Their 1641 is back ordered too, just when i needed a dozen of em. I had no idea id experience this kind of supply disruption from a big corporation.
Should i stock up on 1656 & 1655 too now than later?
Should i stock up on 1656 & 1655 too now than later?
There are these world wide semiconductor shortages.... I check for critical parts almost every day and stock up when I find parts at the right price.... TI are actually doing better than most....
except wrt the opa1655 in the sot package. Ive been asking them about it for some time and it never seems to get any closer. Only mentioned in the datasheet near the end in package data that it will eventuate. it was confirmed to be in the works by asking at the Ti help centre, but other than that its like it doesnt exist.
One is cheaper then the other. I did not know that packaging of 75 vs 2500 will affect the pricing. I thought there was some internal difference inside the chip. Therefore wanted to double-check.
Thanks for clarifying.
Thanks for clarifying.
Hi
I liked the opa1656 but is there an easier opa which has a nice pleasant sound or even better because easier about the layout and decoupling technics ?
I am looking for a dac buffer not for I/V purpose. Maybe something with less bandwidth ?
What Ti has in his portfolio that can do that please : easy to use, soic okay, DC coupled proof.
I am not aware of the new opa since the 1656, many thanks if any tip about that.
I liked the opa1656 but is there an easier opa which has a nice pleasant sound or even better because easier about the layout and decoupling technics ?
I am looking for a dac buffer not for I/V purpose. Maybe something with less bandwidth ?
What Ti has in his portfolio that can do that please : easy to use, soic okay, DC coupled proof.
I am not aware of the new opa since the 1656, many thanks if any tip about that.
OPA1612 or OPA1642. Bipolar and JFET types so no CMOS. Wait a few years and bipolar and JFET will be negative connotations.
No fast opamp is easy on (inadequate) decoupling and this while decoupling is not that hard.
No fast opamp is easy on (inadequate) decoupling and this while decoupling is not that hard.
Last edited:
We tried OPA1612, OPA1656, NE5532, and Muses 8920 opamps in Rohm BD34301EKV Evaluation Board (which came with 5532's installed). OPA1656 sounded worst, Muses 8920 sounded best. IMHO the outcome was mostly decided by how the opamps responded to the RF coming out of the dac chip. For the case of AK4499 the preferred opamp might have been different, perhaps due in part to some difference in the particular dac output RF noise. Therefore I would suggest to try and see what opamp you think works best with a particular dac chip.
I do not have luck with the 1611 and 12 in the diy pcb I use. 1656 was more forgiving.
Maybe the 1642 or 48 is just what I need as buffer.
Maybe the 1642 or 48 is just what I need as buffer.
That is exactly what I ask because I surmise it is harder to use than you believe perhaps. Or Ti made a typo and the 1642 was to be in the first podium step.
Sometimes it is just the fault of the marketing team that publish the Website eprints...
Sometimes it is just the fault of the marketing team that publish the Website eprints...
I seem to recall that the OPA1642 is newer than the OPA1612. Perhaps it's a further development. Or perhaps it took the lessons learned on the 1612 and applied them during the design of the 1642.
Sometimes the company decides to go from two letters to three in the part number and parts get stuck in the middle. See the LM4562 vs LME49720 for example.
I wouldn't read too much into the numerology. I would read the data sheet, though. 🙂
Tom
Sometimes the company decides to go from two letters to three in the part number and parts get stuck in the middle. See the LM4562 vs LME49720 for example.
I wouldn't read too much into the numerology. I would read the data sheet, though. 🙂
Tom