Nope... OPA1656 sounds VG regardless... But say that with a bad PS OPA1656 could not shine as much whereas an average OPA can sound OK because it hides misery 🙂
OPA1656 sounds good regarless, but as with a proper sport car it will perform better on new tyres than old ones. A daily shed might still go on with a puncture 🙂
The 4 input caps are DC blocking caps, signal path, nothing to do with PS.
Input current (whatever you might want to say with that) is not relevant here, be it PS or signal
I hope this helps
Claude
OPA1656 sounds good regarless, but as with a proper sport car it will perform better on new tyres than old ones. A daily shed might still go on with a puncture 🙂
The 4 input caps are DC blocking caps, signal path, nothing to do with PS.
Input current (whatever you might want to say with that) is not relevant here, be it PS or signal
I hope this helps
Claude
They sound good, but not as good (to me) as much simpler, cheaper OPA's available. Of all the dozen or so Ive tried the 1656's rank somewhere in the 4-5th best range with everyone I deem better costing less than $1/ea.
That said, thats all very subjective and not worth debate.
Do we know where the current that feeds these last comes from? Is it literally the PS caps? If so, then that makes a ton of sense as to why they need big bypass capacitance.
Yes PS goes through the PS caps... whatever they are original and what they become once you bypass. OPA1656 are fast OPA, so shine with a proper bypass and energy feed. Aiyima has probably (?) done the minimum by the book. It is a 30E amp... there is room for improvement obviously.
No debate indeed and no problem re personal tastes. My point was solely that if you seek for the best and want to make you own mind, you have to make sure the environment allows you to get the best of the fitted devices, otherwise you may prefer something different and missing the overall optimum.
Last analogy to make sure my POV is understood.... suppose you own a Lotus Elise and a MG TF, 2 very different but not too dissimilar sport cars. Let's say you are quite involved with motorsport technique and with also track and race days, are possibly a race instructor, and someone comes along and asks you for the best tyre for mid-engined lightweight sport cars regarding dry weather track days (no rules to respect re tyres or makes), access by road (= road legal).
You might consider advising a good road legal semi slick for the Elise, a great track day car. For sure if it is prep'd for it an excellent compromise and a lot of performance. Now, let's say same guy takes the advice for his second car, a MG TF, which has chassis and suspensions that can't really cope well with the extra grip provided by semi-slicks. He might fit said tyres on his MG and find the car unbalanced, very twichy, tricky to drive at the limit... and he will much better off going for non semi-slick, more conventional road sport tyres, as this car copes better with them... and hence the driver aswell.
In absolute terms, he will get a nice balance and lose say 15% grip. But he will be more comfortable with the sport tyres and probably never really notice the potential performance loss. Of course they have a much overall lower potential than the semi-slicks an Elise can easily exploit and translate into a superb driving experience.
Can the MG TF be made as quick on the semi-slicks than on the sport tyres, that is of course not too quick? Sure, you just have to drive below their limits, close to what the sport tyres limit is and of course be a VG driver to catch the car because it may bite you. A real race driver can do that and much more, no problem, he knows were he is in absolute terms. For average joe, he is way better off enjoying his sport tyres that match the MG TF so well... or buying an Elise, taking driving lessons, learn on how to improve his driving experience and then enhence the chassis and fit semi-slicks to move on to an entirely different performance level and driving experience.
The tyres are the OPAs, the cars are your HIFI components and the driver is the listener. The track might be your records, so that if you indeed want to go "off road racing" all this is of course BS LOL
Enjoy the experience, whatever it is, as long as happy
'nough said on OPA and cars, out of it, promised
Claude
No debate indeed and no problem re personal tastes. My point was solely that if you seek for the best and want to make you own mind, you have to make sure the environment allows you to get the best of the fitted devices, otherwise you may prefer something different and missing the overall optimum.
Last analogy to make sure my POV is understood.... suppose you own a Lotus Elise and a MG TF, 2 very different but not too dissimilar sport cars. Let's say you are quite involved with motorsport technique and with also track and race days, are possibly a race instructor, and someone comes along and asks you for the best tyre for mid-engined lightweight sport cars regarding dry weather track days (no rules to respect re tyres or makes), access by road (= road legal).
You might consider advising a good road legal semi slick for the Elise, a great track day car. For sure if it is prep'd for it an excellent compromise and a lot of performance. Now, let's say same guy takes the advice for his second car, a MG TF, which has chassis and suspensions that can't really cope well with the extra grip provided by semi-slicks. He might fit said tyres on his MG and find the car unbalanced, very twichy, tricky to drive at the limit... and he will much better off going for non semi-slick, more conventional road sport tyres, as this car copes better with them... and hence the driver aswell.
In absolute terms, he will get a nice balance and lose say 15% grip. But he will be more comfortable with the sport tyres and probably never really notice the potential performance loss. Of course they have a much overall lower potential than the semi-slicks an Elise can easily exploit and translate into a superb driving experience.
Can the MG TF be made as quick on the semi-slicks than on the sport tyres, that is of course not too quick? Sure, you just have to drive below their limits, close to what the sport tyres limit is and of course be a VG driver to catch the car because it may bite you. A real race driver can do that and much more, no problem, he knows were he is in absolute terms. For average joe, he is way better off enjoying his sport tyres that match the MG TF so well... or buying an Elise, taking driving lessons, learn on how to improve his driving experience and then enhence the chassis and fit semi-slicks to move on to an entirely different performance level and driving experience.
The tyres are the OPAs, the cars are your HIFI components and the driver is the listener. The track might be your records, so that if you indeed want to go "off road racing" all this is of course BS LOL
Enjoy the experience, whatever it is, as long as happy
'nough said on OPA and cars, out of it, promised
Claude
Lol, fair enough. Ill definitely make sure their is enough local capacitance to make sure theyre not starving. Im probably going to move these 10uf ceramics to the OPA to go with the .1uf C0G. Those will fit easily under the board. If I feel like I need more Ill try a second 10uf ceramic or possibly a 10-22uf lytic on top of the 1656's. Top wont work for any others.
10uF lytic on the top, .1 C0G under the board... and 10uF X7R whenever you can, sounds like a good plan to me
Good luck
Claude
Good luck
Claude
So I removed the 10uf X7R's I had in the 4 OPA spots and replaced them with more 22uf lytics. I repurposed the 10uf X7Rs as follows.....
1 ea on the PS caps in place of the 2 x 2.2uf X7R's
1 ea on the OPA ps in conjunction with the .1uf C0G
Sound is definitely improved vs the previous setup. I also think this board wont take much more desoldering/resoldering so I may be close to being done now. Only the middle cap of the 5 is bypassed now. When the 1656's get here I swap those and see how everything sounds.
I also replaced the 3 470uf caps but not sure how much, if at all those helped.
1 ea on the PS caps in place of the 2 x 2.2uf X7R's
1 ea on the OPA ps in conjunction with the .1uf C0G
Sound is definitely improved vs the previous setup. I also think this board wont take much more desoldering/resoldering so I may be close to being done now. Only the middle cap of the 5 is bypassed now. When the 1656's get here I swap those and see how everything sounds.
I also replaced the 3 470uf caps but not sure how much, if at all those helped.
Did you evaluate the sonic benefits step by step?
Me I think the lytics in the OPA PS are a good idea and would even think that adding the which is better than 22uF single- alone and also in conjuction with a 10uF X7R, plus the usual .1uF, all as reported... but at then end some was an overkill. 10uF lytics + 10uF X7R +.1uF was as good as same with 20uG lytics. IMHO the mix of X7R and lytics won vs pure lytics and... whatever over 20uF proved not really relevant re capacity size.
PS caps... I hope you evaluate the gains separately as doing 2 mods in one go could be a prob. I am less sure about that mod (10uF X7R vs 2x2.2uF X7R, given for us doubling from 1 x 2.2uF to 2x 2.2uF was a smaller step), but then you have larger PS caps that may require indeed more bypass in your specific case...you to tell, please allow also some time to settle... and evaluate mod by mod?
Whatever tweak is done, it appears that the C0G 0.082uF (as .1 isn't avail) are a constant...and winner.
Oh, and forgot... we love pix on DIYaudio, please 🙂)
Me I think the lytics in the OPA PS are a good idea and would even think that adding the which is better than 22uF single- alone and also in conjuction with a 10uF X7R, plus the usual .1uF, all as reported... but at then end some was an overkill. 10uF lytics + 10uF X7R +.1uF was as good as same with 20uG lytics. IMHO the mix of X7R and lytics won vs pure lytics and... whatever over 20uF proved not really relevant re capacity size.
PS caps... I hope you evaluate the gains separately as doing 2 mods in one go could be a prob. I am less sure about that mod (10uF X7R vs 2x2.2uF X7R, given for us doubling from 1 x 2.2uF to 2x 2.2uF was a smaller step), but then you have larger PS caps that may require indeed more bypass in your specific case...you to tell, please allow also some time to settle... and evaluate mod by mod?
Whatever tweak is done, it appears that the C0G 0.082uF (as .1 isn't avail) are a constant...and winner.
Oh, and forgot... we love pix on DIYaudio, please 🙂)
Last edited:
Yes, soldering and desoldering can be tricky and one can lose it all!
Note that though I am surprised a 10uF X7R as PS bypass would improve on 2x2uF (as it wouldn't really in our case but then as said your PS caps are larger than ours)... on the other hand it can't really harm the sound IMHO, so in doubt best left them in place regardless, less risky ;-)
Note that though I am surprised a 10uF X7R as PS bypass would improve on 2x2uF (as it wouldn't really in our case but then as said your PS caps are larger than ours)... on the other hand it can't really harm the sound IMHO, so in doubt best left them in place regardless, less risky ;-)
Yep, Im aware doing multiple at once is less than ideal but Im getting tired of "operating" on this. The 22uf caps are simply better version of what were already in there and as we discussed 10uf ceramics not being ideal for the 4 OPA caps that was a no brainer to change.
The main PS caps cant possible be hurt by using double the capacitance and 1 10uf is smaller and fits better than 2 x 2.2uf so again, another no brainer for me. The only other change I made today was adding a 10uf ceramic to the OPA PS which again, cant possible hurt.
After all this trial and error I can say a few things for sure.......
a) Bigger, lower ESR PS caps are a big plus
b) Bypassing the PS caps helps, but not that much with 4500uf caps
c) Bypassing the middle of 5 OPA caps is really the only one needed
d) Replacing the OPA's and bypassing them with AT LEAST 1 .1uf C0G cap is the biggest update anyone can do
e) Repacing any of the OPA 10uf caps doesnt seem to offer a lot of benefit
If I were starting with a fresh unit (which I may) I would only change the PS caps to large, low ESR ones, swap out the OPA's with the flavor of my choice, and bypass the OPA and middle (of 5) OPA cap. These are the simplest, biggest bang for the buck changes.
As far as pics, yeah.....my board is now a hot mess after all the desoldering/soldering done. Changes are exactly as described though.
The main PS caps cant possible be hurt by using double the capacitance and 1 10uf is smaller and fits better than 2 x 2.2uf so again, another no brainer for me. The only other change I made today was adding a 10uf ceramic to the OPA PS which again, cant possible hurt.
After all this trial and error I can say a few things for sure.......
a) Bigger, lower ESR PS caps are a big plus
b) Bypassing the PS caps helps, but not that much with 4500uf caps
c) Bypassing the middle of 5 OPA caps is really the only one needed
d) Replacing the OPA's and bypassing them with AT LEAST 1 .1uf C0G cap is the biggest update anyone can do
e) Repacing any of the OPA 10uf caps doesnt seem to offer a lot of benefit
If I were starting with a fresh unit (which I may) I would only change the PS caps to large, low ESR ones, swap out the OPA's with the flavor of my choice, and bypass the OPA and middle (of 5) OPA cap. These are the simplest, biggest bang for the buck changes.
As far as pics, yeah.....my board is now a hot mess after all the desoldering/soldering done. Changes are exactly as described though.
Or you may just find, as we did, that once you bypassed properly the big PS caps it doesn't matter anymore really what your starting point was and the original caps can be quite safely left in place to concentrate on other areas (such as a SMPS filter perhaps?) ;-)
One thing though
quote: "other change I made today was adding a 10uf ceramic to the OPA PS which again, cant possible hurt"
=> Warning: in fact it can to our experience. When we tried on the OPA PS to add JUST a single 10uF X7R cap (on top of the .1uF), it did sadly hurt the sound as reported. Whereas adding just one 10uF (or several for that matter) 10uF lytics didn't affect the sound really. Odd, but the X7R alone didn't seem to work at all for us in that VERY specific case, whereas for whatever reason (a scope would reveal probably) there is a nice synergy when mixing X7R and lytics in that location.
Space permitting and cost no object we would probably just add 2 big 10uF PPP caps and .1uF PPP cap and probably wouldn't have to fiddle like that, but we did our best given the layout ... and who knows, perhaps we would have been negatively surprised, one never knows, although very unlikely
Anyway, we reported on all that as that was one of the grey areas where cooking and trying was required and space limited (look at the pix on how we did it to try the various combos before going for the (to our ears) winning solution...
One thing though
quote: "other change I made today was adding a 10uf ceramic to the OPA PS which again, cant possible hurt"
=> Warning: in fact it can to our experience. When we tried on the OPA PS to add JUST a single 10uF X7R cap (on top of the .1uF), it did sadly hurt the sound as reported. Whereas adding just one 10uF (or several for that matter) 10uF lytics didn't affect the sound really. Odd, but the X7R alone didn't seem to work at all for us in that VERY specific case, whereas for whatever reason (a scope would reveal probably) there is a nice synergy when mixing X7R and lytics in that location.
Space permitting and cost no object we would probably just add 2 big 10uF PPP caps and .1uF PPP cap and probably wouldn't have to fiddle like that, but we did our best given the layout ... and who knows, perhaps we would have been negatively surprised, one never knows, although very unlikely
Anyway, we reported on all that as that was one of the grey areas where cooking and trying was required and space limited (look at the pix on how we did it to try the various combos before going for the (to our ears) winning solution...
How so? IE, what changed in the sound?
Tomorrow Im going to try adding a 22uf electrolytic to the top of the OPA PS. Depending on what that does, Ill try removing the 10uf but I will say everything seems better now. Like you said though, too many changes to pin things down.
Last edited:
Nevermind, I dig back through this thread and read what you said about just adding the 10uf ceramic. I'm going to try adding the 22uf Nichicon gold cap to mix tomorrow and see if I can closely replicate what you achieved. I also noticed the added energy the 10uf ceramic added but also a bit more V shaped sound. Like you said, fun but not accurate anymore. Likely even worse with the shady less accurate 1656s.
I wouldn't call the 1656 less accurate, in fact they are probably the most accurate OPAs that still play music I know. Measurements are also excellent.
Some op amps measure very slightly better but do not sound as natural. Some AD are amongst the most neutrals (I do have quite a collection after 20y playing with OPAs), and they turn out to be slightly less natural or flow less with music in direct comparison (full report posted on DIYAudio a while ago, search function is your friend if interested)... or being a tad less balanced.
I am not saying I am right, after all it is also a matter of taste, but TBH most people are either disco biased...or on the opposite so called music gourmets that are no more used to real natural bass and real highs, probably due to their system limitation or due to the current cheap DACs. My mum was a world class opera singer, my grand mum aswell, so I was fortunate enough to know young how real complex music sounds... and thus went for a closed (= a non bass reflex) LS with 25Hz at -3dB (and that's a slow slope, but then room is more the prob), fantastic neutral bass. Cut off is at 45kHz in the highs (that I don't hear, but my ears still do measure over 19kHz) but more importantly that are magnetostatics that reproduce music incredibly well in terms of accuracy, airiness and consitant speed across the register... the speed and effortless reproduction they have, while having the energy and stability on loud complex music electrostat or big panels might struggle with. Inbetween these extreme frequencies the rest is of course consistant and... wonderfull - the mids are also magnetostatics... but I get acrried away, that's another topic
Nevermind, at the end add your lytic, let it play for a few hours and listen to the end result. If you like it better, you win already 🙂
Some op amps measure very slightly better but do not sound as natural. Some AD are amongst the most neutrals (I do have quite a collection after 20y playing with OPAs), and they turn out to be slightly less natural or flow less with music in direct comparison (full report posted on DIYAudio a while ago, search function is your friend if interested)... or being a tad less balanced.
I am not saying I am right, after all it is also a matter of taste, but TBH most people are either disco biased...or on the opposite so called music gourmets that are no more used to real natural bass and real highs, probably due to their system limitation or due to the current cheap DACs. My mum was a world class opera singer, my grand mum aswell, so I was fortunate enough to know young how real complex music sounds... and thus went for a closed (= a non bass reflex) LS with 25Hz at -3dB (and that's a slow slope, but then room is more the prob), fantastic neutral bass. Cut off is at 45kHz in the highs (that I don't hear, but my ears still do measure over 19kHz) but more importantly that are magnetostatics that reproduce music incredibly well in terms of accuracy, airiness and consitant speed across the register... the speed and effortless reproduction they have, while having the energy and stability on loud complex music electrostat or big panels might struggle with. Inbetween these extreme frequencies the rest is of course consistant and... wonderfull - the mids are also magnetostatics... but I get acrried away, that's another topic
Nevermind, at the end add your lytic, let it play for a few hours and listen to the end result. If you like it better, you win already 🙂
This is really Interesting Claude, I agree about your opinion.
I also noticed that when I put back my OPA1656 (VS Genuine Muse 02) the OPA1656 are less sensitive to Bluetooth interferences, I stream over BT APTX HD protocol.
I found the Muse 02 a bit more colored but it goes deeper in bass reproduction, the voices are also transcribed a little more on the front of the stage.
Both are amazing OP Amps.
I also noticed that when I put back my OPA1656 (VS Genuine Muse 02) the OPA1656 are less sensitive to Bluetooth interferences, I stream over BT APTX HD protocol.
I found the Muse 02 a bit more colored but it goes deeper in bass reproduction, the voices are also transcribed a little more on the front of the stage.
Both are amazing OP Amps.
Yep, they should! Dedicated great parts...
The amazing thing (for us) is when you compare their price 🙂))
Bass will be nice with proper PS, but 1656 is a neutral amp so won't be bass heavy or too euphonic. Voices... I guess that's the way both companies decided to have it and little we can do but make sure their is a .1 C0G cap for stability, and IMHO speed and energy on transients.
BTW, I have tried biasing the OPA 1656 in class A with a pair of transistors and resistances as that was a very good trick that shone on AD825, an vey old favoutite of mine once biased. Didn't work with OPA1656. Talked with its creator and know now why: something that acts similary is already built in, so better don't contradict it.
In short, apart from a proper PS (and using it in the appropriate application field of course, amp rolling is dangerous otherwise), there is little you can do re OPA 1656 tweaking. What you get is what they designed, but then they did a great job for many audio applications IMHO... regardless the price. At that price it is a steal...
Claude
The amazing thing (for us) is when you compare their price 🙂))
Bass will be nice with proper PS, but 1656 is a neutral amp so won't be bass heavy or too euphonic. Voices... I guess that's the way both companies decided to have it and little we can do but make sure their is a .1 C0G cap for stability, and IMHO speed and energy on transients.
BTW, I have tried biasing the OPA 1656 in class A with a pair of transistors and resistances as that was a very good trick that shone on AD825, an vey old favoutite of mine once biased. Didn't work with OPA1656. Talked with its creator and know now why: something that acts similary is already built in, so better don't contradict it.
In short, apart from a proper PS (and using it in the appropriate application field of course, amp rolling is dangerous otherwise), there is little you can do re OPA 1656 tweaking. What you get is what they designed, but then they did a great job for many audio applications IMHO... regardless the price. At that price it is a steal...
Claude
Well, I look forward to trying a proper pair with enough good capacitance to keep them fed. The LM4562's Im currently using are also very fast (faster than 1656's) so its not surprising the extra capacitance helped as much as it did.
And FYI, when I say accurate, I mean neutral and uncolored. The 1656's are definitely colored and not as neutral as something like the NE5532AP, TL052, or NJM4556AD. Like I said early on, I dont no much about electronics and circuits built I do know audio. Been involved in it deeply for ~30 years including live sound and studio work so I have a lot of experience with accurate, neutral sound....especially in studio work.
And FYI, when I say accurate, I mean neutral and uncolored. The 1656's are definitely colored and not as neutral as something like the NE5532AP, TL052, or NJM4556AD. Like I said early on, I dont no much about electronics and circuits built I do know audio. Been involved in it deeply for ~30 years including live sound and studio work so I have a lot of experience with accurate, neutral sound....especially in studio work.
Not my POV, not my audio experience... and not what the datasheets say re noise and distorsion.
While at it, as per datasheets, all these are also way slower than OPA1656... and OPA1656 is actually 20% faster than LM4562. But all this is academic anyway. You like what you like, that matters...
While at it, as per datasheets, all these are also way slower than OPA1656... and OPA1656 is actually 20% faster than LM4562. But all this is academic anyway. You like what you like, that matters...
Alright, 22uf lytic caps fitted to the top (mechanically fasted under the OPA legs) of the OPA and this definitely changed the sound vs just the .1uf + 10uf ceramics. Whether 22uf is overkill or will sound different than 10uf lytic's I cant say right now but I 100% concur with you that OPA's (especially fast ones) benefit greatly from a fair amount of added capacitance, even with the substantially larger, lower ESR main caps I have. When my 10uf lytics get here Ill experiment more. These 22uf's are also currently unsoldered as I said so Im sure that will help when done.
Side note I should have asked before doing this....lol.....is polarity important when using lytics as bypass caps?
Side note I should have asked before doing this....lol.....is polarity important when using lytics as bypass caps?
If by "faster" you are/were referring to slew rate, then yes. I was looking at gain bandwidth. And distortion figures have nothing to do with bandwidth linearity or how an OPA interacts in a specific circuit. I will reserve final judgement on the 1656's until I have a verified, quality pair to try but on my very accurate monitors in this amp they do not create a neutral sound signature. Especially when compared to OPA's like the NE5532's. Do they create a "better listening experience"? For some, definitely. I will NEVER debate someones experience with anything in audio but if were talking about what would best be used for neutral, studio monitor type applications my experience with the 1656's (and all OP/OPA chips Ive tried) tells me they arent as good there.
This will be the last I post about this though as debating something like this is silly and futile. Both of us are right and both of us are wrong, just depends how you want to define both.
I will say anyone looking for a very simple (no adapter needed) cheap (under $2/pr) drop in OPA I would definitely consider the LM4562's. These pair really, really well in this amp.
OK, let the futility aside - many things to add re specsheets and impedance of the circuit and noise etc. but that would lead nowhere anyway. Important as long a you are with a safe and compatible choice is that it works.
Positive is people have now alternative choices, that's always good 🙂
If it sounds good to you, it will for sure do so for someone else so he benefited from all this experience without having to dig into how OPA work.
Now, well, back to Earth...YES, lytics have polarity LOL!
And that is very important if you don't want to blow them. OK, they can survive a certain amount of (minimal!) reverse voltage "in theory", but not what you want to try. They are not designed for this and it is dangerous as they may blow (and contain toxic fluids etc.). There are positive and negative legs and so on the OPA and in our case they match LOL. Eventhough there is no negative voltage per se (= ground), this is in relative terms. In doubt look at my pix...
Now again, defo don't want to reopen that closed OPA topic, but for everyone... OPAs are not always pin compatible. I guess it is understood that OPA rolling without knowing what one is doing and the schematic is at best useless, but -as for the lytics- I didn't mention that some OPA have different pins layout. That can also hurt and blow...
Regardless the OPA, I would advise fitting that 10uF X7R on top of the lytics and hear if you like it better. Over 20uF addition seem to be an overkill or colouring, so capacity value is not the only key here apparently.
Good luck (well, you had some already if nothing blew - but check cap polarity, they might survive a bit before blowing LOL)
Claude
Positive is people have now alternative choices, that's always good 🙂
If it sounds good to you, it will for sure do so for someone else so he benefited from all this experience without having to dig into how OPA work.
Now, well, back to Earth...YES, lytics have polarity LOL!
And that is very important if you don't want to blow them. OK, they can survive a certain amount of (minimal!) reverse voltage "in theory", but not what you want to try. They are not designed for this and it is dangerous as they may blow (and contain toxic fluids etc.). There are positive and negative legs and so on the OPA and in our case they match LOL. Eventhough there is no negative voltage per se (= ground), this is in relative terms. In doubt look at my pix...
Now again, defo don't want to reopen that closed OPA topic, but for everyone... OPAs are not always pin compatible. I guess it is understood that OPA rolling without knowing what one is doing and the schematic is at best useless, but -as for the lytics- I didn't mention that some OPA have different pins layout. That can also hurt and blow...
Regardless the OPA, I would advise fitting that 10uF X7R on top of the lytics and hear if you like it better. Over 20uF addition seem to be an overkill or colouring, so capacity value is not the only key here apparently.
Good luck (well, you had some already if nothing blew - but check cap polarity, they might survive a bit before blowing LOL)
Claude