Don't you know singles work better than quads! Crosstalk and what would be optimum about using the same opamp in different stages?
If I wanted to parallel op-amps for low noise then having them thermally coupled and snuggled into the same cosy package would seem a good thing(tm).
And I would buy a bunch and sort out the best, but I'll let you slide on your answer... 🙂
BTY the eight pins were one for compensation and two for offset.
Now for more old stuff, the 741 came out as a 709 with built in compensation, but of course 7 pins wasn't really a choice for a DIP package. Having looked at the current 741 typical schematic it shows a completely different circuit! Lots of PNPs which were horrible when the 741 first hit the market.
Today with laser trimming we do have some opamps in small 5 pin packages, but of course they can't be as good as the same chip in a larger package, following the logic of "Should an island rule a continent?"
Op-amp rolling, obviously? Legacy stuff, offset trim pots were very common, when laser trim was introduced the pots could be left out. 6-lead DIP didn't save that much space, and when SMD came and size got really important you now have singles in tiny low lead count packages. Duals use 8 pins anyway, lots of factors.
Last edited:
I did, but as 6 pin DIL has been available for optocouplers for a long time so no reason why internally compensated devices couldn't have been 6 pin other than confounding the rollers and glommers.
Since 1 and 8 are now N/C on most op-amp they actually could plug
right into 6 pins, don't know of a single case of this in DIP.
Funny story, my freshman faculty advisor was fired by Analog for coming to a layout review of one of their first op-amp copies (741) and leaving off the trim and the pads for it. I guess I was destined to replace him 5yr. later (unbeknownst to me).
Outrageous statement about the 1Ghz overshoot, isn't it? Nothing special, I was just following your logic pattern of "prove me wrong" a few pages up. Next time before you make statement that makes EEs cringe, recall from your own disbelief reaction where the burden of proof lies.
I wonder who's more toxic for these innocent and enthusiast amateurs, the trained EEs stating facts, or their (often not so innocent) peers promoting then myths and legends of audio, together with their own agenda.
And now, with a large grin, it's time to stop messing with you 😀.
Afaig, HiLo was his own record player.
(and by German DIN standards of that era, of inferior pedigree)
Argumentum ad verecundiam (using an authority as evidence in your argument when the authority is not really an authority on the facts relevant to the argument.)
An audio signal has only two degrees of freedom, time and amplitude. Any claims to there being hidden or unknown information involves a new science. If scientific relativism is on the table everyone is an expert, pataphysicaly speaking, and all facts are relevant.
Per reproduced/amplified channel! 🙂 Live music is not so constrained.
Using sound intensity microphones you can add a dimension.
But yes for the purposes here there is no argument.
You're again not reading carefully.... the objection was that "EE training" does not automatically make someone an authority in psychoacoustics. It doesn't even make him an authority in EE.... that comes with experience, achievements and peer recognition.
You know better, Gerhard.
I have no clue what anyone else would do or not do - you have a magic ball that tells you?
Seems to me that those who take a haughty and condescending approach to their posts do NOTHING of benefit. It doesn't matter at all how wacky or wrong anyone is - simple responses that serve to illuminate or explain are all that is required.
_-_-
And, speaking of fallacies in general, the most common one I see here is the argument from ignorance - asserting that a proposition is true because it has not yet been proved false (or vice versa).
Kirchoff, I NEVER asked anyone to BUILD anything for me.
Your assertion is horsepucky.
I suggested that people here might wish to participate in something that might be beneficial on several levels. Part of my motivation was to get some who might claim that all sorts of things were done "improperly" to be involved so that this would not happen. And, as I said before I have limited time.
Apparently, you don't have very much to do with yourself other than post snippy remarks. I'm not seeing much substance.
Please do not misquote me, or otherwise make assertions as to what I said based on what you think I said, thought I said or wanted me to have said - at least not without stating that it is your interpretation.
Thank you.
Please cite the post where I asked anyone to PROVE anything.
Or show the logical "pattern" - I'd like to see that.
You seem obsessed with "proof" along with a few others.
I'll settle for evidence that supports a reasonable conjecture and hope to form a hypothesis - if possible.
Perhaps you are reading into what I write with your own preconceptions, rather than objectively what is written?
No, come forth with something substantive.
Obviously you have never heard any differences in anything audio?
Or have you?
Every time someone who takes a viewpoint similar to yours ventures out of their logical cave, stops hiding, and says something about their real world listening experiences and NOT their "EE" world (where things behave very nicely, usually - or if they don't the "fixes" are ok, and have no deficits...) and SAYS something about it and I then point out what they just said and ASK how that can be? You know what happens? They <punt> and go into avoidance mode.
So, man up "Waly" and tell us.
So what does this "participation" consist in, since you already mentioned you wouldn't have time to build the 10 opamp thing? Who was supposed to build it? Me? I already know that chaining stuff will eventually lead to audible differences. And I don't feel the need to "prove" it to anyone.
Kirchoff, why do you have a compulsion to post things like this?
You already know?
Tell us what you know.
Others here apparently do not know what you know about this.
IF you had asked a serious question, I'd have answered simply.
But you appear to have no interest in doing something real.
I'm not looking for "proof".
Apparently that is very important to an awful lot of participants here.
Perhaps an artifact of your "formal training"?
As I just wrote, I'll settle for evidence in support of a conjecture that may lead to a reasonable hypothesis. You can go find proofs...
But, how about providing some SUBSTANCE when you post?
That would be a good idea.
_-_-
Last edited:
I know whether my perceptions are enjoyable or not. I know there's no "one size fits all" holy grail that would be enjoyed by everyone. I found something that works for me. There may be "better" out there. I'll keep my eyes open. But you'll have to produce more than numbers in order to convince me to "upgrade". My enjoyment comes from listening to music not bragging of specification sheets. You can't sell me anything based on THD alone. Nor on promises that it will sound good after "break-in".
That's what I know.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.