JRC5534 replacement for IV section ???

wongmb · 18th March 2007, 05:44 PM

My Shanling CD300 (North American version) comes with JRC5534 in the IV section. I notice the Asia version has AD847. I thought AD847 is a way better chip. Wonder why North American version got a **** chip

Or am I wrong and the 5534 is actually better for IV section ?

What is a direct replacement for the JRC5534 other than AD847 ?

The circuit uses JRC5534 at IV section and OPA627 in the differential stage right now. I have modded a Shanling T-200 before with all OPA627 and the sound is too much (I prefer a mix of OPA627 and OPA2132 in that particular machine.)

Since it uses 4 on each channel (pic shows one side only), I need a total of 8. OPA627 is out of the question even if its superior given the cost.

Any advice/thoughts ?

stephensank · 18th March 2007, 06:51 PM

The OPA134 would gives a good balance with OPA627, in my opinion. Did exactly that in a Denon DCD2560 I had & it sounded great. Can't imagine why the 5534 except for corner-cutting to save cost. You could, of course, use an OPA132, but I think the OPA134 is much better & is cheaper.
Why you would want to rely on a player that uses the criminally crappy CDM12 series transport that you'll likely have to replace every year or two is quite beyong my imagining, though.

wongmb · 18th March 2007, 09:08 PM

Stephansank:

Any hands on experience with the AD847 or AD825 ?

I realize the first batch of my cdp are equipped with AD847. Since then they start using NJM5534 only.

stephensank · 19th March 2007, 12:12 AM

To my ears, the AD847 & AD825 sound a bit on the sterile, dry side compared to the OPA134.

wongmb · 19th March 2007, 03:31 AM

Also is there any difference between NE5534 and NJM5534 or JRC5534 ? I notice NE5534 is made by TI while the other 2 are made by JRC. NE seems to be almost double the price of the NJM or JRC. Is it because NE is a better spec ?

stephensank · 19th March 2007, 04:02 AM

I think the TI NE5534 is just as bad as the JRC NJM5534, but JRC is definitely widely considered the worse chip maker. I am sure the specs are identical on paper, but failure rate is probably higher on the JRC version.

jean-paul · 19th March 2007, 08:14 AM

NE5534 is not a bad opamp, on the contrary.

There are just sonically beter but also more expensive types out there. OPA627 is a good replacement.

stephensank · 20th March 2007, 05:08 AM

Sorry, Jean-Paul, but the NE5534 in any form is an antiquated design & a terrible sounding opamp. And, to my ears, the OPA134 is, in many applications, a superior sounding chip to the expensive OPA627, and is around $2 each in USA, not to mention is also available in dual & quad forms.

Bernhard · 20th March 2007, 06:52 PM

Accuphase uses JRCs

Recently opa2604s made problems in a sony gic filter replacing NE5532s...

wongmb · 20th March 2007, 08:42 PM

Thanks guys for your input. This is my plan:

replace the OPA2604 with OPA2132 (I have a few lying around somewhere I believe)

replace the JRC5534D with OPA134 or OPA627 (prob start with OPA134 first as they are way cheaper than 627)

I assume that should be 100% compatibility ??

Regarding burn-in, how much time does it take an opamp to "burn-in" properly ?

18th March 2007, 05:44 PM	#1
wongmb diyAudio Member Join Date: Nov 2005	JRC5534 replacement for IV section ??? My Shanling CD300 (North American version) comes with JRC5534 in the IV section. I notice the Asia version has AD847. I thought AD847 is a way better chip. Wonder why North American version got a **** chip Or am I wrong and the 5534 is actually better for IV section ? What is a direct replacement for the JRC5534 other than AD847 ? The circuit uses JRC5534 at IV section and OPA627 in the differential stage right now. I have modded a Shanling T-200 before with all OPA627 and the sound is too much (I prefer a mix of OPA627 and OPA2132 in that particular machine.) Since it uses 4 on each channel (pic shows one side only), I need a total of 8. OPA627 is out of the question even if its superior given the cost. Any advice/thoughts ?

19th March 2007, 08:14 AM	#7
jean-paul diyAudio Moderator Emeritus Join Date: Sep 2002 Location: The Netherlands	NE5534 is not a bad opamp, on the contrary. There are just sonically beter but also more expensive types out there. OPA627 is a good replacement. __________________ It's only audio

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version Email this Page	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
TL - cross section	00940	Multi-Way	4	16th August 2006 12:10 PM
Need help for HV section Design	Algar_emi	Tubes / Valves	10	16th August 2006 03:23 AM
DAC with digital section only???	kimschips	Digital Source	4	1st August 2005 06:26 AM
ono mc section	giolight	Pass Labs	7	23rd December 2003 11:14 AM

New To Site?	Need Help?
Register to Participate Search Privacy Statement Contact Us	Frequently Asked Questions Did you forget your password? Mark Forums Read


	Please consider donating to help us continue to serve you. Ads on/off / Custom Title / More PMs / More album space / Advanced printing & mass image saving

18th March 2007, 06:51 PM	#2
stephensank diyAudio Member Join Date: Oct 2006	The OPA134 would gives a good balance with OPA627, in my opinion. Did exactly that in a Denon DCD2560 I had & it sounded great. Can't imagine why the 5534 except for corner-cutting to save cost. You could, of course, use an OPA132, but I think the OPA134 is much better & is cheaper. Why you would want to rely on a player that uses the criminally crappy CDM12 series transport that you'll likely have to replace every year or two is quite beyong my imagining, though.

18th March 2007, 09:08 PM	#3
wongmb diyAudio Member Join Date: Nov 2005	Stephansank: Any hands on experience with the AD847 or AD825 ? I realize the first batch of my cdp are equipped with AD847. Since then they start using NJM5534 only.

19th March 2007, 12:12 AM	#4
stephensank diyAudio Member Join Date: Oct 2006	To my ears, the AD847 & AD825 sound a bit on the sterile, dry side compared to the OPA134.

19th March 2007, 03:31 AM	#5
wongmb diyAudio Member Join Date: Nov 2005	Also is there any difference between NE5534 and NJM5534 or JRC5534 ? I notice NE5534 is made by TI while the other 2 are made by JRC. NE seems to be almost double the price of the NJM or JRC. Is it because NE is a better spec ?

19th March 2007, 04:02 AM	#6
stephensank diyAudio Member Join Date: Oct 2006	I think the TI NE5534 is just as bad as the JRC NJM5534, but JRC is definitely widely considered the worse chip maker. I am sure the specs are identical on paper, but failure rate is probably higher on the JRC version.

20th March 2007, 05:08 AM	#8
stephensank diyAudio Member Join Date: Oct 2006	Sorry, Jean-Paul, but the NE5534 in any form is an antiquated design & a terrible sounding opamp. And, to my ears, the OPA134 is, in many applications, a superior sounding chip to the expensive OPA627, and is around $2 each in USA, not to mention is also available in dual & quad forms.

20th March 2007, 06:52 PM	#9
Bernhard diyAudio Member Join Date: Apr 2002 Location: Munich	Accuphase uses JRCs Recently opa2604s made problems in a sony gic filter replacing NE5532s...

20th March 2007, 08:42 PM	#10
wongmb diyAudio Member Join Date: Nov 2005	Thanks guys for your input. This is my plan: replace the OPA2604 with OPA2132 (I have a few lying around somewhere I believe) replace the JRC5534D with OPA134 or OPA627 (prob start with OPA134 first as they are way cheaper than 627) I assume that should be 100% compatibility ?? Regarding burn-in, how much time does it take an opamp to "burn-in" properly ?

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)