Wave,
There is also a well understood principal that if you designed it, you will think it is better. It is terribly hard to be totally objective about your own work. Some can overcome it, some never do. This principal has a gentleman's name, but I regret I do not know it to give him proper credit.
There is also a well understood principal that if you designed it, you will think it is better. It is terribly hard to be totally objective about your own work. Some can overcome it, some never do. This principal has a gentleman's name, but I regret I do not know it to give him proper credit.
Right, ThorstenL.
Like quantum radiation from the event horizon of a black hole, I don't think?
Let's see how much regard TL (a principal offender) has for accuracy...
And from D. Self's article on parallel 5532 amplifiers
TL just doesn't hesitate to misrepresent a respected engineer's position in the hope of WINNING.
Respect for other members is automatic, Pano, until they themselves forfeit it. My gift to you this Christmas: an honest opinion.
Like quantum radiation from the event horizon of a black hole, I don't think?
Let's see how much regard TL (a principal offender) has for accuracy...
And from D. Self's article on parallel 5532 amplifiers
D. Self said:
TL just doesn't hesitate to misrepresent a respected engineer's position in the hope of WINNING.
Thanks CC, now tell us what you really think. Nicely complimentary to the good folks here on the forum, your fellow members. And a Merry Christmas to you, too.
Respect for other members is automatic, Pano, until they themselves forfeit it. My gift to you this Christmas: an honest opinion.
Do you mean Peter Walker designed wrong things?
I don't agree with your logic.
My main design criteria always are, how close the thing sounds to real sound. If I am still working, and never said that I've done the work of my life, you are plainly wrong.
TL himself is a respected designer. The difference between their activity on the forum is, TL honestly answers question and explains his position, while DS does not: he writes articles and promotes them, ignoring direct questions.
Why it has to be about winning or losing (or psychology at all)??? Well respected engineers may not have good ears. That's why a thread like this. So we can learn different things from different engineers.
I said at LEAST one is wrong. That suggests they may BOTH be wrong.
Also, one of them can be BETTER
I guess that in 1967 , an SS amp that was AB biaised , thus not
being a fireplace , while being capable of 25W RMS /8R with
a THD below 0.1% at 10KHZ and below 0.01% at 1KHZ , wasnt
very common , not counting a very good frequency response
despite a little lack at low frequencies due to its 2000 uF only
output coupling cap...
Such was the advance of the 303 model that all following
models did sell very well , whatever their real or supposed qualities...
Last edited:
Wave,
I am not disparaging Mr. Walker at all. I always rather liked his stuff. I am just highlighting that a principal of human nature makes it difficult to be totally objective about your own work. I would not be surprised if he knew that as well. You may be one of the select lucky few that can accurately judge your own work. Most of us fall victim to our egos so it is best to have peer review. I really wish I knew the name of the principal. I keep thinking it was Brown, but that is not right. That class was a long time ago.
I agree, the 5532 was a HUGE breakthrough. If well used, it is still competitive for a lot of applications. It is the chip that started to take the bad name away from op-amps in high end that the TL082 could not quite do. But the newer chips are even closer to the textbook op-amp. Maybe even "good enough". I mentioned the National chip as it is a DIP-8 so easy to drop in. There are many smt chips in the same league.
I am not disparaging Mr. Walker at all. I always rather liked his stuff. I am just highlighting that a principal of human nature makes it difficult to be totally objective about your own work. I would not be surprised if he knew that as well. You may be one of the select lucky few that can accurately judge your own work. Most of us fall victim to our egos so it is best to have peer review. I really wish I knew the name of the principal. I keep thinking it was Brown, but that is not right. That class was a long time ago.
I agree, the 5532 was a HUGE breakthrough. If well used, it is still competitive for a lot of applications. It is the chip that started to take the bad name away from op-amps in high end that the TL082 could not quite do. But the newer chips are even closer to the textbook op-amp. Maybe even "good enough". I mentioned the National chip as it is a DIP-8 so easy to drop in. There are many smt chips in the same league.
Quite possible , but anyway , it was way better than tube gears
in many respects..
Those who are able to read datasheets know that the 5534/5532
is barely bested by those so called new op amps that are in fact
often below the ancestor in matter of linearity....
Hi,
But not in all, otherwise an "octal socket" would be one that an op-amp fits and not a 6SL7 or 6SN7.
I don't know, I quite fancy the AD811 and LM6181 for "much better than 553X"...
Ciao T
But not in all, otherwise an "octal socket" would be one that an op-amp fits and not a 6SL7 or 6SN7.
I don't know, I quite fancy the AD811 and LM6181 for "much better than 553X"...
Ciao T
Hi,
Really!?
I have read endless articles (in WW) and books by D.Self where he quite clearly stated that the 553X series was "as good as it gets" and there was no benefits to any supposed exotic Op-Amp's...
It may be that he has in recent times changed his view (though his slight modification as you stated it does not really change the meaning dramatically).
I am not one of his followers who reads each and every thing he writes (his writings have become increasingly dull, old-fashioned and outdated).
So while his original views remain in print quoting them or paraphrasing them surely is not inaccurate.
If D. Self had wanted to correct his position he could have gone on record and recanted his earlier position much more strongly and publicly (like stating on the first page of his website - "I was wrong - better op-amps than the 553X exist, they are X and and Y and from now on should be used instead of the 553X Series".
Incidentally, Op-Amp's with a much higher audio performance (though not neccessarily marketed for audio use) than the 553X series existed even during the time when D. Self solely championed the 553X series, so the inaccuracy if there ever was any was his for not recognising the simple truth at the time...
Truer words have rarely been said...
May I add John 8:32 and wish all a happy holiday, even counter culture...
Ciao T
Really!?
I have read endless articles (in WW) and books by D.Self where he quite clearly stated that the 553X series was "as good as it gets" and there was no benefits to any supposed exotic Op-Amp's...
It may be that he has in recent times changed his view (though his slight modification as you stated it does not really change the meaning dramatically).
I am not one of his followers who reads each and every thing he writes (his writings have become increasingly dull, old-fashioned and outdated).
So while his original views remain in print quoting them or paraphrasing them surely is not inaccurate.
If D. Self had wanted to correct his position he could have gone on record and recanted his earlier position much more strongly and publicly (like stating on the first page of his website - "I was wrong - better op-amps than the 553X exist, they are X and and Y and from now on should be used instead of the 553X Series".
Incidentally, Op-Amp's with a much higher audio performance (though not neccessarily marketed for audio use) than the 553X series existed even during the time when D. Self solely championed the 553X series, so the inaccuracy if there ever was any was his for not recognising the simple truth at the time...
Truer words have rarely been said...
May I add John 8:32 and wish all a happy holiday, even counter culture...
Ciao T
Last edited:
Hi,
According to the datasheets they use essentially the same circuit, except the 5534 needs external compensations to be unity gain stable...
I do not hear any great differences, but I'm spoiled by OPA627 and Video Op-Amp's, so where the 553X lives is quite lowly a territory, making me notice more how they differ from high performance Op-Amp's, than from each other.
Of course, not every OPA marked 5532 or 5534 still uses the original internal design, some manufacturers have introduced versions that are rather different internally, though they show the original internal schematics in their datasheets.
Ciao T
According to the datasheets they use essentially the same circuit, except the 5534 needs external compensations to be unity gain stable...
I do not hear any great differences, but I'm spoiled by OPA627 and Video Op-Amp's, so where the 553X lives is quite lowly a territory, making me notice more how they differ from high performance Op-Amp's, than from each other.
Of course, not every OPA marked 5532 or 5534 still uses the original internal design, some manufacturers have introduced versions that are rather different internally, though they show the original internal schematics in their datasheets.
Ciao T
I find it very hard to accept that he never ever listened to his own designs.
I can accept that during a production run of amps that he would not listen to each one - simply verify that each met the expected set of measurements. No problem with that. Once the design is set in stone there is no point in individual listening tests of individual amps of the same design as long as they measure the same, in fact you're more likely to hear differences that aren't actually there in such testing.
I could even accept that during the design process he didn't listen to them, but was guided entirely by measurements and following specific design principles. This is a bit more of a stretch, but still believable.
But never listened to an amplifier he designed ? I don't believe that for a second. He never used one of his own designs on his own personal home system at any time ? Sounds a bit like actors who claim to have never watched one of their own movies...
Last edited:
Personally I do not own but like very much how McIntosh gear is designed and sounding. AFAIK they starts there measures by building of anechoic chamber.
IMHO electric measures of an amp itself tells nothing regarding the sound unless the measures are bad means obviously no good sound stay away from the amp.
May be R2D2 can feed the amp output right into his electric brains like oscilloscope being feed with an amp's signal and could be happy with just an amp that delivers good sine & square on oscilloscope.
Unfortunately humans are not so sophisticated they can hear by ears only and I believe that is the reason why they can be so picky sometimes instead of just being pleased by printed figures of a good THD only.
IMHO electric measures of an amp itself tells nothing regarding the sound unless the measures are bad means obviously no good sound stay away from the amp.
May be R2D2 can feed the amp output right into his electric brains like oscilloscope being feed with an amp's signal and could be happy with just an amp that delivers good sine & square on oscilloscope.
Unfortunately humans are not so sophisticated they can hear by ears only and I believe that is the reason why they can be so picky sometimes instead of just being pleased by printed figures of a good THD only.
" was "as good as it gets" and there was no benefits to any supposed exotic Op-Amp's..."
Yesterday's exotic is today's generic. For the problem he was solving, it is quite reasonable that the 553x fully met his needs. Specific needs at a specific time. Do not confuse the problem he was solving with all other problems. Basic engineering.
Do I need an "exotic" op amp? The buffers that feed my A2D do, as they are part of test equipment and by basic good practice should be at least ten times as good as what I am measuring. In my head amp, I can hear a difference between the original who-the-heck-knows-probably-counterfeit from China, to the Signetics to the National. Yup. Quieter.
I can't guarantee the first chips were not damaged as I did not control the assembly. I only know I used my static station and proper procedures from tube to socket with the National. The Signetics is not as fragile as earlier J-fet input devices. We tested in the lab that just lifting one with tweezers in the dry air of Colorado could damage them such as to increases input offset by 100 times.
Yesterday's exotic is today's generic. For the problem he was solving, it is quite reasonable that the 553x fully met his needs. Specific needs at a specific time. Do not confuse the problem he was solving with all other problems. Basic engineering.
Do I need an "exotic" op amp? The buffers that feed my A2D do, as they are part of test equipment and by basic good practice should be at least ten times as good as what I am measuring. In my head amp, I can hear a difference between the original who-the-heck-knows-probably-counterfeit from China, to the Signetics to the National. Yup. Quieter.
I can't guarantee the first chips were not damaged as I did not control the assembly. I only know I used my static station and proper procedures from tube to socket with the National. The Signetics is not as fragile as earlier J-fet input devices. We tested in the lab that just lifting one with tweezers in the dry air of Colorado could damage them such as to increases input offset by 100 times.
Bingo; the paraphrase and removal from context is polemics, not technical argumentation.
For the problem of a line level audio amplifier which is audibly transparent, even the misquote of DS is correct. For the problem of differentiation in a dying niche market and perceived value to justify high price tags, indeed that solution is inadequate, "dull, old-fashioned, and outdated," if you will.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.