Its been a while since I posted .. I wanted to visit this again...
The Ne5532 is ancient. You can look at the paper and read teh words and charts and say its great but the real world performace is wayyyyy down there compared to a LM4562.
Everything si better with the LM4562.
The gain is a bit higher. the soundstage. The bass is deeper. The highs are more articulate. It sounds like a pro op amp should sound. Its probably, no it is the biggest jump in sound from one small chip I ever experienced. And I have experienced all sort of things when changing cpacitors, resistors etc.
Ill say it again. I had big huge expensive amps.. Harmon Kardon, Sony, I even had a fancy Multi thousand dollars class D Ncore amp. When I put a LM4562 into a gainclone. It was like the sound transformed it to realism. Maybe I am just lucky with this amp.. But. I sold all the other amps.
The Ne5532 is ancient. You can look at the paper and read teh words and charts and say its great but the real world performace is wayyyyy down there compared to a LM4562.
Everything si better with the LM4562.
The gain is a bit higher. the soundstage. The bass is deeper. The highs are more articulate. It sounds like a pro op amp should sound. Its probably, no it is the biggest jump in sound from one small chip I ever experienced. And I have experienced all sort of things when changing cpacitors, resistors etc.
Ill say it again. I had big huge expensive amps.. Harmon Kardon, Sony, I even had a fancy Multi thousand dollars class D Ncore amp. When I put a LM4562 into a gainclone. It was like the sound transformed it to realism. Maybe I am just lucky with this amp.. But. I sold all the other amps.
Oh, OK.....
So 90% of the music you listen to and enjoy has already passed through between 20 and 50 NE5532s or even TL072s. You change out just one in your signal chain and expect us to believe you actually hear a difference???
You are fooling yourself more than you are fooling me. You will learn something by reading about Confirmation Bias. Your brain is playing tricks on you. These differences you hear will vanish in a blind listening test.
Last edited:
Oh I have had 4562s sound very different to 5532s, usually when the decoupling was not sufficient or the capacitive loading was too great.
50MHz of GBP does not well tolerate stray capacitance at the output (or inverting input) node. They are great opamps, but you got to design for what they are, and some things that work ok with a 5532 will not be well behaved with the 4562.
Checking for instability with a scope good to at least 50MHz is strongly recommended with those things.
50MHz of GBP does not well tolerate stray capacitance at the output (or inverting input) node. They are great opamps, but you got to design for what they are, and some things that work ok with a 5532 will not be well behaved with the 4562.
Checking for instability with a scope good to at least 50MHz is strongly recommended with those things.
I've seen the schematics of several professional studio mixers over the years and nearly all of them contained hundreds of 5534s, 5532s and even TL0xx series parts. Outboard processing gear use them in abundance too. A fully digital DAW would of course use far fewer opamps, but I certainly don't just listen to music that was recorded only in the last decade, nor do many other people.
Used correctly the 5532 is transparent to the human ear, or at least I can't pick one from a piece of wire in a blind test.
Used correctly the 5532 is transparent to the human ear, or at least I can't pick one from a piece of wire in a blind test.
Last edited:
It's really not, at least for anything that has seen the insides of an SSL desk, the 5532 was the goto standard opamp for things like channel strip EQs, pot buffers and even (sometimes) summing amplifiers.
They were also the standard IV converter in the VCA section (Which the SSLs used for both fader and channel compressor), and in the equivalent doings in the bus compression.
5534 was not exactly uncommon in mic amps, being as it is a bit quieter and has external compensation.
The things are everywhere in commercial studio gear, simply because until very recently there was nothing meaningfully better.
The 4562 might be better in the right circuit, but IMHO that is largely down to its almost jfet like input offset and bias current performance which lets you avoid some DC blocks on things like pot wipers.
I note that the source impedance matters, and that it is strangely NOT better then a 5534 in a MM gram amp as the average source impedance is just too high.
They were also the standard IV converter in the VCA section (Which the SSLs used for both fader and channel compressor), and in the equivalent doings in the bus compression.
5534 was not exactly uncommon in mic amps, being as it is a bit quieter and has external compensation.
The things are everywhere in commercial studio gear, simply because until very recently there was nothing meaningfully better.
The 4562 might be better in the right circuit, but IMHO that is largely down to its almost jfet like input offset and bias current performance which lets you avoid some DC blocks on things like pot wipers.
I note that the source impedance matters, and that it is strangely NOT better then a 5534 in a MM gram amp as the average source impedance is just too high.
Thats true. 95% of all existing music went through dozens of NE5532s because most studios around the world used STUDER mixers and reel tape recorders. And that will still be the case today if it is not digital mixing consoles.
First thats only true for the 70s and 80s and second channels strips are not in series. I would estimate more than 70% oft the music I have has never seen a NE5532. And finally if you use it then do it the way Rupert Neve did (bias the output stage to class A). Anyway if you want to believe this "hundreds of NE5534", I don't care.
The NE5532 IC came out in 1979 & TL072 in 1978, so before that in HiFi audio low level signal chain one would need to use Hybrid IC or Discrete amps. Hybrid ICs were a big business in the 1970s and 1980s
https://www.eetimes.com/op-amps-in-small-signal-audio-design-part-1-op-amp-history-properties/
Douglas Self, 2011..."For a period of at least 5 years, roughly from 1972 to 1977, the only way to obtain good performance in a preamp was to stick with discrete transistor Class-A circuitry, and this became recognized as a mark of high quality. The advent of the TL072 and the 5532 changed this situation completely, but there is still marketing cachet to be gained from a discrete design."
OpAmp History: www.analog.com/media/en/training-seminars/design-handbooks/Op-Amp-Applications/SectionH.pdf
NE5532 - Wikipedia
https://www.eetimes.com/op-amps-in-small-signal-audio-design-part-1-op-amp-history-properties/
Douglas Self, 2011..."For a period of at least 5 years, roughly from 1972 to 1977, the only way to obtain good performance in a preamp was to stick with discrete transistor Class-A circuitry, and this became recognized as a mark of high quality. The advent of the TL072 and the 5532 changed this situation completely, but there is still marketing cachet to be gained from a discrete design."
OpAmp History: www.analog.com/media/en/training-seminars/design-handbooks/Op-Amp-Applications/SectionH.pdf
NE5532 - Wikipedia
Attachments
Of course not, but the noise contribution from all active channels is present. That's why I said most music has passed through 20-50 of these devices and I also mentioned many large desks contained hundreds. The 5532 was the most popular op amp in professional audio hardware well beyond the 1980's.
You must have a unique selection of music. Here is a quote from Douglas Self's Small Signal Audio Design 2nd ed (pub 2015). "Until recently, the 5532 was pre-eminent. It is found in almost every mixing console, and in a large number of preamplifiers." I think he should know. He designs professional audio equipment for a living.
Last edited:
Clearly not beyond 1979 when it was invented and i bet that it took at least 5 years to become well known within the industry...Besides most apreciated NEVE consoles were fully discrete and they still are viewed better than newer NEVe consoles by many...there were still tube consoles in the 80's and a lot of other not very well known today manufacturers populated recording studios with mitsubishi and jrc op-amps too... The japanese manufacturers weren't too big admirers of ne5532 op-amps while the americans used a lot of their own op-amps too from Harris, Analog devices, Texas, etc ...SSL weren't the only recording consoles manufacturers either...
Yea, loads of LF35x and NJR out there in the older stuff, not sure I count that as an improvement! The NJR stuff is however a goto when BOM cost REALLY matters!
It is interesting that the Neumann cutting lathes, which were pretty much cost no object gear in the 70s and early to mid 80s... Depending on the generation they went from a hybrid in house design to LF356 & 5532/34.
Lots of different console design philosophy out there, but between the console and the outboard gear, there was usually a 5532 or 5532A in there somewhere!
The 4562 is (marginally) better if you do the design around it to play to its strengths, but it is often NOT a drop in replacement, and this is generally the case even when the pinouts match, do design, don't just blindly swap chips.
Personally I tend to the view that the design of the reference net and how that is handled generally makes more difference to a system then (sane) choice of sand.
It is interesting that the Neumann cutting lathes, which were pretty much cost no object gear in the 70s and early to mid 80s... Depending on the generation they went from a hybrid in house design to LF356 & 5532/34.
Lots of different console design philosophy out there, but between the console and the outboard gear, there was usually a 5532 or 5532A in there somewhere!
The 4562 is (marginally) better if you do the design around it to play to its strengths, but it is often NOT a drop in replacement, and this is generally the case even when the pinouts match, do design, don't just blindly swap chips.
Personally I tend to the view that the design of the reference net and how that is handled generally makes more difference to a system then (sane) choice of sand.