What is wrong with op-amps?

Status
Not open for further replies.
Jump to Latest
#1,903
DPH said:
Or they respectively got jobs elsewhere and any motivation to further document their efforts was diminished. Although if it make it to preprint, that's a head scratcher, as I haven't seen anything abandoned by the time it hits preprint (or was it a conference abstract?). Academic publications are weird.
Click to expand...

As far as I know Gerzon and Craven kept on publishing articles together until Gerzon's untimely death. In fact one common article got published after Gerzon's death.
 
#1,909
morinix said:
My next phono pre will be using those with a 6DJ8 front end.
Click to expand...

I 'get' valve amps for instrumental use. No doubt about that. Gibson valve amp and a 4*12 sounds great.

I'm not completely sure why valves for for power amps in 2016 though. Although I understand the arguments and can see the reasoning for high efficiency horns and single drivers like Fostex. That all makes sense at low / normal listening levels. So yes, it's a nice option.

I don't get it at all for headphone amplifiers 😱

They are easy to drive, are wide range and revealing. Why not use one of these "Area 51" Op-amps or a higher power equivalent to drive?
 
#1,911
morinix said:
lt1364 - low level resolution and micro-dynamics to burn
Click to expand...

You realize slew rate is a large signal parameter right? So your "micro dynamics" will NEVER actually cause the op amp to enter a slew condition where it hits that slew rate spec. Not to mention that you are completely overlooking the fact that the bandwidth of the system limits the rise time. And to actually reach the 1000 V/us slew rate you would need a circuit with extremely wide bandwidth. Furthermore slew rate DOES NOT indicate how flat the gm curve of the input stage is at all.

It's fine to claim that LT1364 is a great sounding op amp, but to ascribe its sound to a parameter which has absolutely no bearing on the application is frustrating. You might as well claim that it sounds good because of the particular alloy they use in the leadframe, or the mold compound they use for packaging.
 
Last edited:
#1,913
scott wurcer said:
Ask the op-amp rollers new faves appear every month. You might actually look at the specs 9nV noise for one not to beat on the THD issues.
Click to expand...

OK I am an engineer. The sort that is happy with PI=3.14 though. What is the problem with OP-amps. I understand the specs and they are fabulous. As we reach another year-end, the more fabulous they become.

With sound (ha!) design and use of these little darlings, surely there can be little to complain about for audio use?

Driving a valve with 1000V uS and nominal noise high tech escapes me. Guitar and instrument use is clear. Using valves with single loudspeaker drivers I also understand.

Surely these little black silicon blobs represent a wire with gain in 2016?
 
#1,917
dogshome said:
I'm not completely sure why valves for for power amps in 2016 though. Although I understand the arguments and can see the reasoning for high efficiency horns and single drivers like Fostex. That all makes sense at low / normal listening levels. So yes, it's a nice option.
Click to expand...

Technicalities aside, tubes are cool (err...hot?) and add an aesthetic fun-factor. So, why not? Plenty of exemplary designs that take advantage of many tubes inherent linearity, too.

And if you like the sound of low-order harmonic distortion, you get the bonus factor of that effect baked in! Of course if the goal is complete and total linear amplification, hard to beat a rock-solid, fast OPS coupled to a wide-ish bandwidth, stupidly high loop gain front end. You have enough of that dog-chasing-its-tail feedback 🙂D) to bat any audio-related defect into the PPM range. Plenty of examples on the site of that criteria to varying degrees of stability.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom