Since listening to the NE5534 performing I/V duties in a CD player and also as balanced to unbalanced converter in a DAC I have found it difficult to reconcile the many denigrating statements written by audio DIYers with the sound coming forth from this remarkable op-amp. Having reflected on this conflict of opinions I am offering my own explanation as to why the NE5534 receives such a bad press from many, though not all.
The background...
I had until recently been using a discrete op-amp which, with a FET input, sounded slightly better than an OPA627 biased into class with a ccs, and with a BJT input (my preferred option), improved on the AD797 (again with a ccs). Having read so much negative comment on the NE5534/2 I had not contemplated trying this op-amp, instead evaluating many other more modern types, including those already mentioned along side others, the LM6171, AD825, OPA134 etc. It was therefore a surprise to find the NE5534 the most musically engaging of the lot.
Tarred with the same brush...
The (uncompensated) NE5534 sounds more refined than the NE5532 and should be judged on its own merit. My understanding is that the NE5534 is the single version of the NE5533, not the NE5532!
Mass psychology...
No comment!
The sound...
(Uncompensated, with a 2mA ccs on the output)
In my view, after extensive listening comparisons with other op-amps, the NE5534 possibly works against itself. Its superb purity and focus impart a subjective quality that can be wrongly interpreted as detached and distant, lacking ‘body’ and ‘drive’, however it is perhaps these qualities that set the NE5534 apart from the rest. Consider a live concert where you might be sitting half way back in the auditorium. Individual instruments do sound distant, they do sound small and there is a distinct space between them and the walls of the auditorium. It does not sound larger than life. Due to various factors including microphone positioning a recording will usually allow reproduction of this perspective only to a degree, though interestingly there seems to be a current trend towards a more distant (and therefore more realistic) sound in more modern recordings. But this is precisely the strength of the NE5534 in my view, it does not sound larger than life! For those of us who like to be transported to a seat in the auditorium the NE5534 is the just the ‘ticket’, it convincingly recreates the acoustic where the recording took place, natural detail is portrayed coherently and the smooth, wide-open treble is the icing on the cake. For those who like their music larger than life and who prefer the orchestra in their room, it probably isn’t.
Tim.
The background...
I had until recently been using a discrete op-amp which, with a FET input, sounded slightly better than an OPA627 biased into class with a ccs, and with a BJT input (my preferred option), improved on the AD797 (again with a ccs). Having read so much negative comment on the NE5534/2 I had not contemplated trying this op-amp, instead evaluating many other more modern types, including those already mentioned along side others, the LM6171, AD825, OPA134 etc. It was therefore a surprise to find the NE5534 the most musically engaging of the lot.
Tarred with the same brush...
The (uncompensated) NE5534 sounds more refined than the NE5532 and should be judged on its own merit. My understanding is that the NE5534 is the single version of the NE5533, not the NE5532!
Mass psychology...
No comment!
The sound...
(Uncompensated, with a 2mA ccs on the output)
In my view, after extensive listening comparisons with other op-amps, the NE5534 possibly works against itself. Its superb purity and focus impart a subjective quality that can be wrongly interpreted as detached and distant, lacking ‘body’ and ‘drive’, however it is perhaps these qualities that set the NE5534 apart from the rest. Consider a live concert where you might be sitting half way back in the auditorium. Individual instruments do sound distant, they do sound small and there is a distinct space between them and the walls of the auditorium. It does not sound larger than life. Due to various factors including microphone positioning a recording will usually allow reproduction of this perspective only to a degree, though interestingly there seems to be a current trend towards a more distant (and therefore more realistic) sound in more modern recordings. But this is precisely the strength of the NE5534 in my view, it does not sound larger than life! For those of us who like to be transported to a seat in the auditorium the NE5534 is the just the ‘ticket’, it convincingly recreates the acoustic where the recording took place, natural detail is portrayed coherently and the smooth, wide-open treble is the icing on the cake. For those who like their music larger than life and who prefer the orchestra in their room, it probably isn’t.
Tim.
I always hesitate to say I like the 5534 and 5532 because it is derided by so many people. (mind you, some of those people like to use the original OP27 for audio, so there's no accounting for taste!)
The big problem with the 5534 is that it does have quite high bias currents, and in hi-Z circuits it can suffer because of this.
The big problem with the 5534 is that it does have quite high bias currents, and in hi-Z circuits it can suffer because of this.
from http://www.zero-distortion.com/tests/opamps/opamps.htm:
" Precision Monolithics Inc., or PMI, developed their OP27 in the early 80-ies. This was a god-sent gift to audio designers for several reasons. First, it was unity gain stable, lending itself to simple and effective applications. Second, it had a very low noise floor, nominally 3.7 nV/sq.rt.Hz, which made it highly suitable for sensitive audio applications right down to phono RIAA equalizers. And third, it's unity gain response was out to 60 MHz, which meant that if it wasn't overworked, it could be used for units with responses out to 1 MHz, and this in turn meant insignificant phase shifts. And sure enough, it started cropping up in audio, but this time round, it wasn't just the commercial sector, this time it was the very much high end audio as well. Did you know that the now famous German company, Burmester, made its debut on the back of this op amp? They proved that ANY op amp could be made to come on song, if the designer knew what he was doing."
I was also one of those who used the OP27 as well. That's until I realised that something wasn't quite right. It worked (and still works well) in inverting configurations, but not in non-inverting.
I haven't done any investigation on it, but I suspect that the amp doesn't like to see much of a common-mode signal.
I haven't done any investigation on it, but I suspect that the amp doesn't like to see much of a common-mode signal.
Those were exactly my observations on the 5534 at the time. Maybe i should have a fresh listen. I also remember the disappointment after i heard the first non-Signetics 5534.
The famous German company certainly used a lot of 5534 and other cheap-skate solutions but did any of their creations ever sounded good?
I like the 5532/5534 opamps. I also don't believe in alot of the
audio 'Voodoo' that gets repeated on forums in general.
You might get a kick out of this. Richard Clark told me he has
an interesting test where he allows the user to insert any
cable of their choice between a preamp and an amplifier
and they swap the cable with a 20 cascaded 741 opamps.
The listener compares the sound between the opamps and
cable to see if they can hear a difference. Apparently, they can't
distingiush between the two. The only adjustments he makes
is to correct any frequency response problems that might occur
due to loading effects of the opamp depending on which gear
you mate it with.
Any questions, you can ask him directly here;
http://www.carsound.com/UBB/ultimatebb.php?ubb=forum;f=1
From what I gathered reading about the 5532/5534 over the
past few years, people are not saavy enough to design with it,
they want 'problematic free' opamps, drop in replacements
therefore anything outside this scope is disregarded as
bad. <--
audio 'Voodoo' that gets repeated on forums in general.
You might get a kick out of this. Richard Clark told me he has
an interesting test where he allows the user to insert any
cable of their choice between a preamp and an amplifier
and they swap the cable with a 20 cascaded 741 opamps.
The listener compares the sound between the opamps and
cable to see if they can hear a difference. Apparently, they can't
distingiush between the two. The only adjustments he makes
is to correct any frequency response problems that might occur
due to loading effects of the opamp depending on which gear
you mate it with.
Any questions, you can ask him directly here;
http://www.carsound.com/UBB/ultimatebb.php?ubb=forum;f=1
From what I gathered reading about the 5532/5534 over the
past few years, people are not saavy enough to design with it,
they want 'problematic free' opamps, drop in replacements
therefore anything outside this scope is disregarded as
bad. <--
analog_sa said:It just takes one hint that the 5534 may not after all be that bad and the offers to replace it with 20 x 741s start pouring in.
This place can really get wild
I did find the 'test' amusing, chaining a bunch of 'cheap' opamps
to prove two things. Cables and opamps have no sonic
magic that audiophiles claim.
But the test is not realistic if you have to tweak FR due to loading
effects. Nobody would chain untiy gain 741's to prove a point
except Richard Clark and nobody designs a practical circuit like
that in the real world.
I'd like to see the test done with gain.
To add to the comedy, open up some proaudio gear
and you will find 'worse' opamps than the 553 series.
For those who like the NE5534 and it's cousin NE5532 take a look at: http://www.dself.dsl.pipex.com/ampins/webbop/opamp.htm
This may make you feel better. I don't do much with opamps, so I don't really have much opinion. One of the few times I used one was an idea to create a center channel by mixing L and R together while also keeping the original L and R separate so as as to drive three speakers. I tried using the NE for this but for some reason it allowed cross-talk between L an R even though the signal path was not straight forward. In all other respects it functioned fine. Substituting virtually any other opamp curred curred the cross-talk. (As luck would have it, It turned out I didn't like the three channel arrangement anyway so the whole thing was scrapped).
This may make you feel better. I don't do much with opamps, so I don't really have much opinion. One of the few times I used one was an idea to create a center channel by mixing L and R together while also keeping the original L and R separate so as as to drive three speakers. I tried using the NE for this but for some reason it allowed cross-talk between L an R even though the signal path was not straight forward. In all other respects it functioned fine. Substituting virtually any other opamp curred curred the cross-talk. (As luck would have it, It turned out I didn't like the three channel arrangement anyway so the whole thing was scrapped).
NE5532 in a phono stage.
Hi,
I just completed a two stage passive equalised RIAA phono amp. All opamps are on sockets.
The input opamp is configured for a gain of about 31 .
The passive 75uS eq follows and is buffered by a unity gain opamp. Then comes the passive 3180uS and 318uS filter and followed by an opamp with a gain of about 10.
The last opamp is a Burr Brown OPA2134.
The first two is a dual NE5532 or AD826.
The NE5532 sounds very nice . BUT I was really surprised when I put in a AD826 in its place. The sound was far better. I felt that the transient response - like a drum note - had far more impact . Overall it sounded better. It is VERY audibly different.
The measured response was no different between the two chips. Only difference would have been what the cartridge sees and possibly the difference in the internal circuitry of the opamps causing the audible difference.
I will surely check other opamps in a circuit that uses a NE5532. It might sound very different !
Cheers.
Ashok.
Hi,
I just completed a two stage passive equalised RIAA phono amp. All opamps are on sockets.
The input opamp is configured for a gain of about 31 .
The passive 75uS eq follows and is buffered by a unity gain opamp. Then comes the passive 3180uS and 318uS filter and followed by an opamp with a gain of about 10.
The last opamp is a Burr Brown OPA2134.
The first two is a dual NE5532 or AD826.
The NE5532 sounds very nice . BUT I was really surprised when I put in a AD826 in its place. The sound was far better. I felt that the transient response - like a drum note - had far more impact . Overall it sounded better. It is VERY audibly different.
The measured response was no different between the two chips. Only difference would have been what the cartridge sees and possibly the difference in the internal circuitry of the opamps causing the audible difference.
I will surely check other opamps in a circuit that uses a NE5532. It might sound very different !
Cheers.
Ashok.
Better S/N.
Hi Analog_sa,
You are right about trying to get better S/N . I was looking at the overload factor when I picked the configuration. I might be wrong of course.
The input stage is designed to accept about 400mV peak that seems to be the max output one can expect in the worst case ( noisy ) scenario from a MM cartridge.
The second opamp will have to handle this full signal if it occurs at anything less than about 2kHz. But I am not sure of the noise spectrum of surface noise . I was just trying to be extra careful.
In practice , with average albums , it might be possible to have gain here without encountering any overload problems on spiky noise. Spiky noise basically must be HF trash. But what about LF content in it ? Something like a drum . Large transient with decaying LF signals.
On second thought , that sounds wrong!
Can you and other RIAA experts comment on this - overload due to non musical signals ?
Thanks for bringing this up. It has been troubling me.
Cheers.
Ashok.
Hi Analog_sa,
You are right about trying to get better S/N . I was looking at the overload factor when I picked the configuration. I might be wrong of course.
The input stage is designed to accept about 400mV peak that seems to be the max output one can expect in the worst case ( noisy ) scenario from a MM cartridge.
The second opamp will have to handle this full signal if it occurs at anything less than about 2kHz. But I am not sure of the noise spectrum of surface noise . I was just trying to be extra careful.
In practice , with average albums , it might be possible to have gain here without encountering any overload problems on spiky noise. Spiky noise basically must be HF trash. But what about LF content in it ? Something like a drum . Large transient with decaying LF signals.
On second thought , that sounds wrong!
Can you and other RIAA experts comment on this - overload due to non musical signals ?
Thanks for bringing this up. It has been troubling me.
Cheers.
Ashok.
Ouroboros said:
I have used the 5534 extensively and find it a good performer. I have used some of the latest types, mostly AD, but other then having to pay a lot more for them, found no audible differences.
You last statement is puzzling. They indeed run higher bias, but other then a bit more power supply current converted to heat, should make no difference. Certainly has no bearing whatsoever on circuit Z, unless I miss your point? Actually, newer opamps are often optimised towards evry low bias currents, and this may just be the point that gives the 5534 the edge.
Jan Didden
Konnichiwa,
There is no accounting for personal taste.
Note the qualification "uncompensated". In many applications the NE5534 cannot be uncompensated without making it unstable.
My understanding is that you understanding is wishfull thinking.
Or maybe reverse mass psychology (If everyone says the NE5532/34 is crap and I don't want to be like everyone I must like it...)?
Well, usually it is used without CCS and compensated, but we will let this pass.
In other words, the NE5534 is by far from "neutral", but imparts a strong sonic signature, which you happen to like, personally.
But it sounds smaller then the recording. So in connection with certain recordings the failures of the NE5534 offset some of the recording, to your taste.
However, is it "the ticket" even it places a closeup, intimate recording into auditorium perspective (I agree that it does BTW)?
I don't think so, not at all. It portrays something you seem to mistake as such, not the real thing, as is easily illustrated with a wirebypass test.
It also is not for those who wish to hear the recording as recorded.
Sayonara
TimA said:
There is no accounting for personal taste.
TimA said:
Note the qualification "uncompensated". In many applications the NE5534 cannot be uncompensated without making it unstable.
TimA said:
My understanding is that you understanding is wishfull thinking.
TimA said:
Or maybe reverse mass psychology (If everyone says the NE5532/34 is crap and I don't want to be like everyone I must like it...)?
TimA said:
Well, usually it is used without CCS and compensated, but we will let this pass.
TimA said:
In other words, the NE5534 is by far from "neutral", but imparts a strong sonic signature, which you happen to like, personally.
TimA said:
But it sounds smaller then the recording. So in connection with certain recordings the failures of the NE5534 offset some of the recording, to your taste.
TimA said:
However, is it "the ticket" even it places a closeup, intimate recording into auditorium perspective (I agree that it does BTW)?
TimA said:
I don't think so, not at all. It portrays something you seem to mistake as such, not the real thing, as is easily illustrated with a wirebypass test.
TimA said:
It also is not for those who wish to hear the recording as recorded.
Sayonara
Hi Ashok
This is way out of topic and we should probably rather move it to a new thread if anyone else shows some interest.
But the LF is still some 20db below your 12v limit, right? Anyway, i didn't realise you expect 400mV peaks, that's rather cautious, isn't it? How do you estimate the S/N in everyday use?
I haven't tried a split riaa with opamps for almost 20 years, maybe the time has finally come One potential issue is the need for separate regulators for each opamp - i find this really determines the absolute transparency of the cascade.
This is way out of topic and we should probably rather move it to a new thread if anyone else shows some interest.
But the LF is still some 20db below your 12v limit, right? Anyway, i didn't realise you expect 400mV peaks, that's rather cautious, isn't it? How do you estimate the S/N in everyday use?
I haven't tried a split riaa with opamps for almost 20 years, maybe the time has finally come
One potential issue is the need for separate regulators for each opamp - i find this really determines the absolute transparency of the cascade.
Very interesting thread, leading controversy.
I have not been using NE5534 for many years when CD player come into my life, no any RIAA or line amp needed. My DIY DAC was not very not time ago. This thread recall my memory that I had 8 pcs Signetics NE5534 and 4 pcs TI NE5534 under my drawer, I dismantled them from my old pre amps for about 10 years. I am currently using a DIY DAC of AK4395 with I/V opamp OPA627 in balanced mode connection, I tried EL2044, OPA134, OPA604 before, AD797s are on the way, but I never think I would place NE5534s at my DAC as they were too old enough to forget until I saw this thread.
I try them with 2 classics CDs today, one is Brahms Symphony and one is Violin pcs with Orchestra, the result is wonderful (only on Signetics). Perhaps they offset my recordings, is it far from neutral? I don't know, I get much more feelings like inside an auditorium that is the most important. In fact it is subjective and personal. OPA627 is a very good op amp but Signetics NE5534 is my choice now. Definitely, I will keep on listening, DIY is a very interesting stuff that different guys make different outcomes.
Cheers
John
I have not been using NE5534 for many years when CD player come into my life, no any RIAA or line amp needed. My DIY DAC was not very not time ago. This thread recall my memory that I had 8 pcs Signetics NE5534 and 4 pcs TI NE5534 under my drawer, I dismantled them from my old pre amps for about 10 years. I am currently using a DIY DAC of AK4395 with I/V opamp OPA627 in balanced mode connection, I tried EL2044, OPA134, OPA604 before, AD797s are on the way, but I never think I would place NE5534s at my DAC as they were too old enough to forget until I saw this thread.
I try them with 2 classics CDs today, one is Brahms Symphony and one is Violin pcs with Orchestra, the result is wonderful (only on Signetics). Perhaps they offset my recordings, is it far from neutral? I don't know, I get much more feelings like inside an auditorium that is the most important. In fact it is subjective and personal. OPA627 is a very good op amp but Signetics NE5534 is my choice now. Definitely, I will keep on listening, DIY is a very interesting stuff that different guys make different outcomes.
Cheers
John
K.Y.Wang
Please refer to the Philips datasheet for the NE5534/NE5533 which clearly states...''The 5533/5534 are dual and single high-performance low noise operational amplifiers. '' Wishfull thinking?... I think not!
As for your other comments, what a strange mixture of intelligent contributions....and otherwise!
I agree that there is no accounting for personal taste, however I am more than able to judge the difference between 'accuracy' to the recording, and accuracy to the 'aims of the recording'. Having not carried out a wire bypass test I cannot comment on the former with respect to the NE5534, but I believe it would be a foolish to ignore the NE5534 in respect of the latter. The NE5534 may or may be the most ''accurate'' of op-amps, however if we are talking about a wire bypass test, by this I assume you mean ''accuracy'', we surely need look at measurements as well as use our ears, the measurements for the NE5534 speak for themselves of course! If we are talking about the latter, or the ''reproduction of a musical event'', things can be interpreted differently. For whatever reason, be it inaccuracy or accuracy, sonic signature or no sonic signature, the NE5534 seems to convey certain recorded subtleties more acutely than most other op-amps, particularly ambience. You implied that the NE5534 imparts a strong sonic signature and that its failures offset some of the recording, you also imply that I like this. Here I must disagree, at least up to a point. To take just one example...NE5534 reproduces the acoustic of a church from the first moments of the recording up to the point just before the first note is heard more acutely than almost any other op-amp I have tried. Other op-amps sound ''dead'' in comparison. I don't think the NE5534 is synthesising this!
John.
Thankyou for posting your results on this thread. Good news!
Tim.
Please refer to the Philips datasheet for the NE5534/NE5533 which clearly states...''The 5533/5534 are dual and single high-performance low noise operational amplifiers. '' Wishfull thinking?... I think not!
As for your other comments, what a strange mixture of intelligent contributions....and otherwise!
I agree that there is no accounting for personal taste, however I am more than able to judge the difference between 'accuracy' to the recording, and accuracy to the 'aims of the recording'. Having not carried out a wire bypass test I cannot comment on the former with respect to the NE5534, but I believe it would be a foolish to ignore the NE5534 in respect of the latter. The NE5534 may or may be the most ''accurate'' of op-amps, however if we are talking about a wire bypass test, by this I assume you mean ''accuracy'', we surely need look at measurements as well as use our ears, the measurements for the NE5534 speak for themselves of course! If we are talking about the latter, or the ''reproduction of a musical event'', things can be interpreted differently. For whatever reason, be it inaccuracy or accuracy, sonic signature or no sonic signature, the NE5534 seems to convey certain recorded subtleties more acutely than most other op-amps, particularly ambience. You implied that the NE5534 imparts a strong sonic signature and that its failures offset some of the recording, you also imply that I like this. Here I must disagree, at least up to a point. To take just one example...NE5534 reproduces the acoustic of a church from the first moments of the recording up to the point just before the first note is heard more acutely than almost any other op-amp I have tried. Other op-amps sound ''dead'' in comparison. I don't think the NE5534 is synthesising this!
John.
Thankyou for posting your results on this thread. Good news!
Tim.
- Status
- This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.