Prompted by a long running thread on "opamp sound"
http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/chip-amps/154106-best-sounding-audio-integrated-opamps.html
I wonder if anyone knows just what processing a typical CD may have been through.
Many of us say that we like the sound of a particular opamp... and I am no exception... but it's also said many times that the signal will have been through dozens of NE5532 type devices etc.
How true is this ?
Does anyone have definite "proof" of this... ?
What would a "typical" big label (Decca/Deutshe Grammophon etc) large scale classical recording say done in the 80's have been through device wise.
http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/chip-amps/154106-best-sounding-audio-integrated-opamps.html
I wonder if anyone knows just what processing a typical CD may have been through.
Many of us say that we like the sound of a particular opamp... and I am no exception... but it's also said many times that the signal will have been through dozens of NE5532 type devices etc.
How true is this ?
Does anyone have definite "proof" of this... ?
What would a "typical" big label (Decca/Deutshe Grammophon etc) large scale classical recording say done in the 80's have been through device wise.
I have worked in the audio industry and at one of the companies they were working on a studio mixing desk to compete with the big names such as Neve. NE5532 was indeed the industry (at least in the UK) chip of choice and I'd estimate that going from mic to mic compressor/eq to desk to recording device would be as short a chain as you could get, and that would involve about 10 op-amps (per left/right channel) I'd say. And in the case of a big studio/hall recording for classical about 100 metres of cable 
Most of the time the chain would be a lot longer and could easily double the number of op-amps.
Most of the time the chain would be a lot longer and could easily double the number of op-amps.
Last edited:
Richie00boy,
That's very interesting... and this is a fascinating subject because I "know" from my own experience that opamps do alter the sound in a good system... but the question I suppose is what are we actually doing when we swap that NE5532 in our CD player for an OPA or whatever and think how wonderful it now sounds and "why did the designers use such a poor device" in the first place. If the material has been through many 5532's etc it just seems bizarre (but true) that what we use afterwards can alter the perceived sound so much.
Again my own experience tells me to be wary of random mods and component swaps and to ask "is it really" better but the answer is yes when it comes to those final opamps.
I remember reading something by Doug Self (who is a great fan of the NE5532/4) about it being used in consoles and mixing desks etc.
It would be really interesting to have some known commercial recordings where it was known for 100% definite that the signal had been through many such NE5532's etc.
That's very interesting... and this is a fascinating subject because I "know" from my own experience that opamps do alter the sound in a good system... but the question I suppose is what are we actually doing when we swap that NE5532 in our CD player for an OPA or whatever and think how wonderful it now sounds and "why did the designers use such a poor device" in the first place. If the material has been through many 5532's etc it just seems bizarre (but true) that what we use afterwards can alter the perceived sound so much.
Again my own experience tells me to be wary of random mods and component swaps and to ask "is it really" better but the answer is yes when it comes to those final opamps.
I remember reading something by Doug Self (who is a great fan of the NE5532/4) about it being used in consoles and mixing desks etc.
It would be really interesting to have some known commercial recordings where it was known for 100% definite that the signal had been through many such NE5532's etc.
So this is where it gets interesting. Accepting what you say, it is a fact that myself and others will testify too, that replacing the NE5532 in say a CD player output stage subtly but significantly (to an audiophile or music lover) alters the sound for the better in most cases.
Comments such as "more detail" or "more musical" are made... and I have to agree... I don't want too, but it seems a fact.
How can that be ? when the signal has passed through all those 5532's.
Are we saying that the device we choose as the final link in the chain "colours" the sound so much. The later devices should be "better" than the 5532 in all respects and essentially totally transparent.
10 opamps is certainly not going to be sufficient. Ever seen a recording studio? There is the big mixing console with big tool rack (compressor/expander, limiter you name it, tools to manipulate the stereo image). Every recorded track (guitar, drums, whatever) runs separately through a long processing chain. Today it's certainly worse with the easy availability of digital effects. Finally a master copy, in the 80ies often on tape, fed into the cutter that cuts the vinyl master. Chances are that the cutter (expensive) is an old one and still works with tubes.
I would be more afraid of the fact that current mass productions are mastered using boom boxes (ontop of the mixing console of course). This is done to shape the sound for car audio as most people, especially in the US, enjoy most of the music in the car.
Proper mastering, including knowing the limitations of the used medium, has certainly much bigger influence on sound than the exact number of opamps in the chain.
Have fun, Hannes
I would be more afraid of the fact that current mass productions are mastered using boom boxes (ontop of the mixing console of course). This is done to shape the sound for car audio as most people, especially in the US, enjoy most of the music in the car.
Proper mastering, including knowing the limitations of the used medium, has certainly much bigger influence on sound than the exact number of opamps in the chain.
Have fun, Hannes
Having worked in both the high end hi-fi industry and the pro-audio/recording sector, I can back up Richie00boys statements 100%.
In fact he is, if anything, being too kind! (although for a purist classical recording maybe not much of the mark).
Most more mainstream recordings will have gone through parametric eq, graphic eq, compressor, de-esser, limiter, reverb (analogue or digital) etc, etc and may well have been put through the producer/bands/editors etc favorite pet 1950's valve gear 'cos they like the sound of 2-3% 2nd harmonic distortion!
It's quite possible (in fact likely) that it's been through 100 NE5534's and maybe a few TL072's, LF351's, 4558's etc for good measure. Then there is all the processing done in the digital domain these days using Pro-Tools and a myriad of other software!
It often amazes me that recordings can sound so good (sometimes ) and that we can hear any differences between amps, cd players etc when the sound has had to travel such an obstacle course already....
In fact he is, if anything, being too kind! (although for a purist classical recording maybe not much of the mark).
Most more mainstream recordings will have gone through parametric eq, graphic eq, compressor, de-esser, limiter, reverb (analogue or digital) etc, etc and may well have been put through the producer/bands/editors etc favorite pet 1950's valve gear 'cos they like the sound of 2-3% 2nd harmonic distortion!
It's quite possible (in fact likely) that it's been through 100 NE5534's and maybe a few TL072's, LF351's, 4558's etc for good measure. Then there is all the processing done in the digital domain these days using Pro-Tools and a myriad of other software!
It often amazes me that recordings can sound so good (sometimes
) and that we can hear any differences between amps, cd players etc when the sound has had to travel such an obstacle course already....
It often amazes me that recordings can sound so good (sometimes
This is what I can't figure too.
Fact... swapping the NE5532 etc in a CD player etc for something better does alter the sound.
Why ?
Why should it make such a difference
This is what I can't figure too.
Fact... swapping the NE5532 etc in a CD player etc for something better does alter the sound.
Why ?
Why should it make such a difference
A good question!
How's this for a theory....
As long as all this circuitry in the signal path has a reasonably high bandwidth, all the distortion, intermodulation, noise etc introduced by any one stage will be distorted etc again by the next stage giving rise to new frequency components, phase shifts etc, etc. Now, at the end of this "process"/signal chain we may well be left with a signal that although no longer "accurate" (to what?) is actually more complicated than the original! Therefore any further change due to just one more stage/opamp can indeed be audible.....
Just an idea
A good question!
How's this for a theory....
As long as all this circuitry in the signal path has a reasonably high bandwidth LETS SAY YES, all the distortion, intermodulation, noise etc introduced by any one stage will be distorted etc again by the next stage Possiblygiving rise to new frequency components, phase shifts etc, etcAgain lets say yes. Now, at the end of this "process"/signal chain we may well be left with a signal that although no longer "accurate" (to what?) is actually more complicated than the original! LETS SAY THAT IS SO Therefore any further change due to just one more stage/opamp can indeed be audible..... SO WHY IS IT ALWAYS FOR THE BETTER REPLACING THE DEAR OLD 5532 ??
Just an idea
I posted this on another thread, page 2 middle column,
http://www.resolutionmag.com/pdfs/SWEETS~1/DIGITA~1.PDF
http://www.resolutionmag.com/pdfs/SWEETS~1/DIGITA~1.PDF
Perhaps this is why vinyl from the 50's and early 60's
sounds so good.
I must admit I don't have any vinyl now.
Your a very knowledgeable chap Nelson, what's your take on all this ? that Opamps do have their own distinct "sound" and "colour" and yet we make those comments after listening to material that may have passed through many 5532 type devices.
In a nutshell
do you have any ideas as to why this is so... why we hear these differences in that final link (opamp) in the chain.
These estimates seem very high. In the radio production suites I built ten years ago, hardly the domain of high end, a microphone can go through as few as one or two opamps before hitting the ADC. No console over ~$2000 I've installed in ten years leans on the 5532. The Ward Beck R2K for example, not exactly the Krell of consoles, is mostly OP275.
You need to separate out the type of recording. Yes, I've had people say they wanted a 25 year old on-air console I was throwing out precisely because of the signature sound of all the junk opamps but so what? Maybe changing the output of your CD player won't make much difference if every recoding came from a McCurdy. In my industry the kind of analogue console Self claims is universal stopped being economically viable a very long time ago.
You need to separate out the type of recording. Yes, I've had people say they wanted a 25 year old on-air console I was throwing out precisely because of the signature sound of all the junk opamps but so what? Maybe changing the output of your CD player won't make much difference if every recoding came from a McCurdy. In my industry the kind of analogue console Self claims is universal stopped being economically viable a very long time ago.
Perhaps this is why vinyl from the 50's and early 60's
sounds so good.
Really, really! That's why the few gems in my collection that actually sound like a band playing in a room are from that period. We're looking at a few mics going straight onto two tracks.
As much as Les Paul is loved, sometimes I wish that he hadn't invented multi-track recording (if in fact he did).
This is where it all gets "muddy" and so subjective. I use only CD and know exactly what you mean by that statement... you have one or two "demonstration" quality recordings that for whatever reasons sound great and the rest, erm well you probably sit down wanting to listen, and then find the interest or whatever isn't there and switch off.
I used to find exactly that
Out of all the hundreds of CD's I have many must have passed through the 5532 "process" or worse.
So we blame the CD's, our systems are so good that they reveal all the nasties... that's what we tell ourselves.
But then you discover an amp (pre+power) that suddenly makes music, it's different, different to anything you have ever heard before and suddenly you really are listening to music, now 95% of those CD's sound wonderful. They have depth, space, fantastic image, every nuance captured... and it is the amp doing this magic.
So those recordings can't be too bad
What is even stranger is that good though this now sounds, altering that final device or two in say the CD player "improves" things further. Is it that the implementation of the device hasn't been correct ? that it was chosen because it must be the best (at a price of course).
It seems when it comes to audio that there is far more going on than we realise.
I just can not reconcile the "facts" as I hear them.
1. If the 5532 is "bad" why given sympathetic equipment do most recordings sound really good (given the right conditions) if that device were used to master them.
2. That the 5532 "seems" to be a poor performer in much commercial audio gear (CD players etc) because you can definitely improve the "musicality" etc of the player by swapping to a different device.
Are we saying that our ears are so sensitive (and it appears so) that we can
hear the "colouration" a single opamp makes in the chain. And that that device can "undo" or change for the better all that has gone before.
So many times you hear things such as "NE5532... lacks detail" etc etc.
But if that detail is recoverable by playing the disc on a player with your "favourite" opamp/s installed then the detail was there all along.
This is what I can not explain.
Maybe you are being to harsh on our old friend the NE5532/34..... I don't think it can be said that replacing it with anything else always results in improved sound. And I'm old enough to remember when people were removing any other op-amp to fit 5532 in it's place!
I have heard superb results from equipment utilising 5532/34 op-amps. I have also heard some pretty average stuff using the same op-amp. I think a lot depends on how it's used.... circuit layout, parasitics, PSU quality all play their part along with the topology of the circuitry using the op-amp.
The 5534 for example is not unity gain stable, and although the dual 5532 is, it may well be happier at x5 or x10 gain. So much for using it in a final buffer stage in a cd player!
The 5532/34 is not unique in these respects. I can recall more than one occasion when I've used my favourite, "flavour of the month" op amp for a certain audio task, expecting good results, only to be disappointed and have to move back to 5534 or TL072 or whatever....
There is sometimes I fear an "emperors new clothes" syndrome not just with op amps but with many hi-fi "issues". After reading much advertising hype from manufacturers and then glowing reviews on sites such as this, it is easy to fall into the trap of thinking new+expensive= must be better.... especially after having spent a lot of money on something which you are expecting to be better
I have heard superb results from equipment utilising 5532/34 op-amps. I have also heard some pretty average stuff using the same op-amp. I think a lot depends on how it's used.... circuit layout, parasitics, PSU quality all play their part along with the topology of the circuitry using the op-amp.
The 5534 for example is not unity gain stable, and although the dual 5532 is, it may well be happier at x5 or x10 gain. So much for using it in a final buffer stage in a cd player!
The 5532/34 is not unique in these respects. I can recall more than one occasion when I've used my favourite, "flavour of the month" op amp for a certain audio task, expecting good results, only to be disappointed and have to move back to 5534 or TL072 or whatever....
There is sometimes I fear an "emperors new clothes" syndrome not just with op amps but with many hi-fi "issues". After reading much advertising hype from manufacturers and then glowing reviews on sites such as this, it is easy to fall into the trap of thinking new+expensive= must be better.... especially after having spent a lot of money on something which you are expecting to be better
- Status
- This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.