NE5532 is good but there are better ones
Yes, it is worth replacing. Specifications of the NE5532 are not that bad, especially distortion numbers are still very low compared to modern opamps. Sonically the OPA2604 is a lot better, as a second choice I can recommend OPA2134 or OP249.
Please do a search on this forum for this opamp and also Google for datasheets of all types mentioned. There is a site where some types are tested. The author seems to like the NE5532 a lot and he sure didn't do sonical tests. It is possible that his site gives you more questions than answers but it is interesting to read.
http://www.dself.demon.co.uk/webbop/opamp.htm
Before I forget: be sure to check the supply voltage of the NE5532 in your HK. Its maximimum is +/- 22V which is a lot compared to most others. Standard is +/- 18 V maximum. If it is fed with +/- 15 V you can use the advised types.
Yes, it is worth replacing. Specifications of the NE5532 are not that bad, especially distortion numbers are still very low compared to modern opamps. Sonically the OPA2604 is a lot better, as a second choice I can recommend OPA2134 or OP249.
Please do a search on this forum for this opamp and also Google for datasheets of all types mentioned. There is a site where some types are tested. The author seems to like the NE5532 a lot and he sure didn't do sonical tests. It is possible that his site gives you more questions than answers but it is interesting to read.
http://www.dself.demon.co.uk/webbop/opamp.htm
Before I forget: be sure to check the supply voltage of the NE5532 in your HK. Its maximimum is +/- 22V which is a lot compared to most others. Standard is +/- 18 V maximum. If it is fed with +/- 15 V you can use the advised types.
PaulHilgeman said:
The NE5532 is a popular op-amp is supposed to be fairly good. (the P is the same with a little closer tolerances) I have heard better things about the opa2134. I have used this for a subwoofer active crossover. Just because it is a better opamp in terms of specs, doesn't exactly mean it will sound better in your setup. I would recommend getting some samples of a few types of op-amps and see if you notice a difference. The two mentioned above should just be drop-in replacements.
You can get 3 free samples of 8 devices from www.ti.com. I would recommend getting samples of the opa2134, opa2604 and others, so you can try them out for sonic characteristics.
--
Brian
You should be able to find at least one post on the forum already on this opamp. Some people say it is a very good sounding opamp.
I have heard that the NE5532 from ti sounds better than the JRC version though. The main physical characteristic that I've found between the two has to do with the material that the legs are made of. The ti version has much harder legs and therefore it may have a more solid sound to it. I've never compared the sound of the two so I can't say for sure though.
I have heard that the NE5532 from ti sounds better than the JRC version though. The main physical characteristic that I've found between the two has to do with the material that the legs are made of. The ti version has much harder legs and therefore it may have a more solid sound to it. I've never compared the sound of the two so I can't say for sure though.
yes, you can say that 2134 2604 can replace 5532.
5532 can replace those other two. But not always recommended
as 5532 has 2 bipolar input trasistors while
2134/2604 has JFET input transistors, with somewhat higher noise.
It depends a lot on the resistors around and the whole circuit in
which the OP amp is to be.
Always select your components so they fits in the circuit
depending on what job is to be done.
5532 can replace those other two. But not always recommended
as 5532 has 2 bipolar input trasistors while
2134/2604 has JFET input transistors, with somewhat higher noise.
It depends a lot on the resistors around and the whole circuit in
which the OP amp is to be.
Always select your components so they fits in the circuit
depending on what job is to be done.
People always seem to forget about current noise though... Current noise ( or i
) in combination with the circuit impedances, adds to the voltage noise to give your overall noise. You'll find that although FET opamps have slightly higher voltage noise levels, they also have significantly lower current noise than bipolar types. So, don't discount the noise performance of FET opamps until you've examined the circuit impedances and done the math. And don't forget that noise voltages don't add directly... add the squares, then take the sq. root of the sum. While you're at it, throw in a 4kRT term for the thermal noise of the resistors themselves.
) in combination with the circuit impedances, adds to the voltage noise to give your overall noise. You'll find that although FET opamps have slightly higher voltage noise levels, they also have significantly lower current noise than bipolar types. So, don't discount the noise performance of FET opamps until you've examined the circuit impedances and done the math. And don't forget that noise voltages don't add directly... add the squares, then take the sq. root of the sum. While you're at it, throw in a 4kRT term for the thermal noise of the resistors themselves.
OK, the noise figures are interesting but I never heard a difference in noise when I changed opamps for Fet input-types in a cd player. I doubt if there is someone that is able to hear such small differences in a parameter that already is so low.
The better soundquality weighs up to the slightly higher noise.
I share the concern but in real life one does not hear whether it has 4.5 nV or 8 nV noise in a cdplayer. It IS important in phonoamps.
The better soundquality weighs up to the slightly higher noise.
I share the concern but in real life one does not hear whether it has 4.5 nV or 8 nV noise in a cdplayer. It IS important in phonoamps.
"The ti version has much harder legs and therefore it may have a more solid sound to it."
Paul, I would be inclined to leave the NE5532 in place, since the answer to the question "Are the 2134, 2604, and 5532 drop in replacements for each other?", is only "maybe". Firstly, the circuit as a whole may have been voiced around the sound of the 5532, which is realy very good, and the other devices suggested (particularly the 2604), may not be stable in the circuit that was designed for a 5532.
If you try it, be prepared to check for stability on a scope!
Hope this helps,
Tim.
Paul, I would be inclined to leave the NE5532 in place, since the answer to the question "Are the 2134, 2604, and 5532 drop in replacements for each other?", is only "maybe". Firstly, the circuit as a whole may have been voiced around the sound of the 5532, which is realy very good, and the other devices suggested (particularly the 2604), may not be stable in the circuit that was designed for a 5532.
If you try it, be prepared to check for stability on a scope!
Hope this helps,
Tim.
I agree with Tim. There are many factors influencing a direct replacement. The 5532 is a bipolar input with a rather limited bandwidth (I think 10MHz), so replacing it with a newer type with higher bandwidth, higher slew rate, very high input impedance (in case of a fet input opamp) can change operating parameters unpredictably. The supply rails may be affected. Oscillations or, less obvious, overshoot, can be a definite possibility. At the very least make sure you have a good scope to verify operation.
The lower bandwidth should really not be a reason to change the opamp. Well designed units (and I believe the H/K is) do not really need very high bandwidth opamps, unless the design is based on it from the outset.
You can of course try it. You may even hear a difference. But do not automatically assume that the difference you hear is an improvement. And this really is the hard part of the exercise.
Jan Didden
The lower bandwidth should really not be a reason to change the opamp. Well designed units (and I believe the H/K is) do not really need very high bandwidth opamps, unless the design is based on it from the outset.
You can of course try it. You may even hear a difference. But do not automatically assume that the difference you hear is an improvement. And this really is the hard part of the exercise.
Jan Didden
I have to see the first normal cdplayer that has components that have been voiced. NE5532 is used mainly because it is the cheapest opamp available. Japanese cdplayers often have the NJM4580 for the same reason. More modern players have the newer FET types in them. If a opamp is used for I/V ( which is bad by habit anyway ) the higher slewrate of a newer type will definately have its merits. I have done a lot of listening tests and even used a AD844 for I/V with some changes in the original circuitry. But what do I know. NE5532 is ancient and so is the sound it produces. CDplayers that have single opamps like the NE5534 benefit enormously from the OPA627. It is nice to discuss theory but in practice the results are outstanding. What sounds better is better at the end.
Obtain a manual, check the circuit and solder some IC sockets in the machine. Decoupling is even more important when higher bandwidth opamps are used. A capacitor directly over the supply pins may be a good thing too depending on what opamp is used. Do as Jan suggests and check signals with an oscilloscope. Then try and listen...
Forgot to mention this: always check the datasheet of the type in question what the manufacturer advises on decoupling of their chips. Oscillation of the opamps when badly decoupled is a possibility one should not oversee.
It is nice to see how people here discuss about technical specifications of opamps and the do's and don'ts. Slowly the idea has risen that designers of normal / lowcost cdplayers just see an opamp as a cheap ( NE5532 ) of-the-shelf component that should do what it is supposed to do without really looking at their specs. This idea I got after seeing so much poorly choosen opamps in the wrong application for them.
BTW Jan Didden, are you the Jan Didden that was in the dutch newspapers about 6-8 years ago with an invention that was supposed to cure a flaw in the electronics of all cdplayers ? Just wondered because at that time a lot of speculation was going on and I was told Philips wanted to prevent the outcome of those experiments to become public. Never heard or read anything about this later. Still have some of the articles in my drawer somewhere.
It is nice to see how people here discuss about technical specifications of opamps and the do's and don'ts. Slowly the idea has risen that designers of normal / lowcost cdplayers just see an opamp as a cheap ( NE5532 ) of-the-shelf component that should do what it is supposed to do without really looking at their specs. This idea I got after seeing so much poorly choosen opamps in the wrong application for them.
BTW Jan Didden, are you the Jan Didden that was in the dutch newspapers about 6-8 years ago with an invention that was supposed to cure a flaw in the electronics of all cdplayers ? Just wondered because at that time a lot of speculation was going on and I was told Philips wanted to prevent the outcome of those experiments to become public. Never heard or read anything about this later. Still have some of the articles in my drawer somewhere.
JP,
No that was not me. Can't remember the issue either. Only time I made the papers was to announce my marriage many years ago. Even that was a mistake it turned out.
But there was a report on an idea from me in Stereophile some 4 years ago, on a novel type of feedback. Are you maybe thinking about that?
Jan Didden
No that was not me. Can't remember the issue either. Only time I made the papers was to announce my marriage many years ago. Even that was a mistake it turned out.
But there was a report on an idea from me in Stereophile some 4 years ago, on a novel type of feedback. Are you maybe thinking about that?
Jan Didden
No, it was about a fundamental error that was supposed to be built in the cd system. A cheap modification was invented that cured this error. I recall that was said that all cdplayers had this flaw. On pictures a modified cdplayer was shown and the inventor of this mysterious invention. It was in most dutch audiomagazines and most of em were sceptical too. The guy's name was Didden I am almost sure.
Technical details were not described and the story was that the guy received a lot of money to keep his mouth shut. Most audiophiles did not believe a word of it at that time.
Technical details were not described and the story was that the guy received a lot of money to keep his mouth shut. Most audiophiles did not believe a word of it at that time.
- Status
- This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.