I have those DAC's in my receiver and in my DVD-player (Denon both).
Those are followed by some LM833 (in the receiver) or BA15218(5.1)/NJM2068(stereo) in the DVD-player...
So I want to swap them with something else.
Starting point: LM833 has 4 nV/sqrt Hz, 7V/uS.
My pick:
1. LT1028 (0.85 nV/sqrt Hz, 11V/uS)
2. LM 4562 (2.7 nV/sqrt Hz, 20V/uS)
Now, I know that the I/V stage is located inside the 1791 DAC, and it might not matter too much but I have the itch to do it.
TI recomens for this DAC the OpAmps: OPA2134 (8 nV/sqrt Hz, 20V/uS) or 5532 (5 nV/sqrt Hz, 9V/uS).
Any toughts about this? Did anybody experiment with changing OpAmps on voltage-output DAC's? It is worth the trouble (chips are SMD)?
Those are followed by some LM833 (in the receiver) or BA15218(5.1)/NJM2068(stereo) in the DVD-player...
So I want to swap them with something else.
Starting point: LM833 has 4 nV/sqrt Hz, 7V/uS.
My pick:
1. LT1028 (0.85 nV/sqrt Hz, 11V/uS)
2. LM 4562 (2.7 nV/sqrt Hz, 20V/uS)
Now, I know that the I/V stage is located inside the 1791 DAC, and it might not matter too much but I have the itch to do it.
TI recomens for this DAC the OpAmps: OPA2134 (8 nV/sqrt Hz, 20V/uS) or 5532 (5 nV/sqrt Hz, 9V/uS).
Any toughts about this? Did anybody experiment with changing OpAmps on voltage-output DAC's? It is worth the trouble (chips are SMD)?
Last edited:
Now... the DAC's are not sounding that bad. I was hoping to get more from them.
But, I guess, I either belive you and leave them as they are or... work my way in something that I might regret.
To build another DAC section altogether is temptig but obvious more expensive and maybe imposible (wonder if there are other PCM direct compatible with PCM1791A in SW mode?).
But, I guess, I either belive you and leave them as they are or... work my way in something that I might regret.
To build another DAC section altogether is temptig but obvious more expensive and maybe imposible (wonder if there are other PCM direct compatible with PCM1791A in SW mode?).
Last edited:
The OpAmps that I have there are used for the third-order filter and conversion from balanced to single-end, so I think that some improvement can be made there.
Also in the receiver I have oane more OpAmp for front channels (NJM5532) that is used for the +6dB boost needed for HDCD decoding. I think that can make a difference too.
Am I wrong?
Also in the receiver I have oane more OpAmp for front channels (NJM5532) that is used for the +6dB boost needed for HDCD decoding. I think that can make a difference too.
Am I wrong?
It is not for the extension. The HDCD normally has to be 6dB amplified after decoding to sound at the same audio level as when you play on the CD undecoded. It is switched "ON" all the time while HDCD signal is on.
I did the swap. Tryed both of the above. SOIC8 cips.
LT1028 runs HOT. I don't think it oscillate since the sound was ok, but, did't care to measure for real. Running to hot for my taste - and for the analog power supply I guess. And the pain with the single-dual converter... Too much!
LM4562 was warmer to touch than the original but in an OK range. Sounds great - I did swap the filter (and the +6dB) on the front and surround and compare with the back channels via stereo mode (as much as I can). Tested with SACD and HDCD - To my disbelief, I can hear a slight improvement on the high-end, clarity even. Nothing on the noise - it was "silent" from the start anyway and the difference between 2.7 and 4 nV/sqHz is anyway small. Maybe if I turn the volume to the max... but I can't do that easily with the Denon AVR 3805 in my livingroom.
All in all, three OpAmps swaped latter - I am happy. Thanks to National Semi, Linear and their free samples
I did the swap. Tryed both of the above. SOIC8 cips.
LT1028 runs HOT. I don't think it oscillate since the sound was ok, but, did't care to measure for real. Running to hot for my taste - and for the analog power supply I guess. And the pain with the single-dual converter... Too much!
LM4562 was warmer to touch than the original but in an OK range. Sounds great - I did swap the filter (and the +6dB) on the front and surround and compare with the back channels via stereo mode (as much as I can). Tested with SACD and HDCD - To my disbelief, I can hear a slight improvement on the high-end, clarity even. Nothing on the noise - it was "silent" from the start anyway and the difference between 2.7 and 4 nV/sqHz is anyway small. Maybe if I turn the volume to the max... but I can't do that easily with the Denon AVR 3805 in my livingroom.
All in all, three OpAmps swaped latter - I am happy. Thanks to National Semi, Linear and their free samples
Last edited:
They don't throw away nothing. Listening to a HDCD via a regular CD player will produce a compressed analog audio that will be percieved as "louder" than the case that is run via a decoder - the decoder un-compresses (expands) the signal, so it will be perceived as not so loud.
To compensate that, HDCD license requires that the decoder has a mechanism to amplify the analog audio by 6dB so it will pe percieved as having the same loudness as previous case.
I think this was done initially so the people don't perceive HDCD decoders as weak and maybe associate them with low quality.
To compensate that, HDCD license requires that the decoder has a mechanism to amplify the analog audio by 6dB so it will pe percieved as having the same loudness as previous case.
I think this was done initially so the people don't perceive HDCD decoders as weak and maybe associate them with low quality.
Last edited:
thats what Im talkin about , this is garbage, never worked in practice, simply because record producers never embedded those transient flags in the first place.
Last edited:
I wonder why you include noise and slew rate specs on these op-amps. These may be relevant if you are making a measurement tool. But not making musical reproduction.
I know a lot of people who changed from NE5534/5532 to something more Hi-Tech.... Typically they will tell you that the sound is so much better, and that it has changed their life completely. The next week they go searching for a new op-amp
NE5534 is one of the best sonic performers among op-amps... I you are not satisfied, go for a discrete solution, as the easy "op-amp-swap" solution most likely will not make you happy in the long run...
Well, I included a quick recap for the specs to have a starting point of the discution. Stating that those specs (or any specs) are useless for musical reproduction puts you in the group of "religious" people that call themselfs "audiphilles". You maybe think that some kind of god makes the electronics and decides their "sound", not real electronic engineers, with measurement and CAD tools.
I don't, I am not that kind of religious guy. I want to know WHY, and HOW not just belive in internet mithology.
Back to OpAmps. Yes, LM4562 sounds all right for me in place of LM833. I didn't try NE5534 because the specs are slighty lower than LM4562 (but indeed better than LM833).
Does anybody have a techical reason why the LM833 is so used? I have it in my 1993 Philips CD473 (behind the TDA 1451 DAC) and in the more recent Denon 3805 (following PCM 1791 DAC). Why?
For filter stage I saw used a lot in higher end Denon NJM2068 (and other brands too). Why? Just to keep the supplier from Japan?
NE5532 is used a lot in the I/V stage. Starting with years 1995... Why?
I don't, I am not that kind of religious guy. I want to know WHY, and HOW not just belive in internet mithology.
Back to OpAmps. Yes, LM4562 sounds all right for me in place of LM833. I didn't try NE5534 because the specs are slighty lower than LM4562 (but indeed better than LM833).
Does anybody have a techical reason why the LM833 is so used? I have it in my 1993 Philips CD473 (behind the TDA 1451 DAC) and in the more recent Denon 3805 (following PCM 1791 DAC). Why?
For filter stage I saw used a lot in higher end Denon NJM2068 (and other brands too). Why? Just to keep the supplier from Japan?
NE5532 is used a lot in the I/V stage. Starting with years 1995... Why?
Last edited:
Maybe you should clear out, if you believe that measurement specifications made under perfect conditions (as shown in the data sheet), is more important than sonic performance.
If you believe that specs are the way to high performance audio, I do not understand why you even ask this question. Just pick the one with the best spec. OPA2211 has a specified THD of -136dB at 1kHz. That would be the easy choice
If you believe that specs are the way to high performance audio, I do not understand why you even ask this question. Just pick the one with the best spec. OPA2211 has a specified THD of -136dB at 1kHz. That would be the easy choice
No.
I know that all the measurements found in the datasheet influence the sonic performance. And execution of the specific schematic too. It is just a matter of understanding them and skills. That's why I am asking questions.
I guess you don't belive in those measurements.
Last edited:
So which measurement tool is used to measure "sonic performance", and what is this "sonic performance parameter" called ??
I would suggest using one of these:
??I would suggest using one of these:
An externally hosted image should be here but it was not working when we last tested it.
So your solution is to try on the board all 5000 OpAmps existing in manufacture now and find the best one?
I prefer to filter them first with my brain based on the data sheet and then do the work. Especially that I want to be able to use that receiver, it is not a pegboard.
And if you don't know, there are ways that you can measure that thing that you showed above. You just aren't aware of that I guess.
I prefer to filter them first with my brain based on the data sheet and then do the work. Especially that I want to be able to use that receiver, it is not a pegboard.
And if you don't know, there are ways that you can measure that thing that you showed above. You just aren't aware of that I guess.
Last edited:
Do you really think that is possible?? And if so, could you let us in on what criterias to choose from??
If this approach was possible, why would anybody use other op-amps than the one on top of these criterias??
Sorry to tell you, but you are looking towards the light, and not at the problem.
If this approach was possible, why would anybody use other op-amps than the one on top of these criterias??
Sorry to tell you, but you are looking towards the light, and not at the problem.
I don't know. Maybe generic OpAmps are more dependable to the supply chain, you are not stuck with just a manufacturer. Maybe habbit - don't change it if it's "working"? Maybe stay with the guy that has the best rep's and knows to throw discounts?
You are saying that those just "sound better". I need more than your word to belive... some tehnical argumentation.
You are saying that those just "sound better". I need more than your word to belive... some tehnical argumentation.
Last edited:
You are building something, that is supposed to sound best possible. I hope we agree, that it is our ears that we have to please. Do we??
If so, my approach is, that the best way of knowing if my ears like the sound, is to listen to it, rather than reading some datasheets. Don't know if this makes sense to you??
How about food... Do you also read "datasheets" to find out, if you like the taste of something
???If your ears cannot tell you if something has enhanced the sonic performance, what is the idea of spending the time on it?? Has HiFi changed from being about "achieving the best sound" to "having a setup that in theory should be the best, withoout the need of listening to it"
- Status
- This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.