Op-amp requirements for a I/V converter? - Page 2 - diyAudio
Go Back   Home > Forums > Design & Build > Parts

Parts Where to get, and how to make the best bits. PCB's, caps, transformers, etc.

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
Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 27th January 2012, 12:23 AM   #11
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Virginia
In my application I have +/- 5V so I could use the ada4897 (it's a "low power" device), but I was waiting for THS4032.
THS4032 has 33V max voltage (measurements for +/-5V and +/-15V are given in datasheet) and is almost identical for our I/V scope... And distortion figures are around -100dB all the way to 400kHz.
Attached Images
File Type: png THS4032.PNG (53.9 KB, 753 views)

Last edited by SoNic_real_one; 27th January 2012 at 12:37 AM.
  Reply With Quote
Old 27th January 2012, 02:06 AM   #12
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Sonic_real_one, do you think a LME49722 or a pair of LME49990 are good choices for I/V scope?
  Reply With Quote
Old 27th January 2012, 02:43 AM   #13
diyAudio Member
 
abraxalito's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Hangzhou - Marco Polo's 'most beautiful city'. 700yrs is a long time though...
Blog Entries: 109
Send a message via MSN to abraxalito Send a message via Yahoo to abraxalito Send a message via Skype™ to abraxalito
Quote:
Originally Posted by SoNic_real_one View Post
I am planning to use them as I/V stage after a PCM61P - it has a settling time of 350ns. I am planning to get rid of the SR limiting capacitors in the I/V stage.
Why get rid of those caps? Even with slew rate of 100V/uS you'll still be going into slew limiting directly from the DAC's output. The settling time (to 0.006% or 14bits for an allegedly 18bit part ) is going to be considerably longer than the rise time.

Just as an aside, why use PCM61P anyway when TDA1541A beats its specs?
__________________
There is surely nothing quite so useless as doing with great efficiency what should not be done at all - Peter Drucker
  Reply With Quote
Old 27th January 2012, 02:47 AM   #14
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Virginia
I am using now LM4562 (that is the same as LME49720) in most of my DAC's. IMO, it is one of the best sounding OpAmps, beats anything that is usually installed "stock" in players.
LME49722 is marginally better so I can assume it will be similar. LME49990 takes another small step in the "good" direction.
Basically , they have vanishing noise and distortions, no question. 20-22 V/us is good for an I/V stage that has the SR reducing capacitor and up to 8x OS of 44.1kHz...
Higher than that, I might see the argument for something faster. That's why I am looking to experiment with something elese.
Quote:
Originally Posted by abraxalito View Post
Why get rid of those caps? Even with slew rate of 100V/uS you'll still be going into slew limiting directly from the DAC's output. The settling time (to 0.006% or 14bits for an allegedly 18bit part ) is going to be considerably longer than the rise time.

Just as an aside, why use PCM61P anyway when TDA1541A beats its specs?
As far as i know, there is no audio DAC that can output with 100V/us, they are limited too. PCM61P has 350ns settling time, so the 80nS of the THS4032 should be more than enough. Maybe I will just reduce that capacitor.
As for comparing 1541A, why don't make it fair and go to PCM61P-K ? I did play with my TDA1541 but I wasn't that excited about it.
Now, I just got this old Denon DCM-360 "toy" with Denon Alpha filter (SM5848), PCM61P and external I/V OpAmp that adds also 2 extra bits (19, 20 are done with resistors). After replacing the absolute crappy opAmps with LM4562 I am hearing things that I don't hear on my PCM1791A. I am almost... in denial about this.
I ordered two -K DAC's already, but I might just buy two more and piggy back them... And I want to hear what a even faster OpAmp can do (or not).

Last edited by SoNic_real_one; 27th January 2012 at 03:02 AM.
  Reply With Quote
Old 27th January 2012, 02:58 AM   #15
diyAudio Member
 
abraxalito's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Hangzhou - Marco Polo's 'most beautiful city'. 700yrs is a long time though...
Blog Entries: 109
Send a message via MSN to abraxalito Send a message via Yahoo to abraxalito Send a message via Skype™ to abraxalito
Quote:
Originally Posted by SoNic_real_one View Post
20-22 V/us is good for an I/V stage that has the SR reducing capacitor and up to 8x OS of 44.1kHz...
Have you checked incidentally that the output stage can deal with the current slew rate that's required? jcx's first post above indicates that relying on the SR reducing cap to prevent input stage overload may just move the problem to the output stage instead.
__________________
There is surely nothing quite so useless as doing with great efficiency what should not be done at all - Peter Drucker
  Reply With Quote
Old 27th January 2012, 03:05 AM   #16
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Virginia
The output stage? That's the limiting point of the SR in an OpAmp, that's why is only 20V/us!
So it's not "moving" the problem, it is the same and only problem...

I might try faster OpAmps with reduced capacitors (or none) when those chinese guys will stop partying and send me those SMD adaptors

Last edited by SoNic_real_one; 27th January 2012 at 03:13 AM.
  Reply With Quote
Old 27th January 2012, 03:10 AM   #17
diyAudio Member
 
abraxalito's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Hangzhou - Marco Polo's 'most beautiful city'. 700yrs is a long time though...
Blog Entries: 109
Send a message via MSN to abraxalito Send a message via Yahoo to abraxalito Send a message via Skype™ to abraxalito
Quote:
Originally Posted by SoNic_real_one View Post
As far as i know, there is no audio DAC that can output with 100V/us, they are limited too.
Well we're talking I-out DACs here, they don't have slew rates for voltage, rather they have current slew rates.

Quote:
PCM61P has 350ns settling time, so the 80nS of the THS4032 should be more than enough. Maybe I will just reduce that capacitor.
I suggest just reducing the cap but not totally eliminating it. On my AD1955 using NE5532 as I/V (just for fun) I found elminating that cap totally gave rise to some very weird audible effects. Rather like birdies on an FM tuner. Even when I was using LM6172 I didn't much like the sound with zero SR limiting cap and there was an overshoot on the scope. I found I liked the sound of 5pF.

Quote:
As for comparing 1541A, why don't make it fair and go to PCM61P-K ?
Because if we're playing off selected parts then the natural contender would be TDA1541AN1/S2. You'd not want to go there would you?

Quote:
Now, I just got this old Denon DCM-360 "toy" with PCM61P and external I/V OpAmp that adds also 2 extra LSB bits (done with resistors).
Resistors are the easy part - what do they use for switches?

Quote:
After replacing the absolute crappy opAmps with LM4562 I am hearing things that I don't hear on my PCM1791A. I am almost... in denial about this.
I've found that the S-D parts add things that multibit does not. So perhaps there's hope for you yet

Quote:
I ordered two -K DAC's already, but I might just buy two more and piggy back them... And I want to hear what a even faster OpAmp can do (or not).
Been there, now I'm curious about what a faster DAC can do.... The slippery slope
__________________
There is surely nothing quite so useless as doing with great efficiency what should not be done at all - Peter Drucker
  Reply With Quote
Old 27th January 2012, 03:22 AM   #18
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Virginia
It's all in the filters... D-S noise is not a problem, it is cut below any relevance. What I hear I think are better transients/harmonics on high frequency sounds (fast cymbals/high-hat). I am a rock music type mostly, so those are important.

BTW, the internal OpAmp in PCM61 is capable of only 1000ns settling time (compared with 350ns of the straight current), I am glad Denon choose not to use it in this player (they used thou the internal laser trimmed, feed-back resistor).

Ah OK, if we compare, there is a PCM61P-"J" version in between, and there are the pin compatible AD1860 (two flavors there too). My "-K" versions costed 7.50US (so 15USD for two channels), I got two AD1860-J for 12USD... And there are no fakes (that I know) of in this field. Compare that with a S1/S2 - show me a real one outside a player that is at least 1000USD.
Attached Images
File Type: jpg dcm360_IV.jpg (152.3 KB, 424 views)

Last edited by SoNic_real_one; 27th January 2012 at 03:34 AM.
  Reply With Quote
Old 27th January 2012, 03:41 AM   #19
diyAudio Member
 
abraxalito's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Hangzhou - Marco Polo's 'most beautiful city'. 700yrs is a long time though...
Blog Entries: 109
Send a message via MSN to abraxalito Send a message via Yahoo to abraxalito Send a message via Skype™ to abraxalito
Quote:
Originally Posted by SoNic_real_one View Post
It's all in the filters... D-S noise is not a problem, it is cut below any relevance.
Only with averaging. But D-S is known to suffer from noise modulation - short term shifts in the noise floor - like what you'd get from using the wrong sort of dither.

Quote:
What I hear I think are better transients/harmonics on high frequency sounds (fast cymbals/high-hat).
You're hearing absence of noise modulation I reckon. Its perceived as more 'surprise factor' on transients. Try listening to massed brass - S-D totally destroys that compared to multibit.

Quote:
Ah OK, if we compare, there is a PCM61P-"J" version in between, and there are the pin compatible AD1860 (two flavors there too). My "-K" versions costed 7.50US (so 15USD for two channels), I got two AD1860-J for 12USD... And there are no fakes (that I know) of in this field. Compare that with a S1/S2 - show me a real one outside a player that is at lest 1000USD.
Ah if we start comparing costs then I agree, TDA1541AN1/S2 is totally out of the game. Pure unobtainium. My TDA1387s though do quite well on cost-benefit - I paid 5mao each (that's $0.08) - secondhand though
__________________
There is surely nothing quite so useless as doing with great efficiency what should not be done at all - Peter Drucker
  Reply With Quote
Old 27th January 2012, 04:46 AM   #20
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Virginia
I just did a quick A-B comparison.
Source: The Police - Message In A Bottle. CD, SACD, SHM-CD.
The CD layer from SACD sounds sensible the same on this Alpha-driven PCM61 as the SACD layer on PCM1791.
The CD layer sounds worse than SACD on PCM1791 (non-Alpha driven, I am too lazy to get to living room to the DVD-2030).
The big surprise is... SHM-CD. I hear all the brass clearer. I don't know if the japanese remaster has accentuated some dB the top of the band or they just compressed the same top, but it sounds... better. I don't belive in their statement that their polycarbonat is "better".

Last edited by SoNic_real_one; 27th January 2012 at 04:54 AM.
  Reply With Quote

Reply


Hide this!Advertise here!
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
op-amp + op-amp buffer combinations eccdbb Chip Amps 2 22nd July 2011 05:13 AM
Power transformer for tube amp requirements Joshua_G Tubes / Valves 14 11th July 2010 03:04 PM
Op Amps for Balanced Line Converter dkingham Car Audio 12 2nd August 2006 01:33 PM
Power requirements for 7 channel gainclone amp? AJ Bertelson Chip Amps 18 23rd May 2004 12:16 AM
8" Subwoofer amperage requirements theholmboy Subwoofers 2 26th February 2004 02:15 AM


New To Site? Need Help?

All times are GMT. The time now is 05:51 PM.


vBulletin Optimisation provided by vB Optimise (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2014 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.
Copyright 1999-2014 diyAudio

Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO 3.3.2