hahaha, *******' Murphy's law! I ditched the final buffer's cap, turned the box back on...and no audio on the left channel 
luckily, it was just the headphone's plug that wasn't fully plugged in..haha, not funny
yes, bass is back! no cap on final buffer for me kthx
OTOH, AD797B as DAC LPF seems to sound clearer w/ the caps on
luckily, it was just the headphone's plug that wasn't fully plugged in..haha, not funny
yes, bass is back! no cap on final buffer for me kthx
OTOH, AD797B as DAC LPF seems to sound clearer w/ the caps on
I got bored of the 1363...it's like 1364, it's nice for a little while then it gets odd...and it's got that nasty DC offset I want to avoid anyway
currently got 1028CS8 as final buffer, pretty nice after all..bass is very clear and punchy, trebles are not uber-colored like 136x.
as soon as I get my browndog's I'll replace it by 2*1028ACN8...and a few days later by the 1611
I've removed all the caps anyway, didn't like it.
so what do you think of the opamp I told you about in PM?
PS: yeah, 1028 is more polite and less funky than 1363, but also more transparent and less colored...hence less boring after a few days I guess. bass is tighter and less bloated as final buffer
currently got 1028CS8 as final buffer, pretty nice after all..bass is very clear and punchy, trebles are not uber-colored like 136x.
as soon as I get my browndog's I'll replace it by 2*1028ACN8...and a few days later by the 1611
I've removed all the caps anyway, didn't like it.
so what do you think of the opamp I told you about in PM?
PS: yeah, 1028 is more polite and less funky than 1363, but also more transparent and less colored...hence less boring after a few days I guess. bass is tighter and less bloated as final buffer
Last edited:
i have experience with the OPA211 that is very similiar with the OPA1611. it does not like to be loaded less then 2kOhm or it starts to sound a bit shrill. otherwise it´s fine. i am more intersted in the new AD low noise devices. they seem to have more current drive and an extremely low noise corner frequency. the literature talks about stability problems though with higher value resistors in the feedback loop.
i have experience with the OPA211 that is very similiar with the OPA1611. it does not like to be loaded less then 2kOhm or it starts to sound a bit shrill. otherwise it´s fine. i am more intersted in the new AD low noise devices. they seem to have more current drive and an extremely low noise corner frequency. the literature talks about stability problems though with higher value resistors in the feedback loop.
oh...thanks for the reminder, 1611 is the same as 211 basically? http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/solid-state/149222-burr-brown-opa1611-1612-here.html
I won't bother w/ OPA827/OPA1611 I think...the final buffer will boil down to 2*AD797BN/2*LT1028ACN8 or dual burson.
currently listening to 2*LT1028CS8...it's very undistorted yet not fatiguing, It's growing on me
827 and 211 sounded identical to me IIRC, and 12bass concurs that 211/1611 are ditto: Head-Fi: Covering Headphones, Earphones and Portable Audio - View Single Post - The Opamp thread
he also says: "Both of the dual parts (OPA2211A/OPA1612) sound smaller, less alive, and have less channel separation than the singles"...fully agreed!
I won't bother w/ OPA827/OPA1611 I think...the final buffer will boil down to 2*AD797BN/2*LT1028ACN8 or dual burson.
currently listening to 2*LT1028CS8...it's very undistorted yet not fatiguing, It's growing on me
827 and 211 sounded identical to me IIRC, and 12bass concurs that 211/1611 are ditto: Head-Fi: Covering Headphones, Earphones and Portable Audio - View Single Post - The Opamp thread
he also says: "Both of the dual parts (OPA2211A/OPA1612) sound smaller, less alive, and have less channel separation than the singles"...fully agreed!
Last edited:
Let me remind you again that you don't have to worry about DC offset in your application
As I said, for me there's no difference between the SMD and the ACN8.currently got 1028CS8 as final buffer, pretty nice after all..bass is very clear and punchy, trebles are not uber-colored like 136x.
as soon as I get my browndog's I'll replace it by 2*1028ACN8...and a few days later by the 1611
Good.
The LT1115 is like a less transparent, thus sweeter, LT1028. It should be nearly identical as far as the schematic goes, but it's cheaper, and there must be a reason. In my SVDAC05 it was stable like the LT1028.
Yeah, true. I'd have no doubt as to which to keep.PS: yeah, 1028 is more polite and less funky than 1363, but also more transparent and less colored...hence less boring after a few days I guess. bass is tighter and less bloated as final buffer
My doubt is between LT1028CS8 and OPA1611... to keep or to change, that is the question
Last edited:
Thanks, but the OPA1611 has more current than the OPA211 (made to directly drive 32 ohm headphones, through a 30 ohm 'insulation resistor', the OPA1611 performed better), and, to me, it sounds better too. There was a certain incoherence over the spectrum in the OPA211, that I didn't hear in the OPA1611.
I'd already preferred the LT1028 to the OP211AID in my two DACs, since I found it more musical and more coherent. Then came the OPA1611 to shake my certitudes a bit
Last edited:
huumm, for instance on the "Isaac Hayes - Shaft" title song from the SACD, in 24/96 FLAC...at the end of the song, they got that crazy wahwah guitar doing L/R pan several times.
It sounded AMAZING on the 1363(very high PRaT), but it's uttlerly boring on the 1028CS8...I will try w/ the burson later today. And I still think that 1028CS8 messes up w/ the AD797B SS more than 1363.
ok so let me rephrase: "the final buffer will boil down to 2*AD797BN/LT1028ACN8/LT1677CN8/LT1115CN8/dual burson."
everyone says AD8597 is amazing, but too colored to be enjoyable for more than a roll..
It sounded AMAZING on the 1363(very high PRaT), but it's uttlerly boring on the 1028CS8...I will try w/ the burson later today. And I still think that 1028CS8 messes up w/ the AD797B SS more than 1363.
ok so let me rephrase: "the final buffer will boil down to 2*AD797BN/LT1028ACN8/LT1677CN8/LT1115CN8/dual burson."
everyone says AD8597 is amazing, but too colored to be enjoyable for more than a roll..
OK, did it!
The OPA1611 is my new reference audio opamp. Fantastic.
Compared to the LT1028CS8 it sounds a little bit more relaxed and warmer, and detail resolution is at least equal. I guess this finally puts my mind at ease.
Obviously the OPA211 didn't make such an effect on me
The LT1028 remains great, and I'm glad I've got it (the ACN8) in the SVDAC05. But, things have evolved and I do feel that the OPA1611 has everything I could ask for. Ahhh....what a relief.
The OPA1611 is my new reference audio opamp. Fantastic.
Compared to the LT1028CS8 it sounds a little bit more relaxed and warmer, and detail resolution is at least equal. I guess this finally puts my mind at ease.
Obviously the OPA211 didn't make such an effect on me
The LT1028 remains great, and I'm glad I've got it (the ACN8) in the SVDAC05. But, things have evolved and I do feel that the OPA1611 has everything I could ask for. Ahhh....what a relief.
It's amazing that people in these audio forums haven't discovered the OPA1611/1612 yet. They're stuck with the OPA211, OPA827 and OPA627.
My favorite opamps from BB are the OPA1611 and the OPA132UA.
What's amazing is that you keep trying one after another without a single simple measurement or a look at the circuit it's going into, and not considering whether your choice may or may not be suitable
What's amazing is that you keep trying one after another without a single simple measurement or a look at the circuit it's going into, and not considering whether your choice may or may not be suitable
They're all suitable. They're not even 'critical' opamps...
Those that were not suitable were: THS4031, OPA2822, EL2228, OPA2613... It was impossible not to notice that they were distorting.
And yes, I only use my ears (when it comes to sound). I have a certain, obstinate pretension of superiority over any sort of machines.
You can acknowledge at the very least that specifications wise the OPA1611 & OPA211 are near-identical, so my judgment that the OPA1611 is sonically superior is respectable; do you?
Last edited:
How do you explain that even an application with nearly nothing in common with the one in my DACs, such as direct headphone amplifiers in my 24V cmoy, has confirmed that OPA627 and OPA827 are relatively unnatural, the OPA211 is a little preferable, and the OPA1611 sonically more perfect than all the former?
These 'utterly casual coincidences of results' are mind blowing, aren't they?
These 'utterly casual coincidences of results' are mind blowing, aren't they?
Last edited:
BTW I'm certain that the AD8599, being a bipolar and having promising numbers , is a good chip. I'd enjoy comparing it with the LME49725. Numerically though the latter would match the CS4398 better...so it'd be a little unfair.
Instead I'll be comparing the SVDAC05 with LT1028ACN8 to the Super Pro with OPA1611 -- this is very straightforward to do even though the SVDAC05, as I've appreciated once again this morning, sounds better with the atteunator at -11, resulting in a slightly lower output level than the (fixed) one of the Super Pro, since that level setting lends to it a luminosity that I've always appreciated, but seems to do particularly good to the LT1028ACN8 as it tends to be slightly 'dark' per se. Uff...what a sentence
, is a good chip. I'd enjoy comparing it with the LME49725. Numerically though the latter would match the CS4398 better...so it'd be a little unfair.Instead I'll be comparing the SVDAC05 with LT1028ACN8 to the Super Pro with OPA1611 -- this is very straightforward to do
even though the SVDAC05, as I've appreciated once again this morning, sounds better with the atteunator at -11, resulting in a slightly lower output level than the (fixed) one of the Super Pro, since that level setting lends to it a luminosity that I've always appreciated, but seems to do particularly good to the LT1028ACN8 as it tends to be slightly 'dark' per se. Uff...what a sentence
Last edited:
The circuit it's going into is more or less the faithful copy of the circuit shown in the CS4398 datasheet, anyway.What's amazing is that you keep trying one after another without a single simple measurement or a look at the circuit it's going into, and not considering whether your choice may or may not be suitable
Last edited:
What's amazing is that you keep trying one after another without a single simple measurement or a look at the circuit it's going into, and not considering whether your choice may or may not be suitable
Not only that, every opamp has a optimum way for being used, you cannot just drop left right and centre.
Ah...for sure. I guess that's why you're still stuck with that OPA627, or with those NE5532/5534 -- you must have invested such a big part of your life on making them sound good, it's almost impossible to make up your mind and walk over.
Funnily enough, I've never found them to sound as good as my taste desires, even in the circuits that were supposedly designed around them. Like my SVDAC05 which came with the NE5534... or my Super Pro which came with the LT1364. When the thing is imperfect...it simply is.
So you gurus must start learning how to optimize the OPA1611. Apparently it has even more potential than I think.
The same apparently goes for the LT1028ACN8.
Last edited:
Ah...for sure. I guess that's why you're still stuck with that OPA627, or with those NE5532/5534 -- you must have invested such a big part of your life on making them sound good, it's almost impossible to make up your mind and walk over.
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.