anything better than opa2134?
Sorry, it's me gain. You need THREE boards with sockets for ABC tests - pure maths. I've just come back from a conference which started at 7am!!!
cheers,
Sorry, it's me gain. You need THREE boards with sockets for ABC tests - pure maths. I've just come back from a conference which started at 7am!!!
cheers,
Hi janusz,
Its answers like yours that are of real value, i.e. having actually tried listening to each IC - I think we can all agree data sheets only tell a portion of the whole story, but few have the opportunity (well, ok me at least) to really try several ICs out...
However, its my opinion that blind tests may not tell the whole story either, since these tend to be short-term listening tests. I believe it takes time to 'get a feel' of the character sound of a component, so tests of several days over a wide range of material are necessary... well, not unless the op-amp in question is really grossly misused - or is really bad (and I think there are a couple of those!)
Cheers!
Clem
Its answers like yours that are of real value, i.e. having actually tried listening to each IC - I think we can all agree data sheets only tell a portion of the whole story, but few have the opportunity (well, ok me at least) to really try several ICs out...
However, its my opinion that blind tests may not tell the whole story either, since these tend to be short-term listening tests. I believe it takes time to 'get a feel' of the character sound of a component, so tests of several days over a wide range of material are necessary... well, not unless the op-amp in question is really grossly misused - or is really bad (and I think there are a couple of those!)
Cheers!
Clem
anything better than opa2134?
Hi Clem and all,
Consider this: our brain is the best cheating device in the world we have. Somehow it prefers to operate in the like-dislike mode rather than in its rational mode (some believe that women have the latter mode always switched off but it’s another story). If we, for whatever reason (usually unknown), like something our brain generates more liking, if we dislike something it generates disliking. At least so it appears.
Just take a look at a woman again. She just got a new blouse. It’s the most wonderful blouse in the world – and you dare to ask her how much she spent on it!!! Well, the next week she gets another one. This one was made just for her. When Lily sees her in this new wonder her eyes will pop out. Will you dare to ask her about the last week purchase? Well, try. Women are very inventive when comes to explaining. We, our masculine brains, behave in a very similar way but usually we need much more time before we find something we like more. In the meantime we enjoy our liking.
We, DIYs, very often fall in a trap of listening to devices in our system rather than music. For a woman, on the other hand, it almost does not matter if it is played on some ancient Bambino (anyone here who knows what it was?) or some hundred grand God knows what. And if she really likes the music (and whatever comes with it) she remembers that and the tune until she drops dead.
That does not mean that there is no room for improvement in our equipment. The thing is that we like doing this and then to enjoy it for a while - and afterwards we are back to the business of improving. When improvement is concerned (my humble opinion) usually most benefit comes with upgrading the speaker system - assuming that our amplification system is already active.
cheers,
Hi Clem and all,
Consider this: our brain is the best cheating device in the world we have. Somehow it prefers to operate in the like-dislike mode rather than in its rational mode (some believe that women have the latter mode always switched off but it’s another story). If we, for whatever reason (usually unknown), like something our brain generates more liking, if we dislike something it generates disliking. At least so it appears.
Just take a look at a woman again. She just got a new blouse. It’s the most wonderful blouse in the world – and you dare to ask her how much she spent on it!!! Well, the next week she gets another one. This one was made just for her. When Lily sees her in this new wonder her eyes will pop out. Will you dare to ask her about the last week purchase? Well, try. Women are very inventive when comes to explaining. We, our masculine brains, behave in a very similar way but usually we need much more time before we find something we like more. In the meantime we enjoy our liking.
We, DIYs, very often fall in a trap of listening to devices in our system rather than music. For a woman, on the other hand, it almost does not matter if it is played on some ancient Bambino (anyone here who knows what it was?) or some hundred grand God knows what. And if she really likes the music (and whatever comes with it) she remembers that and the tune until she drops dead.
That does not mean that there is no room for improvement in our equipment. The thing is that we like doing this and then to enjoy it for a while - and afterwards we are back to the business of improving. When improvement is concerned (my humble opinion) usually most benefit comes with upgrading the speaker system - assuming that our amplification system is already active.
cheers,
Hi janusz,
I can certainly agree with your opinion that the biggest change comes with the loudspeaker. IMHO its also the part of the reproduction chain that has the most 'art' associated with design!
Can't say much about women and blouses - not with the wife watching as I type...
🙂
Cheers!
Clem
I can certainly agree with your opinion that the biggest change comes with the loudspeaker. IMHO its also the part of the reproduction chain that has the most 'art' associated with design!
Can't say much about women and blouses - not with the wife watching as I type...
🙂
Cheers!
Clem
Very simple
It's as simple as this.
Order a few samples from TI and let your ears be the judge.
They even pay for the shipping.
This is a DIY forum and it's here that many competent people try a lot and know how to properly implement an OpAmp. If they are sounding so alike why do they end up spending $15 for a single
chanel one if they sound the same as the a $4 dual one. That's nearly eight times the cost for stereo.
I had a time when I did not know what all the talk about immaging, seperation, air , sound stage....was. I would not have been able to tell the difference between a Wadia and a Technics CD player, because the rest of my system was not up to the task.
I agree fully that each OpAmp requires its optimized circuit and thats what I had for the OPA2132 in my CD player. When I just swaped it for the THS4032 there was clearly more seperation, air and detail. People need to give it two or three days to settle before
-ing. But then they can swap back and forth and if they don't hear a difference, they either need to 
their system or go to see the doctor. 
Klaus
It's as simple as this.
Order a few samples from TI and let your ears be the judge.
They even pay for the shipping.
This is a DIY forum and it's here that many competent people try a lot and know how to properly implement an OpAmp. If they are sounding so alike why do they end up spending $15 for a single
chanel one if they sound the same as the a $4 dual one. That's nearly eight times the cost for stereo.
I had a time when I did not know what all the talk about immaging, seperation, air , sound stage....was. I would not have been able to tell the difference between a Wadia and a Technics CD player, because the rest of my system was not up to the task.
I agree fully that each OpAmp requires its optimized circuit and thats what I had for the OPA2132 in my CD player. When I just swaped it for the THS4032 there was clearly more seperation, air and detail. People need to give it two or three days to settle before
-ing. But then they can swap back and forth and if they don't hear a difference, they either need to their system or go to see the doctor. Klaus
anything better than opa2134?
Hi Radian,
Sorry, I somehow missed THS4032. I don’t know this one and maybe it really stands out of the crowd if you say so. I'll certainly order it in the near future. By the way, I never said that there are no differences between ICs (or whatever) but that often differences are very tiny and with age ability to perceive these differences diminishes.
Anyway, if you really want to know which ICs cannot be told apart in the ABC test by whatever proportion of people 35 plus (or other age groups) do the experiment. Design your boards. Burn in your ICs until you are happy. Then prepare for the experiment by inviting people. The sample must be representative of the population you are going to test. If you have large number of people (the more the better but there is no need to go beyond 400) split them into comfortable groups and carry out the experiment with each group separately.
When all is ready, introduce all three boards to your audience. Begin the test. Be sure that with 3 boards the same bit is played 20 times or more (but not necessarily the same number of times) through each board. Randomly switch between boards (sometimes the same board will be played two or even three times in a row).
You will have 60 plus switches. With each switch tell your audience the test number you are about to begin. After each play each person has to write down only A, B or C next to the test number without knowing what anybody else has written or thought. Your audience cannot hear whether you actually switch anything.
You can number each answer sheet. That will allow participants and you to see how good each person's hearing (and memory) is. If you test people of different age groups you will notice how the ability to perceive differences between ICs (and not only ICs) disappears with age. Have fun.
cheers,
Hi Radian,
Sorry, I somehow missed THS4032. I don’t know this one and maybe it really stands out of the crowd if you say so. I'll certainly order it in the near future. By the way, I never said that there are no differences between ICs (or whatever) but that often differences are very tiny and with age ability to perceive these differences diminishes.
Anyway, if you really want to know which ICs cannot be told apart in the ABC test by whatever proportion of people 35 plus (or other age groups) do the experiment. Design your boards. Burn in your ICs until you are happy. Then prepare for the experiment by inviting people. The sample must be representative of the population you are going to test. If you have large number of people (the more the better but there is no need to go beyond 400) split them into comfortable groups and carry out the experiment with each group separately.
When all is ready, introduce all three boards to your audience. Begin the test. Be sure that with 3 boards the same bit is played 20 times or more (but not necessarily the same number of times) through each board. Randomly switch between boards (sometimes the same board will be played two or even three times in a row).
You will have 60 plus switches. With each switch tell your audience the test number you are about to begin. After each play each person has to write down only A, B or C next to the test number without knowing what anybody else has written or thought. Your audience cannot hear whether you actually switch anything.
You can number each answer sheet. That will allow participants and you to see how good each person's hearing (and memory) is. If you test people of different age groups you will notice how the ability to perceive differences between ICs (and not only ICs) disappears with age. Have fun.
cheers,
I forgot,
These are two parts of a discussion at the RightMark forum that inspired me to try the THS4032.
Don't think that I only see a magic black box when I look at a converter.
I know very well what's inside it. It is my job to know.
I design electronics, and have evaluated, tested and tried almost every dac-chip out there to come to the right choice for each project.
For this purpose we have designed a multi-functional D/A converter board with the best clocks, excellent discrete analog stages, the best power supplies, controlled impedance digital lines (no reflections-no jitter), a central low-capacitance socket and a multitude of small pcb's on which all dac chips were mounted. All kinds of jumpers were used to accomodate each of the dac chips, so that -for the first time- all chips could be evaluated in exactly the same optimized environment.
The differences were clearly audible, and most people shared the same preferences for certain converters. No surprise there.
Then the next step was substituting the discrete analog stages for opamps. 90% of the differences disappeared, although the I/V-converters and output-buffers were made with excellent parts, and with a proper layout as recommended by all chip manufacturers according to the best RF-practice.
Now, substituting NE5532 opamps for OPA2604, 2134, AD8022, AD8032, OP249, OP275, OP285, NJM2068, OPA2277, all agreed that the differences in sound quality was bigger than the differences between converters. The range between opamps was from sounding "unbearable" (JRC/NJM series, OPA2604, OPA2277) via "fair" (5532, 2134, 8022,) and "good" (OPA249, AD8032) to only a couple that were unanimously regarded as sounding excellent, amongst them THS4032 and some LMH-types.
Everybody -in different locations, at different times, without knowing from each other- told the same story, that they found the differences between opamps more important than the differences in dac chips.
That is why in my experience it is that in sound cards the greatist benefits are obtainable in optimizing analog circuitry like opamps, capacitors, and clock. And let's not forget power supply and ground.
Anybody who thinks that it is a good thing to first change AD and DA should do so, but is putting the horse behind the carriage.
Your change from OP275 to AD8620 is no improvement, on the contrary, OP275 may sound even slightly better. OPA2277 is not a good audio opamp, really weird sounding, but AD8066 is not either. It is only OK for high speed applications like I/V-converter, but has much too much dynamic LF-noise and far too high O/L-gain to be regarded as a serious audio opamp. Result is noise modulation on your audio signal that will mask low-level detail. The feedback loop is far too busy, and destroys all positive aspects of the opamp.
Try THS4032 and bypassing the power supply pins with proper caps, then tell me if you still don't hear differences.
Once a guy told me "This Crystal DAC is better than your AD dac chip". I said "no way pal, it's the implementation".
We made a bet. Build the best dac board he could, I build the best dac board I could, with any opamp or whatever behind it, and compare the results. The best dac gets awarded a bottle of scotch.
For a hifi-show we prepared each one exactly the same dvd/SACD player and let the anonymus people decide which of the two sounded best.
I won. With my AD1955 dac, THS4032 I/V and buffer. He used CS4397 and AD8620/AD8632.
Then we did only 1 thing: Next day we swapped opamps, AD8620/32 in mine and my THS combo in his player.
He won.
This whole subject is -at this moment- part of a project in which the maximum sound quility is wanted for a 192kHz 24bits A/D converter. With already in this early stage some interesting results. Not measured results. Actual concert recordings, symphony orchestras in real concert halls. Big differences in sound between opamps and capacitors, and two different A/D chips sounding very similar.
Anyway, Maxim, long story but hopefully worth a little bit for anyone who takes the trouble to read and wanting to improve his/her sound.
Cheers,
Marcel
There is a lot more to sound quality than distortion. Noise modulation for example. Robbing music from details and leaving you with the impression that you are missing all kinds of information but you don't know what exactly.
Noise modulation is different in every setting, coloring the sound differently in every occasion.
Other modders listen to nice sounding opamps while using LM7815/7915 crap or LM317/337 noise-and-distortion- generators in the power supply.
That is not doing any good to the opamp in question, and puts you on the wrong foot. You are not evaluating the opamp's sound quality there, only listening to the contributions of the regulators and the opamp's sensitivity to that. Look at PSRR in higher frequencies, and compare +V PSRR with -V PSRR. If they are different, you'll understand what will happen.
That is why I said, and say again, that it is of utmost importance to clean up the power supply. Before you do any serious evaluation of opamps.
In my opinion, but that is not necessarily yours, the differences in sound quality between really good opamps and OPA 2604 and 2134 is so big that I happily warrant the latter two the title of "bad" opamp.
I agree that they sometimes do sound "fair", but that is still not my definition of "good sound".
And in this world of high resolution audio and $4 top notch opamps it is a disgrace that commercial equipment is equipped with clearly inferior chips, and then labelled "top quality". It is clearly misleading the public.
Re. to the links in your post: Soundodyssey are telling a popular story with the intent to sell their own stuff. Be careful. Exaggeration is just around the corner. LC same story. They needed a successor for their sales-hit AD825 that went out of production. They need cash. Whatever they say, is believed. Don't fall into that trap. Use your own ears and imagination, and intelligence.
THS4062 vs 4032: 4062 is not in any way similar to (let alone better than) 4032 when we talk specs that matter to audio performance.
4062 is 180MHz vs 100MHz (4032); Slew Rate 400 vs 100V/us, but there the rally ends.
4032 is clearly better in the following areas:
Settling time to 0,01%: 80ns vs 140ns for 4062;
distorsion: -90dB vs -72 dB (that is 8 times better folks!)
Noise: 1,6nV/rtHz vs 14,5 (yes that's 9 times better);
Which is clearly enough to suspect that the THS4032 could well be top notch and the 4062 certainly is not.
Sorry, I read OPA2277, my mistake. Those are indeed very different. OPA2227 being horribly slow. Good for small input signals. Not for high resolution.
Again: you may not be hearing differences in the Lynx because of bad, polluted psu and gnd.
I doubt if you will hear 7th harmonic at -112dB. Calculate environment noise (50dB), max sound pressure level (+110dB) and -112db artifact. Inaudible. Your 7th harmonic would be -52 dB below environment, when you play at 0dbFS.
Human can discern discrete tones up to 20dB below the noise floor, not 52dB.
Maxim:
Sorry. Bad dacs are bad. They don't count. Decent dacs like AKM and all the rest may step into the ring for comparison, bad dacs may not. This is not about bad dacs. This is about sound quality between acceptable dacs.
The Yamaha I talked about has relatively cheap AKM codecs. Still the differences were certainly big.
Just finished 2 soundcards, M-audio 192 and my own Juli@. No change of AD/DA's (almost similar AKM's), but replaced clocks, opamps and capacitors. Results are that the sound quality is now a WHOLE lot improved, quite close to my high-end A/D (PCM4042; close, not there) and D/A converters for cd/sacd/dvd players. I am sure when I make a special linear power supply for the cards that the sound quality will be even closer the best converters I have made.
Small differences will remain, but most if not all masking and dynamic misbehaviour, that blocked my view into the recordings I have made, are already gone.
No sweat about typos, I read messages and opinions, not loose characters.
Cheers,
Marcel
Klaus
These are two parts of a discussion at the RightMark forum that inspired me to try the THS4032.
Don't think that I only see a magic black box when I look at a converter.
I know very well what's inside it. It is my job to know.
I design electronics, and have evaluated, tested and tried almost every dac-chip out there to come to the right choice for each project.
For this purpose we have designed a multi-functional D/A converter board with the best clocks, excellent discrete analog stages, the best power supplies, controlled impedance digital lines (no reflections-no jitter), a central low-capacitance socket and a multitude of small pcb's on which all dac chips were mounted. All kinds of jumpers were used to accomodate each of the dac chips, so that -for the first time- all chips could be evaluated in exactly the same optimized environment.
The differences were clearly audible, and most people shared the same preferences for certain converters. No surprise there.
Then the next step was substituting the discrete analog stages for opamps. 90% of the differences disappeared, although the I/V-converters and output-buffers were made with excellent parts, and with a proper layout as recommended by all chip manufacturers according to the best RF-practice.
Now, substituting NE5532 opamps for OPA2604, 2134, AD8022, AD8032, OP249, OP275, OP285, NJM2068, OPA2277, all agreed that the differences in sound quality was bigger than the differences between converters. The range between opamps was from sounding "unbearable" (JRC/NJM series, OPA2604, OPA2277) via "fair" (5532, 2134, 8022,) and "good" (OPA249, AD8032) to only a couple that were unanimously regarded as sounding excellent, amongst them THS4032 and some LMH-types.
Everybody -in different locations, at different times, without knowing from each other- told the same story, that they found the differences between opamps more important than the differences in dac chips.
That is why in my experience it is that in sound cards the greatist benefits are obtainable in optimizing analog circuitry like opamps, capacitors, and clock. And let's not forget power supply and ground.
Anybody who thinks that it is a good thing to first change AD and DA should do so, but is putting the horse behind the carriage.
Your change from OP275 to AD8620 is no improvement, on the contrary, OP275 may sound even slightly better. OPA2277 is not a good audio opamp, really weird sounding, but AD8066 is not either. It is only OK for high speed applications like I/V-converter, but has much too much dynamic LF-noise and far too high O/L-gain to be regarded as a serious audio opamp. Result is noise modulation on your audio signal that will mask low-level detail. The feedback loop is far too busy, and destroys all positive aspects of the opamp.
Try THS4032 and bypassing the power supply pins with proper caps, then tell me if you still don't hear differences.
Once a guy told me "This Crystal DAC is better than your AD dac chip". I said "no way pal, it's the implementation".
We made a bet. Build the best dac board he could, I build the best dac board I could, with any opamp or whatever behind it, and compare the results. The best dac gets awarded a bottle of scotch.
For a hifi-show we prepared each one exactly the same dvd/SACD player and let the anonymus people decide which of the two sounded best.
I won. With my AD1955 dac, THS4032 I/V and buffer. He used CS4397 and AD8620/AD8632.
Then we did only 1 thing: Next day we swapped opamps, AD8620/32 in mine and my THS combo in his player.
He won.
This whole subject is -at this moment- part of a project in which the maximum sound quility is wanted for a 192kHz 24bits A/D converter. With already in this early stage some interesting results. Not measured results. Actual concert recordings, symphony orchestras in real concert halls. Big differences in sound between opamps and capacitors, and two different A/D chips sounding very similar.
Anyway, Maxim, long story but hopefully worth a little bit for anyone who takes the trouble to read and wanting to improve his/her sound.
Cheers,
Marcel
There is a lot more to sound quality than distortion. Noise modulation for example. Robbing music from details and leaving you with the impression that you are missing all kinds of information but you don't know what exactly.
Noise modulation is different in every setting, coloring the sound differently in every occasion.
Other modders listen to nice sounding opamps while using LM7815/7915 crap or LM317/337 noise-and-distortion- generators in the power supply.
That is not doing any good to the opamp in question, and puts you on the wrong foot. You are not evaluating the opamp's sound quality there, only listening to the contributions of the regulators and the opamp's sensitivity to that. Look at PSRR in higher frequencies, and compare +V PSRR with -V PSRR. If they are different, you'll understand what will happen.
That is why I said, and say again, that it is of utmost importance to clean up the power supply. Before you do any serious evaluation of opamps.
In my opinion, but that is not necessarily yours, the differences in sound quality between really good opamps and OPA 2604 and 2134 is so big that I happily warrant the latter two the title of "bad" opamp.
I agree that they sometimes do sound "fair", but that is still not my definition of "good sound".
And in this world of high resolution audio and $4 top notch opamps it is a disgrace that commercial equipment is equipped with clearly inferior chips, and then labelled "top quality". It is clearly misleading the public.
Re. to the links in your post: Soundodyssey are telling a popular story with the intent to sell their own stuff. Be careful. Exaggeration is just around the corner. LC same story. They needed a successor for their sales-hit AD825 that went out of production. They need cash. Whatever they say, is believed. Don't fall into that trap. Use your own ears and imagination, and intelligence.
THS4062 vs 4032: 4062 is not in any way similar to (let alone better than) 4032 when we talk specs that matter to audio performance.
4062 is 180MHz vs 100MHz (4032); Slew Rate 400 vs 100V/us, but there the rally ends.
4032 is clearly better in the following areas:
Settling time to 0,01%: 80ns vs 140ns for 4062;
distorsion: -90dB vs -72 dB (that is 8 times better folks!)
Noise: 1,6nV/rtHz vs 14,5 (yes that's 9 times better);
Which is clearly enough to suspect that the THS4032 could well be top notch and the 4062 certainly is not.
Sorry, I read OPA2277, my mistake. Those are indeed very different. OPA2227 being horribly slow. Good for small input signals. Not for high resolution.
Again: you may not be hearing differences in the Lynx because of bad, polluted psu and gnd.
I doubt if you will hear 7th harmonic at -112dB. Calculate environment noise (50dB), max sound pressure level (+110dB) and -112db artifact. Inaudible. Your 7th harmonic would be -52 dB below environment, when you play at 0dbFS.
Human can discern discrete tones up to 20dB below the noise floor, not 52dB.
Maxim:
Sorry. Bad dacs are bad. They don't count. Decent dacs like AKM and all the rest may step into the ring for comparison, bad dacs may not. This is not about bad dacs. This is about sound quality between acceptable dacs.
The Yamaha I talked about has relatively cheap AKM codecs. Still the differences were certainly big.
Just finished 2 soundcards, M-audio 192 and my own Juli@. No change of AD/DA's (almost similar AKM's), but replaced clocks, opamps and capacitors. Results are that the sound quality is now a WHOLE lot improved, quite close to my high-end A/D (PCM4042; close, not there) and D/A converters for cd/sacd/dvd players. I am sure when I make a special linear power supply for the cards that the sound quality will be even closer the best converters I have made.
Small differences will remain, but most if not all masking and dynamic misbehaviour, that blocked my view into the recordings I have made, are already gone.
No sweat about typos, I read messages and opinions, not loose characters.
Cheers,
Marcel
Klaus
Whew - long posts guys, but rewarding reading. Hopefully in a week or two I'll be able to listen to a set of THS4032s, and test them out against OPA2134s, 2132 and 2604. Thanks to everyone for the inputs!
And, I hope the original poster picked up a few good suggestions as well....
Cheers!
Clem
Klaus, I disagree just on one point - IMHO the 5532s sound lousier than 2604s. Then again sound is indeed subjective isn't it...
Many thanks again...
And, I hope the original poster picked up a few good suggestions as well....
Cheers!
Clem
Klaus, I disagree just on one point - IMHO the 5532s sound lousier than 2604s. Then again sound is indeed subjective isn't it...
Many thanks again...
Re: anything better than opa2134?
.... and use the 5532 in the NAD C521BEE. Still some life in that sucker.
janusz said:
.... and use the 5532 in the NAD C521BEE. Still some life in that sucker.
Just one note regarding high speed opamps (THS40... and etc.)
We have to have capacitors as an environment for THS-series opamps because of the extraodinary Input bias current :-(
While using FET-input ones we can exclude such terrrrrible environment. For example, I've deleted 43 (!!!) electrolytic condensers from Pioneer AX3 receiver after the replacement of all opamps with OPA2134. The difference in SQ was great!
We have to have capacitors as an environment for THS-series opamps because of the extraodinary Input bias current :-(
While using FET-input ones we can exclude such terrrrrible environment. For example, I've deleted 43 (!!!) electrolytic condensers from Pioneer AX3 receiver after the replacement of all opamps with OPA2134. The difference in SQ was great!
Mad optic said:
I see also the input current is rather high in comparison with fet input opamps. So can you use these for DAC I/V conversion/output without caps.?
Hi Radian,
Have any info if the guy has really optimized the environment for each opamp in tests during the substituting the discrete analog stages for opamps as he did it for DACs?
Probably he has used a unified/standard solution for opamps. I don’t think it is a proper way to get the real advantages of different models opamps. Actually, it is easy to design a preamp without any capacitors (assuming FET-based opamps) and it is almost impossible to proceed in such a way with THS4032 (I mean a kind of tweak or whatever).
Anyway it was very interesting to read the post.
Cheers,
Alex
Have any info if the guy has really optimized the environment for each opamp in tests during the substituting the discrete analog stages for opamps as he did it for DACs?
Probably he has used a unified/standard solution for opamps. I don’t think it is a proper way to get the real advantages of different models opamps. Actually, it is easy to design a preamp without any capacitors (assuming FET-based opamps) and it is almost impossible to proceed in such a way with THS4032 (I mean a kind of tweak or whatever).
Anyway it was very interesting to read the post.
Cheers,
Alex
One of the best op-amp's that i've tried is the EL2244 op-amp from Elantec/Intersil, used (only) by Arcam in Alpha 9 and cd92 upgrade kit. It is far better than opa2134/2132/2604/2228 (BB-veild sounding op-amps), ad826, op275. It replaced ne5532 in my dvd 763sa sacd/cd player with great results, along with cs4362 6-ch dacs, Os-con, Jamicon and Teapo caps instead Rubycon yk series.
Now the sound is cleaner and more detailed. And the sacd is great.
Now the sound is cleaner and more detailed. And the sacd is great.
By look to the datasheer this amp have relative high distortion by 2 nd harmonic. It make his sound " musical ".... 😉
Hi Bert,
I’m sorry but I did not get your question. What do you mean saying “these” opamps? OPA2134 or THS4032?
With regards to FET-input opamps it is easy to proceed without caps. For example, a combination of PCM1704 and OPA627+OPA2134 is a really caps-free one. In real world it is a modified Pioneer VSA-AX10Ai.
While using THS4032 for the same circuit you have to keep all electrolytic condensers.
The el.condensers could be excluded with THS4032 only in new designs.
Kind regards,
Alex
I’m sorry but I did not get your question. What do you mean saying “these” opamps? OPA2134 or THS4032?
With regards to FET-input opamps it is easy to proceed without caps. For example, a combination of PCM1704 and OPA627+OPA2134 is a really caps-free one. In real world it is a modified Pioneer VSA-AX10Ai.
While using THS4032 for the same circuit you have to keep all electrolytic condensers.
The el.condensers could be excluded with THS4032 only in new designs.
Kind regards,
Alex
Mad optic said:
Hi Alex,
I meant the THS4032.
So for my 1702's this is not usable. I am using AD8610 now. Before I had OPA627's. Also nice.
I want an absolutely cap. free audio path.
"adinica" it says on the website for EL2244 "not recomended-Use ISL55002" is is used with single sided supply,maybee i could use it in my Pioneer DV668?bY the way could you use AD8620 with single supply?
Klaus,
Can you recommend a "proper" power supply for opamps that are clean and not noisy?
Does the THS4032 require some kind of special circuit to sound good?
Thanks!
Can you recommend a "proper" power supply for opamps that are clean and not noisy?
Does the THS4032 require some kind of special circuit to sound good?
Thanks!
- Status
- Not open for further replies.