Oh o.k. Nothing to do with GAS or Ampzilla. I'm amused by the remark about adjusting bias IMMEDIATELY after turn-on. And in the context, the current is maybe the entire stage current, so no particular device sees all of the 80mA. I'd say NOT ready for prime time, but if Williams was on the case it is certainly likely to have worked as described. And I would suppose that the 0.05 is microfarads.
I had a physicist friend, who recently reconnected after some twenty years, once tell me that he wanted to make a power amplifier and use 3904/3906 throughout, with massive parallelism where required. There's another pair of parts with astonishing longevity. H&H 3rd I am told says the 3906 manages a 30 ohm rbb' (which makes me wonder why it isn't a little quieter).
And I will say ultrasound has come on hugely in the last 20 years. 3D stuff freaks me, but the std 2D has gone from noisy blur to something an untrained eye can actual discern details with.
Although looking at the inside of one's own testicles is a strange experience (down Jacco).
In other news Dolby is claiming its HDR tech makes your 4K telly obsolete already No 4King way: Dolby snuggles its high-def TV tech into MStar SoCs ? The Register
It appears there are some missing square root symbols in the text about Figure 21.16, about paralleling amplifiers. So it goes. [EDIT} But the formulae with the schematic shows them.
Last edited:
That's SY's field of expertise, not mine.
http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/anal...-sound-better-than-mm-ones-3.html#post1946135
You want to destroy what's left of this sad audio business. How would you think they could survive without such stories?
One thing Mr. Curl got right, nothing really changed in the high end audio electronics in the last 30 years, except the price tags and the amount of snake oil added to the mix. We got good chips, bad for the Stereophile chimps, therefore they don't count as progress.
I know this is rhetorical, but the 5532 (generally) outspecs our needs in audio, so there's little to gain over it. The latter two are obviously a lot more demanding, especially on the image processing side of the spectrum.
I don't know how to interpret your sentences.
Yes, you are right about NE5532. And then ? It goes in my direction...
And it is a pity: Was very exited when those OPAs were released. On the paper they offered everithing we needed. Including high output current to drive 600 Ohms loads. Very disapointed by the way they sounded. No defect, just boring, lifeless.
By the way, and about "op-amp rolling" I suppose it will hurt your "narrow" arithmetic position ;-), but I feel each and every product of the nature or human industry has some kind of a soul. Including OPAs.
About progresses. I don't find a lot, since the 70/80. VLSIs, CPUs, impressive progress, those last 5 years, of photographic sensors... What else ?
Class D in audio ? We had waited decades those blue leds... We are still waiting OLED TV screens at a decent price. About TV, yes, i'm impressed by the progress done, watching HD programs on my 48", compared to Sony Trinitrons.... What else ?
Internet, GPS... it is more "software", ideas.
And we still use midle aged electro acoustic transducers build with paper and copper strings in audio, from the narrow view of the average audio engineer.
Last edited:
The early adopters will be so yesterday. Checking on this I came across the war over 3D audio like Dolby Atmos, yawn.
Esperado, you and I have never met each other (I think) but we came to the SAME CONCLUSION about the NE5532-34, separately. I, too, had great hopes for the NE-5532-4 when it first came out. I was given samples when they first came out by an employee at Signetics, back in 1976, after Matti Otala gave our TIM paper at the NY AES. It appeared to be the ANSWER to our gain blocks, hopefully replacing the discrete op amp that I was using at the time.
I first tried it in a phono stage, with a direct A-B between one of my 'studio' board inline modules (that I used in a number of projects) and an NE5534. I matched the levels, in fact I SHARED the same RIAA network parts between the two, did comparative distortion and frequency response measurements, (found little to measure at the time down to 0.001% either harmonic or IM) and did a careful listening comparison test. Just like you, Esperado, I WANTED this IC to become a workhorse, so that I could focus on entire systems like studio boards or analog mastering tape recorders, and not have to build further discrete modules. It would save size, cost, and the hassle of making discrete op amps over and over. I was all for it!
On listening, I found the NE5534 to sound 'homogenized' or 'boring' as you put it. It lacked the 'life' the discrete op amp put through for some reason. WHERE was the difference? Not in comparative measurements at the time. It is still somewhat of a mystery. However, I found that I had to keep making discrete op amps and am still doing it today.
We did find that we could add a dual jfet input, by disabling the 5534 input, and get a really good compromise that could be built up on a mini-dip foot print. Dave Wilson bought dozens of these 'vertical constructions' at about $80 each from one of my technicians for the EQ of several of his WAMM speaker systems back in the early 80's. I never listened to it, but it apparently was passable to Dave Wilson's ears.
I first tried it in a phono stage, with a direct A-B between one of my 'studio' board inline modules (that I used in a number of projects) and an NE5534. I matched the levels, in fact I SHARED the same RIAA network parts between the two, did comparative distortion and frequency response measurements, (found little to measure at the time down to 0.001% either harmonic or IM) and did a careful listening comparison test. Just like you, Esperado, I WANTED this IC to become a workhorse, so that I could focus on entire systems like studio boards or analog mastering tape recorders, and not have to build further discrete modules. It would save size, cost, and the hassle of making discrete op amps over and over. I was all for it!
On listening, I found the NE5534 to sound 'homogenized' or 'boring' as you put it. It lacked the 'life' the discrete op amp put through for some reason. WHERE was the difference? Not in comparative measurements at the time. It is still somewhat of a mystery. However, I found that I had to keep making discrete op amps and am still doing it today.
We did find that we could add a dual jfet input, by disabling the 5534 input, and get a really good compromise that could be built up on a mini-dip foot print. Dave Wilson bought dozens of these 'vertical constructions' at about $80 each from one of my technicians for the EQ of several of his WAMM speaker systems back in the early 80's. I never listened to it, but it apparently was passable to Dave Wilson's ears.
FT was apparently the first person given a demo of Atmos to point out the audible shifts in timbre as the acoustical "object" was moved around the room!
Really ?
I have been told by my son that exists strange little machines, looking like Star treck communicators, able to connect-you with a mondial brain named Internet, send and recieve letters without using paper, record and play music and even movies, make calculations, localize-you in the space to help-you to find your way, and a lot of other features. Sometimes, it allows-you to be connected with your friends, even in the other side of the planet, in order to talk with them like if there were on your side.
Is-it true ?
That's what I say when people question some of my designs, with their attitude of Why bother? Despite addressing initially audio, they have applicability to other areas, just as some of the scientific instrumentation things I did have application to audio sometimes.
Is the fact that we are talking about audio, here, could be influenced by the name of this forum: "DiyAudio" ?
Esperado, you're seeing a rebellion against the hyperbole that exists in audio. Solid, ostensibly boring, engineering choices are unfashionable.
But there's also something to be said for being clever about taking something from one application to advance another field. In fact, I'd call that innovation.
But there's also something to be said for being clever about taking something from one application to advance another field. In fact, I'd call that innovation.
That reminds me of an old SNL routine where Buck Henry is playing an entomologist, with a name something like Dr. Gedungus. Jane Curtin, as Joan Face, is interviewing him, and he goes on about the remarkable animals called Gendungus beetles --- including their habit of tunneling into people's ears, excavating them, and then doing art installations in that space (even exhibiting in galleries in the Village). She says And the beetles are named after you, Dr.?
No Miss Face. I am named after them.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LCRZZC-DH7M
(I thought it was web acronym talk for : die your d orange, honestly)
- Status
- Not open for further replies.