Hans L said:
I don't have experience with the OPA2134.
It looks on paper very similar (if not the same) to the OPA2132, but there must be a reason for the price difference and the existance of these op-amps.
The best op-amps are usually single, sometimes without any double equivalent.
But the LM6172 gets too close, it's really good. You could use this one.
I've recently tried the LM7171 and
very good indeed. Single...
Hans L said:
Had a search for the AD823 at rs-components and found several versions. I would prefer dip8 and sockets because I'm not sure about soldering the tiny so8 versions.
Gaucho > What version 823 did you use. I can buy ad823AR and ad823AN, where the AR version costs about 25% more (no idea why).
How big are the differences we're talking about? I had a try at op amp upgrades in a cd player a few years ago, but wasn't blown away by big improvements (could have multiple reasons, I was completely clueless without knowing it... the worst kind
I'm surprised to find out that 2132 and 2134 do not simply sound the same.
Thanks.
Hans,
I am using the AN version of the AD823. AN is simply the designation for a DIP, AR is the designation for a SOIC. At DigiKey the AR and AN versions are the same price.
It's hard to quantify the size of the improvements that can be had by swapping op-amps. It depends on a number of factors; like the quality of the stock chip relative to the replacement chip. The resolution of the system is obviously important, as are the ears of the listener. Also synergy must not be ignored, op-amps can have a unique sonic signature, and can alter the overall balance of a system to good or bad effect. Compared to upgrading speaker cables and interconnects op-amp swaps offer alot of bang for the buck.
I should point out I was using the more expensive P (performance spec) version of the 2132 which may account for some or all of the sonic difference between it and the PA version of the 2134 I compared it with. I haven't tried the PA version of the 2132 and as far as I know there is no P version of the 2134. The 2132 and 2134 are both duals.
I really like the AD823, it may not be as full bodied or dynamic as some but its amazing detail and lush top-end make it my general favorite.
Good luck with your XO.
More choices. Good.carlosfm said:
Any recommendations for the bassregion, detailed with lots of slam? It's a 4-way, so I can chose components that excel in specific freq bands.Gaucho said:
Thank you. As it is now, I'm going to need a little luckGood luck with your XO.
. Lot's of stuff to figure out. I thought a custom active xo was elementary when I started this project. I've been doing passive xo's only before this and had the impression that losses were of no concern in active xo's compared to the losses in high level passive xo's. But it seems there are very little straightforward details (layout, buffering, choice of components) in designing an active xo. Having fun though
Another observation worth noting is that TI's 5532s sound a little better then the Philips. On a similar note; PMI's OP275 had decent bass and were fairly smooth sounding but AD's OP275 is quite grainy!
Another op-amp that might be a good choice for a low-pass XO is the AD712. It has a similar tonal balance to the 823, it lacks the ultra-refined mid/trebble but it's not laid back like the 823. The 712 is very immediate sounding and the bass extension is truely excellent.
Another op-amp that might be a good choice for a low-pass XO is the AD712. It has a similar tonal balance to the 823, it lacks the ultra-refined mid/trebble but it's not laid back like the 823. The 712 is very immediate sounding and the bass extension is truely excellent.
To Simont : I listen the same differences like Gaucho or Carlos and other guys too. But I can't find " at this time the best opamp " and wait one year or two for " later the best opamp ", I'm asking WHY it sound different, respectively WHAT is really correct, not " colored " by some impression. I don't like these blables about " musical " sound, used in all hifi market, 'cos I mean, that it is only excuses for "s..t " products. Opamps in integrated form are only piece of all things, but there are problems similar to problems of all amps in general. I'm asking not only about listening experiences, but about correlation between listening and measuring, 'cos this correlation exist, although " wizards " claimed opposite.
Thanks. So you agree with others that op-amp chips sound different to one another. You believe better op-amps are on the way and are worth waiting for - interesting.Upupa Epops said:
You take issue with the term 'musical' used in this context. I agree that musical is a bit of a wishy-washy term. What it probably means in such a context is that given a certain system and role of an op-amp, qualities which bring the listener close to the music are evident. Musical qualities in my book are such desirable assets as a well integrated sound, correct PRAT, and lack of harshness. I don't think any dictionary-style definitions of musicality exist, which a majority agrees on. I believe one can separate 'musical' qualities from 'hi-fi' qualities. I think the term musical is a proper one, if all concerned read it the same way. In contrast, one might say a hi-fi type quality is something like detail retrieval or perceived frequency response ie. those improvements which do not necessarily allow greater enjoyment of music. The important point is that higher fidelity does not necessarily equate to higher enjoyment. This is why it's important to assess and indicate musicality separately from fidelity.
In making this distinction I am not disagreeing with anything you said, just helping you to realise the reasons for having such terms of expression, *as I see it*.
Now, if we could see good correlation between listening and measuring, well that would be great. It would help those less interested in relentless testing to pick a good product, and save a lot of time. What sort of correlation do you see? Are the specifications given in datasheets adequate? And contrary to your comment about wizards, I believe CarlosFM (is he a wizard?
), amongst others, has commented on high THD being audible on some op-amps. I'd like to point out the obvious here and say that unless we're all using the same circuitry and implementation, we're not going to hear components such as op-amps quite the same anyway.... CarlosFM repeats this point like a broken record (a 200g audiophile broken record no less)
Upupa Epops said:
I'm not going to get into an big argument with you but I will state that a simple THD+N spec (from an average responding meter) will tell you NOTHING about how distortons manifest themselves and even less about how the INDIVIDUAL (and therefore unique) congintion of each listener contributes to perception of sound.
The alleged correlation of hard empircal data and human perception is based entirely on a SUBJECTIVE judgement that assumes one can indeed hear what the meters read. How is this assumption a better end then doing an open minded subjective evaluation BEFORE looking at the specs and risk allowing ones judgements to be guided by numbers that may or may not have anything to do with what one hears?
Gaucho said:
Right.
The Philips sounds "digital"
, the TI sounds right, but both have a problem:It is quite evident the lack of midbass on the NE5532 and the NE5534.
One example is Norah Jones' voice, it sounds thin, without "body".
I have always found out that many brands use the NEs on CDPs because it can make a "jittery" CDP sound tighter.
It is not neutral, it is just compensating for a defect that comes from the digital seccion, it gives the illusion of more correct because the lack of midbass compensates for the boomy sound of a CDP plagued with jitter (the most common problem).
And then there's a distinct lack of harmonics that is present on the best op-amps but not on the NEs.
Gaucho said:
Oh glory, oh joy!
Right again.
The AD OP275 sounds so grainy it could make vinyl sound like the worst digital recording.
Conclusion: you can read specs and datasheets like there's no tomorrow, you will only know what an op-amp is capable of when you listen to it.
To Gaucho : I was talking anything about corelation between measuring of distortion and listening naturality. Exist even several parametres, which are similarly important for listening impression. Don't talk about subjectivism, it is in this case nonsens, because although people can hear differently reproduced sound, the same differently hear LIVE music and so both listenigs have common " correction ". I can find correlation between " by eyes reading " and " by ears listening " and I mean, that although is it hard ( and to this time not all known ), once will come time, when it will be clear. But I am talking about correlation between measuring, listening and live music, not about " musicality of reproduction chain ", 'cos it is brainwashing, by which can manufacturers sale his .... products. BTW, " subjectivism " is offten used word by them.
- Status
- This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.