Hi salas
Here's a datasheet from the 4580D.
http://www.njr.co.jp/pdf/ae/ae04056.pdf
here for the NE5532:
http://www.semiconductors.philips.com/acrobat/datasheets/NE_SE5532_A_SA5532_3.pdf
and here for the OPA2134:
http://www-s.ti.com/sc/ds/opa2134.pdf
I don't know for sure but I recall Per-Anders saying somewhere
that the AD8620 is a very good opamp. (Watch the Max voltage!!)
Oh, and there's plenty of info on this site about it the 8620.
Here's the datasheet as well:
http://www.analog.com/UploadedFiles/Data_Sheets/734705833AD8610_20_c.pdf
www.google.com is also a great search engine.
Be creative, try searching for "NE5532 datasheet" or similar
terms. It's a great source of info.
Now it's up to you to have a look at the specs
/Hugo
Here's a datasheet from the 4580D.
http://www.njr.co.jp/pdf/ae/ae04056.pdf
here for the NE5532:
http://www.semiconductors.philips.com/acrobat/datasheets/NE_SE5532_A_SA5532_3.pdf
and here for the OPA2134:
http://www-s.ti.com/sc/ds/opa2134.pdf
I don't know for sure but I recall Per-Anders saying somewhere
that the AD8620 is a very good opamp. (Watch the Max voltage!!)
Oh, and there's plenty of info on this site about it the 8620.
Here's the datasheet as well:
http://www.analog.com/UploadedFiles/Data_Sheets/734705833AD8610_20_c.pdf
www.google.com is also a great search engine.
Be creative, try searching for "NE5532 datasheet" or similar
terms. It's a great source of info.
Now it's up to you to have a look at the specs
/Hugo
as for sound
Ages ago I have runned comparisons in a fixed gain stage (x10).
5532s where odd....2604s where good but rather crude....627 was very impressive but tiresome and hi-fi, short of contrived in the long run...637 was better but could not use it as a buffer.
LT 1028 was fast and clear but had metallic midbass....
Made one out of 12AU7 valve....well it stomped allover any opamp!
But I cant be putting valves anywere all the time...
OPA 2134 looked promissing and I replaced OPA 2604 in a cdp...it sounded more grainy...it was a step back from 2604!
Maybe it sounds better in other applications? AD never tried...heard it in a friends line stage (825) it suffered bass impact although it was more natural than BBs more fluent.
What would you say for trying out 2134 in the mm/mc I wanna upgrade now? cost must stay low and a drop in replacement must be.
Ages ago I have runned comparisons in a fixed gain stage (x10).
5532s where odd....2604s where good but rather crude....627 was very impressive but tiresome and hi-fi, short of contrived in the long run...637 was better but could not use it as a buffer.
LT 1028 was fast and clear but had metallic midbass....
Made one out of 12AU7 valve....well it stomped allover any opamp!
But I cant be putting valves anywere all the time...
OPA 2134 looked promissing and I replaced OPA 2604 in a cdp...it sounded more grainy...it was a step back from 2604!
Maybe it sounds better in other applications? AD never tried...heard it in a friends line stage (825) it suffered bass impact although it was more natural than BBs more fluent.
What would you say for trying out 2134 in the mm/mc I wanna upgrade now? cost must stay low and a drop in replacement must be.
forgot to mention bias
when I was changing the V+,V- voltage I got significant sonic differences with all op amps too. Most of them proved happier near their upper limit. 627,637 needed about 17V to sound best. LT1028 also. That is why I think I may have been unfair when substituted 2134 for 2604 in a fixed cdp circuit. Other parametres come in play too...decoupling, capacitive loads etc.
when I was changing the V+,V- voltage I got significant sonic differences with all op amps too. Most of them proved happier near their upper limit. 627,637 needed about 17V to sound best. LT1028 also. That is why I think I may have been unfair when substituted 2134 for 2604 in a fixed cdp circuit. Other parametres come in play too...decoupling, capacitive loads etc.
Any opinions on the Texas Instruments equivalent, part number RC4580? The specs are the same, but I would think that the actual construction is different, and that the sound will be different too. I just replaced a bunch of Mitsubishi M5218's with the TI RC4580 in a receiver that I am repairing, and I am so far pleased with the result. The noise floor is definitely lower. The specs say that the TI RC4580 should sound better; anyone with better ears than I have ever listened to it specifically and have an opinion? I am sure that TI produced this opamp in order to gain some market from all those that like to use the NJM4580/JRC4580; do you think that TI did a better job on their version than the Japanese did on their own?
- Status
- This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.