I hope you realize that you simply cannot usually compare the sound of opamps by swapping them all into the same circuit, as you have described.
If a competent engineer tailored the original circuit design for a particular type of op amp, then any other type of op amp might perform poorly, when used in that circuit.
For such a comparison to have much meaning, or be at all "fair", you would have to have circuits that were specifically designed for each different type of op amp.
If a competent engineer tailored the original circuit design for a particular type of op amp, then any other type of op amp might perform poorly, when used in that circuit.
For such a comparison to have much meaning, or be at all "fair", you would have to have circuits that were specifically designed for each different type of op amp.
I agree,
However, Burson seem to think their circuit will work in replacement of quite a long list..
HD Audio Opamp
NB has anyone tried a discreet component OPamp circuit? (or built one?)
(I have no link to the above company the link is for interest)
Regards
M. Gregg
Last edited:
I'm with Gootee on this, opamp rolling without considering the type of chip or the circuit it's destined for is a waste of time. There is no such thing as a "best" opamp, they all have different design criteria, and should be utilized accordingly.
Also as for "However, Burson seem to think their circuit will work in replacement of quite a long list..", of course they do, and companies like Bose market thier crap as "Great sounding", I rest my case.
Mike
Also as for "However, Burson seem to think their circuit will work in replacement of quite a long list..", of course they do, and companies like Bose market thier crap as "Great sounding", I rest my case.
Mike
Many years ago,
some equipment I used to work on had discreet component OPamps for accurate measuring and sample and hold. They were quite large devices and went under the name of Nexus Philbrick. Big black plastic potted boxes..with gold pin plug and sockets. (Some had analoge devices/teledyne logo on the front)
The Philbrick Archive
I always wondered what they would "sound" like in audio..I never tried them..they were very, expensive at the time. (NB these were discreet transistor not tube based)
Some of the standard chips were also available in military package<<<it looked like two pieces of ceramic with black /white potting compound between the top and bottom..741 was available at the time in this package..the legs came out of the compound between the top and bottom ceramic layers.
Regards
M. Gregg
some equipment I used to work on had discreet component OPamps for accurate measuring and sample and hold. They were quite large devices and went under the name of Nexus Philbrick. Big black plastic potted boxes..with gold pin plug and sockets. (Some had analoge devices/teledyne logo on the front)
The Philbrick Archive
I always wondered what they would "sound" like in audio..I never tried them..they were very, expensive at the time. (NB these were discreet transistor not tube based)
Some of the standard chips were also available in military package<<<it looked like two pieces of ceramic with black /white potting compound between the top and bottom..741 was available at the time in this package..the legs came out of the compound between the top and bottom ceramic layers.
Regards
M. Gregg
Last edited:
Do you realise that these were all produced as potted discrete modules because ICs did not exist then, or were in their infancy?
It was not a question of preference.
Fairchild used to make a series of amplifier modules used in their semiconductor test systems, analog computers etc. I worked with these in the late sixties. a 19" rack, 5" deep would house about a dozen of them with their support electronics.
Audio was nowhere on the map.
It was not a question of preference.
Fairchild used to make a series of amplifier modules used in their semiconductor test systems, analog computers etc. I worked with these in the late sixties. a 19" rack, 5" deep would house about a dozen of them with their support electronics.
Audio was nowhere on the map.
Its a sweeping statement and not true..Chips were in main stream at the time and audio was on "the map"..some of the equipment could be modified but was not as good with chip replacement..it depended on application..(Yes OP amps started as discreets didn't most things?)
Yes they were the initial OPamp..but the question still remains..how would it compare today?
It was interesting at the time when we tried a chip in place of a Teledyne to find it distorted the signal..the discreet was way better..OK things have come leaps and bounds..
Some may find it interesting.. NB a chip is still a circuit<<its not the holy grail...
<<not trying to be a caveman..I just think it might be of interest..Regards
M. Gregg
Last edited:
Yes..
worked on a few of them in a Reliance control system..
They did drift a bit and used thermistors to try and control the off set..
I might post the Pass info in the Pass forum and see if he comments..
Regards
M. Gregg
A friend and me tried different op-amps last week. We used a mini-dac which I bought from ebay. It has the BB pcm 1793 converter, BB OP 2134 dual op-amp in a convenient socket for 8-pin DIL op-amps. It was easy to swap and sort out differences between the op-amps that way. The most interesting find was that different sub-types of the same op-amp had a very different sound. Here is some of what we heard;
NE 5532 N: strong and muddy bass, weak treble, no good in this dac.
NE 5532 AN: too much "hi-fi", good bass with strength and nuances, treble good as well.
Analog Devices AD 712: much like the JRC but too bassy.
BB OP 2134: Noisy in the top end, stressed presentation, listening fatigue.
JRC 5532: balanced presentation with good bass and treble. The most analoge sounding chip of all in the test, and the one we preferred by good margin.
What surpriced us was the differences between the 5532 types. They were more different in sound than between other types. The difference between the NE 5532AN and the NE 5532 N was bigger than to the OP 2134.
We learned that it is not the price or the specs that is interesting point here. It is the sound - of course...
NE 5532 N: strong and muddy bass, weak treble, no good in this dac.
NE 5532 AN: too much "hi-fi", good bass with strength and nuances, treble good as well.
Analog Devices AD 712: much like the JRC but too bassy.
BB OP 2134: Noisy in the top end, stressed presentation, listening fatigue.
JRC 5532: balanced presentation with good bass and treble. The most analoge sounding chip of all in the test, and the one we preferred by good margin.
What surpriced us was the differences between the 5532 types. They were more different in sound than between other types. The difference between the NE 5532AN and the NE 5532 N was bigger than to the OP 2134.
We learned that it is not the price or the specs that is interesting point here. It is the sound - of course...
Last edited:
- Status
- This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.