Hires 96/24 listening test of opamps

Which of the files do you prefer by listening?

  • rr = LM4562

    Votes: 1 4.5%

  • ss= OPA2134

    Votes: 2 9.1%

  • tt = MA1458

    Votes: 2 9.1%

  • uu = TL072

    Votes: 9 40.9%

  • vv = OPA2134

    Votes: 1 4.5%

  • I can not hear a difference

    Votes: 7 31.8%
  • Total voters
    22
  • Poll closed .
Status
This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.
Jump to Latest
maty tinman

maty tinman

Member
Joined 2012
nauscopio.wordpress.com/about/
If we add the two tests (20 mVrms and 2 Vrms), my winners are the Burr Brown OPA2134, because it got second place in both tests, and the SGS Thomson TL072 (third and first).

-> http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/ever...her-big-opamp-listening-test.html#post5096457

aa - Tesla MA1458, equivalent of LM1458 (dual LM741), MA1458

bb - National Semiconductor LM4562

cc - SGS Thomson TL072

dd - Burr Brown OPA2134
Click to expand...
-> http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/ever...r-big-opamp-listening-test-3.html#post5104458

The best: bb 10/10

2º dd 9/10

3º cc 8/10

The worst: aa 6/10
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
maty tinman

maty tinman

Member
Joined 2012
nauscopio.wordpress.com/about/
Maybe other test with the "elite opamps", specially the AD797 ("better CMRR/PSRR at power supply ripple frequencies") versus Burr Brown OPA2134.

Op Amp Measurements, August 18, 2011

-> https://nwavguy.blogspot.com/2011/08/op-amp-measurements.html

THE ELITE FEW

  • OPA627 – The Burr Brown/TI OPA627 might be the Bugatti Veyron of op amps as both offer some of the best performance numbers around. But, just like it’s pretty much impossible to explore the Veyron’s full performance anywhere but on a race track, the same is true with the OPA627. Ferdinand Piëch was playing corporate one-upmanship with the Veyron, and Burr Brown did the same with the OPA627. Basically it’s the op amp of choice for those who keep their towels on in the gym locker room. In exchange for your $24, TI gives you a stereo pair of op amps so quick they can easily go sideways. Unlike the Veyron, there’s no built-in stability control—that’s up to the designer to get right. With a slew rate of 55 V/uS, the OPA627 demands very careful attention to PC board layout, power supply bypassing, parasitic inductances and capacitances, and reactive loads on the output. Basically if you’re only going to drive on public roads in traffic--i.e. headphone audio applications--it’s expensive overkill and more trouble than it’s worth.

  • AD797 – The Analog Devices AD797 is probably the OPA627’s closest competition. There’s no question it’s a good part, but it’s also over $10 for a single op amp per package. If anything, due to it’s more rational speed (slew rate = 20 V/uS), and better CMRR/PSRR at power supply ripple frequencies, it’s probably the better part for audio applications. But this game is all about bragging rights. So, sadly, it often gets pushed aside in favor of the more trendy and excessive OPA627

  • OPA604 – The Burr Brown/TI OPA604 is also designed for audio use and, unlike the 627 above, even comes in a dual version. But I’ve never bothered with it after Doug Self extensively tested it and concluded: “it is not very clear under what circumstances this op-amp would be a good choice”. He found the much less expensive 5532 outperformed it in most every way

  • *AD8610 – Analog Devices lists “high performance audio” among the applications for the AD8610/AD8620 and, at around $10 each for the single part and $17 for the dual part, they aren’t cheap either. And, like the choices above, they’re overkill for headphone amp applications. I tested this part in the QRV09 and, while it’s very respectable, I suspect the NE5532 would match it to the limits of most audio analyzers.
Click to expand...
 
M

Markw4

Member
Joined 2016
Pavel,
It seems like most people have revealed their comments to you, so they don't seem to be seeking anonymity. But, it's not clear to me from the chart which voter is which poster. Since people seem to be okay with us knowing their comments, can you please tell us the mapping of voter numbers to posters?
 
PMA

PMA

Member
Joined 2002
pmacura.cz/audiopage.html
Paid Member
Lowest noise and distortion definitely for the LM4562 from the set in the test, and sufficient slew rate as well. The second in the row OPA2134, then TL072 and the last MA1458.

BTW Scott, you must have made a mistake somewhere in the AD712. As you can see, TL072 has been a clear winner here :D
Maybe JC should have used the TL072 instead :D
 
Last edited:
M

Markw4

Member
Joined 2016
PMA said:
Mark, you would be "Voter 2". Please check if the order I put in the chart was correct.
Click to expand...

It looks correct.

But what I am wondering about is that there seem to be some trends. Some people seems to have trouble with the small differences between 3-4.

Also, ss and vv seem to be widely separated in most people's preferences, even though they apparently both OPA2134.

In addition, Voter 6 seems to have a reverse preference, perhaps preferring the more forward sound of low level distortion.

So, first off, since some people didn't spell out a list as plainly as I did, I just want to make sure everyone agrees that you have mapped their preferences right, or very close to right.

If no disputes, then aside from the separation of ss and vv, some people seem to have a preference that puts the most and least distorted opamps towards opposite ends of their lists. And of course, the differences between them might be more audible than the smaller differences between more similar opamps.

Later today, I am expecting delivery of the DAC-3. I would like to listen again with the DAC-1 and the DAC-3 to see how different they are, and if any differences with them change what I seem to hear.

Also, I would like to listen very carefully to ss and vv again to try to understand why they appear so widely separated by so many people. Is it that something in how our brains work is fooling us, or what?

EDIT: Another possibility that I would like to listen for is something I may have mentioned in a post or in one of the PMs to you, which is that I ranked the opamps by the degree to which they seemed forward to me. But that's not the only way to rank some of them, the more distorted ones differ in other ways. Perhaps those other differences caught people's attention and they did not rank solely on the basis of one parameter the way I did.
 
Last edited:
J

Joseph K

Member
Joined 2004
Voter 6 was me.

I had written to Pavel:

Dear Pavel,

My vote vould be like this:

rr -- shrieky, compressed, bad mp3, no body to the voices, and some shouting quality

ss -- the group of ss, vv, uu are the better part.
between them ss seems to have extra sting in the high registers, makes it look like high resolution but I think it's a problem, not resolution.

tt -- it seems like a middle way between rr and the rest: no big problems but some compression? flat? unintresting? gray?

uu -- have good resolution and body, balanced, inviting.

vv -- like uu, but gives the feeling of even more insight, higher resolution.

A last note, if I may: the general quality is quite below my best music samples, very far below what good 16bit CD production is capable to give today..
One can simply not talk of 3D qualities - there are none, air, ambience, dynamics, extremely compressed. So maybe, again and still, the source material does not help much in choosing the system elements contribution..

End quote

It seems that I had selected, with a firm hand, the fet input amps, and had rifiuted (ferociously) the bjt input ones ..
Do I remember well the setup, is it not like You are reading out the high impedance out of a potentiometer with our opamps, Pavel?
How about input bias current loading the wiper contact?
How about the hypotetic 'low distortion' for a 4562, when the driving generator source impedance is ~10kohm?

Ciao, George
 
Last edited:
billshurv

billshurv

Member
Joined 2014
Paid Member
Mark: Can you also define 'forward' from your context. The Holt definition is

forward, forwardness A quality of reproduction which seems to place sound sources closer than they were recorded. Usually the result of a humped midrange, plus a narrow horizontal dispersion pattern from the loudspeaker. See "Row-A sound." Compare "laid-back."

And clearly the Frequency response is flat so it can't be that.

George: I'll let you tell the Tiefenbrun family their recordings are rubbish. I'm not brave enough to Face them!
 
P

plasnu

Member
Joined 2011
There is probably little reason to choose TL072 for high end audio applications, since 5532 performs (sounds) better than TL072 in almost all the cases, except some simple parametric filter applications that requires "bite". But, single 5534 sounds better than dual 5532, Phillips and Signetics 5534 sound better than TI's... well, it's my personal opinion, anyway...

If PMA have a chance to do another test, please include single opamps, such as OPA627/637 and Signetics 5534 (Not the ones from Ebay, they are FAKE).
 
Status
This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.
Top Bottom