Anyone know if this PCB will be made available through DIY, or other outlet - as in a DIY'er fabricating a few for sale. I'll in for a couple. How about a parts list that fit the PCB hole spacing too.
I believe the PCB is available through Elektor. The whole article can be downloaded for a few bucks.
jan
Yes. Thanks jan. I saw it on their site and ordered one. $21 and change EURO. I think about $43USD including postage.
I believe that Self's use of/for tone controls isn't to add boom or rasp, but to have them at suitable frequencies to be able to remove boom/rasp should they be present.
If one wants to artificially enhance the music, then yes, you'd want to add more low-low bass and add more high frequency 'sparkle', but I don't think that this is this pre-amps intended goal.
I would tend to agree with this reasoning. The quoted boost and cut for the tone controls in this design is +/- 10dB (max), as opposed to the previously more common figures +/- 20dB. This is more appropriate for listening room compensation, when needed. Having built Rod Elliott's Project 97 preamplifier which also has +/- 10dB adjustment, I find the adjustment range more than adequate.
Last edited:
the circuit is somewhat more a design study of what could be done with the 5532 and is tailored to it. It may work with other opamps, but won't necessarily provide better performance. In fact, using other opamps may have led to other design choices.
Plus and minus 20 db...
Never heard of such , that is really a lot of compensation, 12 db is more common. I would still go ahead and have it changed and not have the turnover in those ranges, it's what have worked for me and i have tried many different formats before, way back when we used tone compensation.
As for listening room compensation, such simple adjustments , less just say .......
Hi,
I don't understand this talk of 100Hz vs. 50Hz and 10KHz vs. 12KHz
(like the latter would make any real difference) turnover frequencies.
The tone controls are entirely conventional Baxandall centred on 1KHz,
you can't use them to adjust the frequency extremes only at all, well
you can for minor settings in the bass, but not the treble.
rgds, sreten.
I don't understand this talk of 100Hz vs. 50Hz and 10KHz vs. 12KHz
(like the latter would make any real difference) turnover frequencies.
The tone controls are entirely conventional Baxandall centred on 1KHz,
you can't use them to adjust the frequency extremes only at all, well
you can for minor settings in the bass, but not the treble.
rgds, sreten.
Never mind. I got the parts list with hole spacing on the Elektor website. I just need to open my eyes sometimes!Anyone know if this PCB will be made available through DIY, or other outlet - as in a DIY'er fabricating a few for sale. I'll in for a couple. How about a parts list that fit the PCB hole spacing too.
Please explain , the article said the tone controls provided boost at 100 hz and 10 kHz .
What is there to understand , what's missing ......?
[snip]
As for listening room compensation, such simple adjustments , less just say .......
Well, this one may work for the same reasons that those mic-driven digital room compensation systems don't
Well, I understood you.
It would take far too long to list the enormous number of Doug Self designs and their derivatives. Now that it was mentioned, a list like that, although laborious, could also be really interesting for data correlation to see which variants are most appreciated, and, likewise, that would cause a most interesting question as to why. The answers to those questions could be made in the form of circuits. Those would be optimal, like "cream of the crop." Parallel mode erases most of the sonic signature of most ordinary op-amps. That includes NE5532. You might could tell by listening that it is parallel, but nobody could say for sure that it is a chip. At about that point, concentrating on really clean power will have more benefit than chip swapping.
From the discussion, it seems like "current headroom" = less straining = less current noise = less noise. Right?
For Doug Self's NE5532 circuit, the ideal chip rolling replacement is a much better make/copy/brand of NE5532, such as Signetics, Philips, because anything authentic will work ever so much better than random fakes. It may be fun to discover the Brand and production Year of Doug Self's NE5532's that were actually used during test so that all of those fancy measurements can be put to good use instead of invalidated by inaccurate semiconductor copies/changes/versions/revisions. There are versions of NE5532 made for selling but there are versions of NE5532 made for using, and the performance is quite different.
Of course, clean power is more important or at least equally important, and therefore I hope that the preamp's power circuit is at least as elaborate as the audio circuit.
Hi,
I can guarantee that A LOT of my music collection on LP was never anywhere near a NE5534/32its . Also, a fair bit of my current "High Resolution" digital music was nowhere near. I even have a fair few CD's where I can garantee "no bits where harmed by NE5532" (and they incidentally also feature the highest subjective sound quality as WELL as the most realistic recording practices).
Just because they are commonly used in a certain period and certain kinds of equipment does not mean the NE5532 use is universal.
Much serious recording equipment has retained discrete circuits in preference to IC's up to today. Most High end Microphone Preamps are discrete, as are many of the critcial sections of recording consoles and AD/DA converters. Those that use IC's generally do not use bottom feeding stuff like 5532 or 4558 and co. but higher grade. All these chip's are reserved for the "pro-sumer" market, that is bedroom wannabes who buyt gear that is advertised as "Pro"but is consumer generica...
This whole "all music has passed through dozends or even hundreds of NE5532" is an even great piece of spin and lying than anything the objectivists routine object to in the "subjectivist" camp and illustrates nothing but profound ignorance of the equipment real studios (not you bedroom home studio's) use...
Sorry for the harsh tone, but I'm severely allergic to chemically pure Bull Manure.
Ciao T
I can guarantee that A LOT of my music collection on LP was never anywhere near a NE5534/32its . Also, a fair bit of my current "High Resolution" digital music was nowhere near. I even have a fair few CD's where I can garantee "no bits where harmed by NE5532" (and they incidentally also feature the highest subjective sound quality as WELL as the most realistic recording practices).
Just because they are commonly used in a certain period and certain kinds of equipment does not mean the NE5532 use is universal.
Much serious recording equipment has retained discrete circuits in preference to IC's up to today. Most High end Microphone Preamps are discrete, as are many of the critcial sections of recording consoles and AD/DA converters. Those that use IC's generally do not use bottom feeding stuff like 5532 or 4558 and co. but higher grade. All these chip's are reserved for the "pro-sumer" market, that is bedroom wannabes who buyt gear that is advertised as "Pro"but is consumer generica...
This whole "all music has passed through dozends or even hundreds of NE5532" is an even great piece of spin and lying than anything the objectivists routine object to in the "subjectivist" camp and illustrates nothing but profound ignorance of the equipment real studios (not you bedroom home studio's) use...
Sorry for the harsh tone, but I'm severely allergic to chemically pure Bull Manure.
Ciao T
Jan,
Not automatically. There are many factors involved.
As alternative, using a pair of BF862, one BJT and one LM317 plus a few resistors and pretty much any low cost, medium noise, high speed BJT OPA can be made to outperform the quad 5532 at a notional budget difference.
Ciao T
Not automatically. There are many factors involved.
As alternative, using a pair of BF862, one BJT and one LM317 plus a few resistors and pretty much any low cost, medium noise, high speed BJT OPA can be made to outperform the quad 5532 at a notional budget difference.
Ciao T
Hi,
What you mean to say, it offers a lowest common denominator at very low cost. If low cost is the main objective it is indeed a reasonable choice.
Let me put this way, I cannot for the life of me think of any circuit where an NE5532 may be found, where there is not a better performing alternatives available (strictly on absolute performance - price excluded), but I can think of a few (very few) places where I would use it, if low cost was the main design objective, rather than performance.
Sure, a 553X will work and measure acceptably and yes, it is cheap, which no doubt pleases the english penchant for a "bargain" (like "hey, I just got these phantastic speakers that are worth 5,000 Quid from a man in a white Van for 500 Quid! What do you say to that Mr. Audiophile!"), but will it give best performance, especially in the real world?
I do not know what others value their time at, I normally charge 35 Quid an Hour. So to me using cheap junk when using my own time to build something seems counter productive, especially when I know quite certain that it will compromise the final result.
I have not seen the schematic, however with respect, a single BJT and a LM317 set up as CCS at 100mA Iq as buffer after a single op-amp will offer substantially better low impedance drive and will allow the choice of an Op-Amp better suited overall (this would be my choice). For the same budget it is a much better solution overall.
Noise? How low noise do we want/need? How quiet is the noisefloor of your living or listening room? What is the maximum SPL listened at? What is the audibility threshold? What is the noise and SPL limit of recording microphones?
Can anyone present evidence the lower noise than the audibility threshold or indeed the basic room noise will result in better sound quality?
What levels of resistance are needed to lower noise even to elevsl that do not compromise a 5532? And how many 5532 do we need to parallel to match one LT1115?
It would be nice if inflationary claims would be supported by evidence that they offer anything beyond self gratification.
Where is the proof that low THD is required for high fidelity reproduction? Where is proof that equipment self noise well below the hearing threshold in the given listening situation?
Without such proof all we have are empty claims and irrational belief.
Ciao T
What you mean to say, it offers a lowest common denominator at very low cost. If low cost is the main objective it is indeed a reasonable choice.
Let me put this way, I cannot for the life of me think of any circuit where an NE5532 may be found, where there is not a better performing alternatives available (strictly on absolute performance - price excluded), but I can think of a few (very few) places where I would use it, if low cost was the main design objective, rather than performance.
Sure, a 553X will work and measure acceptably and yes, it is cheap, which no doubt pleases the english penchant for a "bargain" (like "hey, I just got these phantastic speakers that are worth 5,000 Quid from a man in a white Van for 500 Quid! What do you say to that Mr. Audiophile!"), but will it give best performance, especially in the real world?
I do not know what others value their time at, I normally charge 35 Quid an Hour. So to me using cheap junk when using my own time to build something seems counter productive, especially when I know quite certain that it will compromise the final result.
I have not seen the schematic, however with respect, a single BJT and a LM317 set up as CCS at 100mA Iq as buffer after a single op-amp will offer substantially better low impedance drive and will allow the choice of an Op-Amp better suited overall (this would be my choice). For the same budget it is a much better solution overall.
Noise? How low noise do we want/need? How quiet is the noisefloor of your living or listening room? What is the maximum SPL listened at? What is the audibility threshold? What is the noise and SPL limit of recording microphones?
Can anyone present evidence the lower noise than the audibility threshold or indeed the basic room noise will result in better sound quality?
What levels of resistance are needed to lower noise even to elevsl that do not compromise a 5532? And how many 5532 do we need to parallel to match one LT1115?
It would be nice if inflationary claims would be supported by evidence that they offer anything beyond self gratification.
Where is the proof that low THD is required for high fidelity reproduction? Where is proof that equipment self noise well below the hearing threshold in the given listening situation?
Without such proof all we have are empty claims and irrational belief.
Ciao T
Hi,
That or he was actually awake in the EE Courses he took.
Ciao T
IMO, anybody that doesn't learn something from a Self article isn't paying attention.
That or he was actually awake in the EE Courses he took.
Ciao T
The shape of the curves, what happens with partial boost or cut, interaction between the controls. Different versions of the Baxandall controls actually behave quite differently.
I'll do some sims now to get an idea, and post the results when I'm done.
Well, I understood you.
Daniel,
Do you really expect any correlation between circuitry, measurement data and market success?
jan