If opamps are the holy Grail for output stages and every other approach ads distortion that only please the untrained ears, where does more clarity and more dynamics come from when using a good discrete stage?
I appreciated the 1611/12 and 1656 when they came out and have used them extensively on my DACs and D-Amps but they where bested by even the cheap $17 Chinese discrete opamps.
Burson V7V and especially the Sparkos SS2590 are in another league.
If you can't hear this then it's maybe time to upgrade the rest of your chain😉
I appreciated the 1611/12 and 1656 when they came out and have used them extensively on my DACs and D-Amps but they where bested by even the cheap $17 Chinese discrete opamps.
Burson V7V and especially the Sparkos SS2590 are in another league.
If you can't hear this then it's maybe time to upgrade the rest of your chain😉
As suggested there is a good and simple test to see if it are not the additions adding special sonical properties that are liked instead of anything else. That it are not the DACs that are to blame (at all) as about none will perform to your likings in unmodified state. They just lack the special sauce applied by the chef. I think the post was quite clear.
The suggestion that I can not hear this is a moot point as I don't have the special sauce and possibly do not need or want it. Things may also be the opposite as experienced to say it carefully. It may very well be a question of dogmatic belief to have to add a sauce to every device. This would imply that no device is good enough unless the chef starts adding his sauce. Every manufacturer would then want that same sauce and Burson, Sparkos would be in every new device. Bruno Putzeys would sigh as he did not design a discrete opamp but lost his reputation by using normal industry ones. ASR would be having a top 20 of devices all with discrete opamps and not LT30xx or TPS7A regulators but regulators by Burson or Sparkos. Devices without such Burson or Sparkos additions would have no chance. No Burson or Sparkos? Can not sound right!
BTW discrete opamps are also opamps.
The suggestion that I can not hear this is a moot point as I don't have the special sauce and possibly do not need or want it. Things may also be the opposite as experienced to say it carefully. It may very well be a question of dogmatic belief to have to add a sauce to every device. This would imply that no device is good enough unless the chef starts adding his sauce. Every manufacturer would then want that same sauce and Burson, Sparkos would be in every new device. Bruno Putzeys would sigh as he did not design a discrete opamp but lost his reputation by using normal industry ones. ASR would be having a top 20 of devices all with discrete opamps and not LT30xx or TPS7A regulators but regulators by Burson or Sparkos. Devices without such Burson or Sparkos additions would have no chance. No Burson or Sparkos? Can not sound right!
BTW discrete opamps are also opamps.
Last edited:
The secret is to glue on the top of active devices parts from the obsolete transistors which contain gold and of course without proper clock nothing with tick
Attachments
more than one designer found out an opamp could beat hands down discrete components in musicality.
I start to believe there are audible difference in the forms of the waveshapes and they can be seen using 50mhz + scope only. No other tests will reveal it.
Ah, yes, some speakers lack definition, some amps too much colored. In a good system,, imho, you can hear in a dac whatever part you change, active as passive when your hifi is good enough.
And definitly yes, some op amps gives a sterile sound, op1611/12 always gives a boring sound. op1656 is good though as I/V.
I remember the Audio-Gd discrete op amp at the beginning : made with SK170 , etc , sota Toshiba parts : sounded crap and colored (too much)
Last edited:
I found that for IV 1611 has incredible speed and resolution, however it gets a little too dissecting and brutal in the ultra-detail of dynamics.
I found that original ne5534 had more definition in the lower frequencies and had a better tone. It lacks the definition but it is sounding more organic. After all my opamp experiments i revert back to Vintage NE5534.
I found that original ne5534 had more definition in the lower frequencies and had a better tone. It lacks the definition but it is sounding more organic. After all my opamp experiments i revert back to Vintage NE5534.
I can agree to this.
My sweet spot is HD btn 0.01% to 0.1% max with monotonic spectrum profile.
George
Who is taking 50milli-Hertz scope measurements of dacs? One cycle of the waveform would be 20-seconds long.
For I/V it is better to use FET OP, but even in some datasheets, AD797 can be found 😱
Alex.
Why you feel the need to rope in everyone else is beyond me. You could just as easily have said " I have found something that works for me and it is this. Try it and you might like it". But no. In every other walk of life it is simply accepted that there will be a range of options and that choosing one does invalidate all other choices and yet the constant refrain is how you must use this or you must use that or this is the greatest dac ever and all those who disagree are deaf or have an inadequate setup. It is as though the notion that faced with equally valid options, different people will make different choices is utterly inconceivable to some.
I'm not so sure it is an effort to rope other people in, although it may feel that way to people on the receiving end. Its probably more like, "if you want to be able to hear what I am describing is possible to hear, then you maybe need to first solve certain problems in your system." Why suggest that? Maybe (but not necessarily) because person trying to explain has already had the experience of finding and solving a lot of problems in their system or possibly in several other systems. However, if we look at it again from the person on the receiving end of such advice, its not necessarily welcome advice (even if the advice was well intended).
Of course, during such back and forth conversations is possible for poor word choices to be made either out of frustration or possibly because of language differences. Also, maybe some people are just not very nice, which could be another possibility...
Of course, during such back and forth conversations is possible for poor word choices to be made either out of frustration or possibly because of language differences. Also, maybe some people are just not very nice, which could be another possibility...
Last edited:
Your DAC design is likely more expensive than an "inexpensive" commercial product. You're buying the parts in retail and if you built a board, then it's a custom product. There is no amortizing of your R&D... unless you put together a kit at the DIY Audio store and then we can all chip ( eh! ) in and get one.
Nevertheless. in your case, your goal is quality, not profit. I dare say making money is not your goal, huh?