As a matter of fact no, Im using Ad4898, if you do more homework and use the chips more the way they supposed to be youll notice that the diffrence between their sound is much smaller, i bet 90 percent of your drop ins are oscilating or having some other anomally it shouldnt if used properly. Yes even 5532 can sound darn good, place a jfet Ltp at its input bypassing its ltp and come speak to me again.
What an extremism! You say that 90% of the opamps I've used were oscillating!!!
The NE5534 sounded darn decent, no doubt... but drop in an LT1357 and you start realizing how much better things can sound today. Are you ready to bet that it was oscillating? LOL. You must not have a high opinion of your sonic discernment, to think so lowly of mine.
Generally, when an opamp is misbehaving, even subtly, you promptly hear it as hardness or aggressiveness..
And aside from all that, I stand by my certitude that every opamp has its own, unique sonic personality, unfailingly identified (if you have eyes/ears to see/hear) by the numbers in its name. I know this will make me unpopular in such a land of techie hardcores as this
but so it is.P.S. I'm not interested in digging into how to tweak an old chip like a NE5532 to bring it more up to date. I prefer to take a simpler route... e.g. OPA1612, LME49725
Last edited:
Attachments
And you do not see LT1028 as OLD ?
(glad i got rid of most of them years ago)
It may be old but it's much lower distortion than a NE5532 or NE5534. Check Samuel Groner's "opamp measurement shootout"...the LT1115 has been tested at least. To me it's (the LT1028ACN8) a much better sounding opamp than a TI NE5534, I don't know the Signetics. It still leaves most other chips behind.. and I'm glad I'm using it in one of my two DACs.
That it is great & old at the same time, is all the more reason to finally advertise it as it would've deserved
But... hey, this super new OPA1611 sounds great.
Last edited:
The two DACs (now one has the OPA1611, while the other has the LT1028ACN8) continue to sound nearly identical.
I guess the guy above thought that I would be hearing dramatic changes from opamp to opamp, while it's the microscopic what I've been talking about all the time... put under a magnifying lens for descriptive purposes
On the other hand, it's the microscopic what counts for my ears... the macroscopic being taken for granted.
Anyway, returning to the two DACs... you can't hear obvious differences just A-B switching. You must first get addicted to one, then switch and get addicted to the other, to focus the sonic difference (which exists) between LT1028ACN8 and OPA1611 (which I would place on the same quality level, both being terribly close to sheer transparency).
I guess the guy above thought that I would be hearing dramatic changes from opamp to opamp, while it's the microscopic what I've been talking about all the time... put under a magnifying lens for descriptive purposes
On the other hand, it's the microscopic what counts for my ears... the macroscopic being taken for granted.
Anyway, returning to the two DACs... you can't hear obvious differences just A-B switching. You must first get addicted to one, then switch and get addicted to the other, to focus the sonic difference (which exists) between LT1028ACN8 and OPA1611 (which I would place on the same quality level, both being terribly close to sheer transparency).
AD797 or OPA627 aren't exactly new either, but if cost wasn't an issue what opamps would you use? Not the NE5532 for sure. I have an oscillsocope, and even with the right compensation it just isn't on par with better chips. Whith the cheap LME chips, I can see no reason to use NE5532 unless you want a "slower"/softer sound.
I just bought some LT1028s and dropped them in one of my amps. It's slightly brighter than neutral. It'll probably need some comp caps, and when I have the time I'll hook it up to the scope and listen to it again.
I just bought some LT1028s and dropped them in one of my amps. It's slightly brighter than neutral. It'll probably need some comp caps, and when I have the time I'll hook it up to the scope and listen to it again.
Last edited:
LT1028 seems to be a cranky opamp. It oscillated without compensation caps. If you use LT1028 you should check it with an oscilloscope.
Still, it really doesn't sound any different "overcompensated" and not oscillating. It's still on the brighter side of neutral, and thus gives the impression of better details. I think I have to build a dedicated amp for it to find out what it's capable of.
Comparing LM4562 to LT1028 is almost like comparing E-mu 1212M to Zero DAC (both of them modded). Is it the number 8 in end of LT1028 and CS4398 that adds that little extra treble?
Still, it really doesn't sound any different "overcompensated" and not oscillating. It's still on the brighter side of neutral, and thus gives the impression of better details. I think I have to build a dedicated amp for it to find out what it's capable of.
Comparing LM4562 to LT1028 is almost like comparing E-mu 1212M to Zero DAC (both of them modded). Is it the number 8 in end of LT1028 and CS4398 that adds that little extra treble?
On page 13 of the datasheet they show the unity gain configurations in which the LT1028 is stable. The circuit in both my DACs corresponds to at least one of the two situations in which the LT1028 is stable (source resistance).
So I believe it's stable in my SVDAC05. Still, the sound compared to the new OPA1611 is like "very audiophile", not the most communicative admittedly.
It's not that it's brighter than the OPA1611, just that it lacks that last bit of body, and color. I want to try to bias it to class A with a 1.2 mA bias (12.1K resistor on +/-15.3V power supply), as majkel said it gained that last bit of fullness and warmth that way.
BTW, this OPA1611 is amazing... did I mention it?
Last edited:
Well, trying to follow 57 pages of posts from the begining...
When I left audio as a hobby to play with old British cars, the 5532 was the "breakthrough". Things have sure come a long way.
Just as a place to start, Would getting a tube of LM4562's be a bad choice to upgrade my various "dated" boards? Maybe after that build a nice can amp with two sets of chips so I can switch between them for subjective evaluations.
Downloaded the 400 page tomb. Most excellent.
When I left audio as a hobby to play with old British cars, the 5532 was the "breakthrough". Things have sure come a long way.
Just as a place to start, Would getting a tube of LM4562's be a bad choice to upgrade my various "dated" boards? Maybe after that build a nice can amp with two sets of chips so I can switch between them for subjective evaluations.
Downloaded the 400 page tomb. Most excellent.
It isn't a bad choice, if you're looking for a dual opamp in a DIP package.
Consider also the (rounder) LME49860 and the (smoother) LME49720, though.
If you don't mind the idea of SMD opamps on Browndogs... consider the LME49725 and the LME49723.
Aside from these ones, some other great choices would be the OPA1612 (also SMD only) and the OPA2132P (always a solid choice, with FET input).
And from AD, consider the new ADA4051-2.
Consider also the (rounder) LME49860 and the (smoother) LME49720, though.
If you don't mind the idea of SMD opamps on Browndogs... consider the LME49725 and the LME49723.
Aside from these ones, some other great choices would be the OPA1612 (also SMD only) and the OPA2132P (always a solid choice, with FET input).
And from AD, consider the new ADA4051-2.
Last edited:
I think you're talking by hyperboles, as usual
BTW, how funny. Whenever from time to time I go back to listening to my CD player (Cambridge Audio D300SE, tweaked), I keep being pleasantly surprised by its warm, luminous, soothing musicality...
I'm starting to question the musicality of these new and "super" DAC chips. My CD player has a CS4338, a tiny 8-pin 24/96 DAC which "only" has 92 dB of S/N ratio and -88 dB of THD. Oh and on its output (hidden by a metallic shielding cover) there must've always been a 5532.
BTW, how funny. Whenever from time to time I go back to listening to my CD player (Cambridge Audio D300SE, tweaked), I keep being pleasantly surprised by its warm, luminous, soothing musicality...
I'm starting to question the musicality of these new and "super" DAC chips. My CD player has a CS4338, a tiny 8-pin 24/96 DAC which "only" has 92 dB of S/N ratio and -88 dB of THD. Oh and on its output (hidden by a metallic shielding cover) there must've always been a 5532.
I think I'd enjoy trying that NG98 with the AD1852, as I remember this chip to (funnily since it's not even the same brand) produce a similar sound to my CDP...still a little more bland, but, possibly, more similar than my 2 DACs equipped with CS4398. Then I can play with the opamps to tailor the sound further
That or the Poppulse...curious about the BB DAC chips.
That or the Poppulse...curious about the BB DAC chips.
Last edited:
Huh? Google says "discrete opamp"..
Anyway... I like this too
Welcome to Audiophilechina
And it costs just 119 euro shipped. I like the PCM1702 + OPA134 = 123479, which promises a good combination with my amp's JRC 4570.
Yepp... the numbers are the key, as usual. My CDP has CS4338 + NE5532, a lot of 3's and 5's, i.e. what for my ears are the most 'music friendly numbers'.
Last edited:
Andrea and Leeperry
Some real world examples of substituting opamps without optimising anything. The circuit is a simple inverting configuration gain of 1 buffer with 100k feedback and input resistors. The circuit is on a proper PCB.
The output was at 2 volts peak to peak
Hover cursor over each for details
Some real world examples of substituting opamps without optimising anything. The circuit is a simple inverting configuration gain of 1 buffer with 100k feedback and input resistors. The circuit is on a proper PCB.
The output was at 2 volts peak to peak
Hover cursor over each for details
Attachments
Now at 20khz and 4 volts pk pk, first no compensation, then 3pf and then 5 pf. Note the sharp non linearity now with 5pf and a higher output voltage.
This is a detail of the leading edge.
Notice how only 2pf extra leads to that non linearity.
This is a detail of the leading edge.
Notice how only 2pf extra leads to that non linearity.
Attachments
Last edited:
