You're welcome.
anatech, i have to say that it is not easy to follow your reasons, but it is probably because am not an expert in the field.
However, the production move to Mexico in the 70s, or the Made in Japan, Made in Taiwan, Made in Korea etc. of those years, is very different from today.
Now China has bought the brands that forty years ago represented the high quality of the sector.
So i repeat, why at that time did China not enter the market with its own brands, and instead today it exploits the fame of historic brands?
Why did these historic brands sell?
Be careful, i have nothing against China, everyone has the right to produce and market as they see fit, but since practically today the entire market is theirs, why should i believe that in these years all the new things are better than the old ones?
And i believe that beyond what may be a commercial strategy, it's really an internal culture, a production philosophy that has characterized the global chinese market, that's all.
In essence, everything has changed.
And consequently, i remain "in the dark ages".
I like the dark ages. lol!
I think i have been clear enough about what measurements can do and what ears can do, they are two different roles.
It's true that there are no devices designed by ear, but why do they sound different if measurements are objective for everyone?
Why does every designer give their products a "factory sound"? A musical DNA?
Simply because the ear is the final judge, it always has been.
It's true that we are talking about electroacoustics, but it is a science that introduces acoustics, the name itself says so, and acoustics is a matter for the human ear, the technique is only a means, not the end.
This is what i see.
Sanity is a strong objection.
What cannot be said is that two cables that measure the same, then sound the same.
This is absolutely false, when measurements put a false tombstone on the only experience that counts, which is listening.
Those who do not trust their own ears have long since lost their way.
Those who trust, know that they are getting what they like, that they can improve over time and that they do not believe in marketing fairy tales.
Maybe it's someone else who has to sell, not me.
An amplifier is an amplifier now as it was forty years ago, nothing has changed.
If we exclude class D or T, the most in-depth measurement techniques have changed nothing, there is a power supply, a pre-stage, a driver stage and a final stage.
There is no nuclear fission amplifier yet.
It's not the new components that make the difference, with smaller tolerances, but the chef, the designer.
The same thing goes for speakers, they are the same as fifty years ago, sixty, seventy and beyond.
They are magnetodynamic components that over the years have seen the use of a thousand materials, and to date they have not improved in any way, they are always the same magnetodynamics.
I understand that companies have to sell, but if it's the vintage market that worries them, then the problem is bigger than expected.
Probably hi-fi is a product that is less sought after today for many reasons, but blaming vintage does not help to improve the situation.
It's a pity that DIY is within the reach of few, because for audio, in my opinion it is a great reference.
Perhaps the best in terms of quality/price.
I got to 8 cents... i have to stop.
anatech, i have to say that it is not easy to follow your reasons, but it is probably because am not an expert in the field.
However, the production move to Mexico in the 70s, or the Made in Japan, Made in Taiwan, Made in Korea etc. of those years, is very different from today.
Exactly.
Now China has bought the brands that forty years ago represented the high quality of the sector.
So i repeat, why at that time did China not enter the market with its own brands, and instead today it exploits the fame of historic brands?
Why did these historic brands sell?
Be careful, i have nothing against China, everyone has the right to produce and market as they see fit, but since practically today the entire market is theirs, why should i believe that in these years all the new things are better than the old ones?
And i believe that beyond what may be a commercial strategy, it's really an internal culture, a production philosophy that has characterized the global chinese market, that's all.
In essence, everything has changed.
And consequently, i remain "in the dark ages".
I like the dark ages. lol!
I think i have been clear enough about what measurements can do and what ears can do, they are two different roles.
It's true that there are no devices designed by ear, but why do they sound different if measurements are objective for everyone?
Why does every designer give their products a "factory sound"? A musical DNA?
Simply because the ear is the final judge, it always has been.
It's true that we are talking about electroacoustics, but it is a science that introduces acoustics, the name itself says so, and acoustics is a matter for the human ear, the technique is only a means, not the end.
This is what i see.
Sanity is a strong objection.
What cannot be said is that two cables that measure the same, then sound the same.
This is absolutely false, when measurements put a false tombstone on the only experience that counts, which is listening.
Those who do not trust their own ears have long since lost their way.
Those who trust, know that they are getting what they like, that they can improve over time and that they do not believe in marketing fairy tales.
Maybe it's someone else who has to sell, not me.
An amplifier is an amplifier now as it was forty years ago, nothing has changed.
If we exclude class D or T, the most in-depth measurement techniques have changed nothing, there is a power supply, a pre-stage, a driver stage and a final stage.
There is no nuclear fission amplifier yet.
It's not the new components that make the difference, with smaller tolerances, but the chef, the designer.
The same thing goes for speakers, they are the same as fifty years ago, sixty, seventy and beyond.
They are magnetodynamic components that over the years have seen the use of a thousand materials, and to date they have not improved in any way, they are always the same magnetodynamics.
I understand that companies have to sell, but if it's the vintage market that worries them, then the problem is bigger than expected.
Probably hi-fi is a product that is less sought after today for many reasons, but blaming vintage does not help to improve the situation.
It's a pity that DIY is within the reach of few, because for audio, in my opinion it is a great reference.
Perhaps the best in terms of quality/price.
I got to 8 cents... i have to stop.
There are many reasons China was not active in our market place for earlier times. They are pretty obvious. You can get anything from top quality to junk from China. Don't forget that.
As far as subjective viewpoints ... what that argument completely ignores is that we measure and listen. Therefore we have far more information to go on, and measurements keep us honest.
There is no romance in equipment I guess, and a good story just doesn't happen. We don't discover anything in garages anymore, you need trained engineers and proper equipment to do a good job with anything. Pretty much everything is known by some folks. People who don't understand make it more like a religion. Just like things were in the dark ages before science cleared things up. Still, religion tries to explain on their terms what is known and proved.
Anyway, what others (including me) measure does correlate to subjective opinion. This is a lifetime of study for me, and when everything agrees you know you are on the right track.
As far as subjective viewpoints ... what that argument completely ignores is that we measure and listen. Therefore we have far more information to go on, and measurements keep us honest.
There is no romance in equipment I guess, and a good story just doesn't happen. We don't discover anything in garages anymore, you need trained engineers and proper equipment to do a good job with anything. Pretty much everything is known by some folks. People who don't understand make it more like a religion. Just like things were in the dark ages before science cleared things up. Still, religion tries to explain on their terms what is known and proved.
Anyway, what others (including me) measure does correlate to subjective opinion. This is a lifetime of study for me, and when everything agrees you know you are on the right track.
Pin 7 Vcc departure from standard pin out, ensuring replacement difficulties for the Pin 8 Vcc standard.
NE5534 has pin 7 positive, standard for single op amps. NE5532 has pin 8 positive, standard for dual op amps.
Very interesting thread. I was impressed by Mark Tillotson's notion that the NE5532 is good for RIAA MM stages, less so for MC stages.
My buddy in the recording studio said that people worry far too much about the quality of the opamp in their home amps. After all, the sound has already gone through about a 100 of them in the mixing desk.... 🙁
And can confirm what anatech said about the power pinouts on my now defunct Rotel RA-931 MM amplifier:
It then feeds a x10 buffer amp before the main amplifier stage. Looks competent enough. But TBH, I always hated MM cartidges at the top end, and that awkward 150-400 pF capacitance added to the inductive MM cartridge's RCA phono lead.
I was always struck by the notion that the correct resistor layout in a differential amplifier should match R1 and R2 on the + and - legs for ideal common mode rejection, and this includes any decoupling capacitors, but in fact most people use 1uF on +ve and 10uF on the - ve.
Does anyone know the definitive answer about matching the capacitors before the R1. I was always curious about that, being a perfectionist. My transfer function maths calculation said match them. 🤔
My buddy in the recording studio said that people worry far too much about the quality of the opamp in their home amps. After all, the sound has already gone through about a 100 of them in the mixing desk.... 🙁
And can confirm what anatech said about the power pinouts on my now defunct Rotel RA-931 MM amplifier:
It then feeds a x10 buffer amp before the main amplifier stage. Looks competent enough. But TBH, I always hated MM cartidges at the top end, and that awkward 150-400 pF capacitance added to the inductive MM cartridge's RCA phono lead.
I was always struck by the notion that the correct resistor layout in a differential amplifier should match R1 and R2 on the + and - legs for ideal common mode rejection, and this includes any decoupling capacitors, but in fact most people use 1uF on +ve and 10uF on the - ve.
Does anyone know the definitive answer about matching the capacitors before the R1. I was always curious about that, being a perfectionist. My transfer function maths calculation said match them. 🤔
Last edited:
As mentioned this is actually the de-facto standard - go read datasheets some more! What varies amongst single opamps is the input offset and compensation arrangements on pins 1,5,8 - so there is no proper single standard pinout for single-opamps, whereas dual and quad are pretty much completely standardized.
Of course the fact the pinout is compatible doesn't mean you can randomly swap opamps into a circuit, there are far more factors at play from bias currents to stability, noise, precision, bandwidth and more.
My take on that would be to make them large enough to make them zero impedance in any range of interest. It is most important to have good CMR at 50 or 60 Hz. If we move that down in subsonic by large caps, poor CMR in that region will not harm .
Replace each R1 with a Z1 and the circuit is still balanced. Realize Z1 with any RLC circuit you like and everything is still balanced as long as the RLC circuits for the two Z1s are the same.
When you pick an RC series circuit for Z1, you have a differential amplifier with input coupling capacitors. Those capacitors need to be equal to get equal Z1s and keep the balance.
Is there a 'single' version of the LM4562 version that would be closer to the pin out of the ne5534?
Just look up a TL071 datasheet or a uA741 datasheet or an AD797 datasheet. Pin 7 is almost always the positive supply for 8-pin single op-amps.
IMO that wasn't a common sense approach when ever it was implemented, way too late now, but IMO someone took a wrong turn when they decided to depart from the top right pin being positive and the bottom left pin being negative. (given indent 'North' or 'up').
Hi Earths,
LME49710 or any equivalent to that.
Hi system7,
I have often wondered about running a phono amplifier balanced, being that is is just a coil. Then I realized if you were to do that, install the phono preamp right at the bottom of the tonearm. Sidestep a bunch of issues at the same time.
LME49710 or any equivalent to that.
Hi system7,
I have often wondered about running a phono amplifier balanced, being that is is just a coil. Then I realized if you were to do that, install the phono preamp right at the bottom of the tonearm. Sidestep a bunch of issues at the same time.
😉 , why not both:
Finally I managed to finish rebuild of almost complete TT. Don't thing it is best in the world, but at least in my opinion it is one of the prettiest, at least for me who like understated retro design loaded with contemporary features:
It is still on my work bench. Need to clean and adjust tonearm, and play with preamp again. Also still looking for shaft encoder to properly measure W&F.
Also I envisioned cover, made from commonly available poly-carbonate sheet that I bent with help of steel pipes and heat gun. Cover is still in design phase, but will come in soon...
It is still on my work bench. Need to clean and adjust tonearm, and play with preamp again. Also still looking for shaft encoder to properly measure W&F.
Also I envisioned cover, made from commonly available poly-carbonate sheet that I bent with help of steel pipes and heat gun. Cover is still in design phase, but will come in soon...
You can always check the data sheet. That is the most reliable source of information, by far.
Tom
I don't like SMD only because I can't solder it easily. The component tolerances are better then through hole.
But for testing and tinkering with different values till the circuit sounds right , through hole is better.
But for testing and tinkering with different values till the circuit sounds right , through hole is better.
In answer to anatech, like Drbulj, I had the "bright spark" idea of building a MM preamp into the turntable along the three opamp lines:
It was certainly not worse than a standard simple circuit, but the sort of Shure cartridges I was using didn't work very well whatever resistive load and subsequent equalistaion I gave them. That annoying capacitance helps HF fall off.
I found Grado low inductance types were best of the type, but needed heavier tonearm. Ideally I wanted centre-tap coils too. All pointed to MC types as being generally better, and my idea went down the trashcan of history! 🤣
It was certainly not worse than a standard simple circuit, but the sort of Shure cartridges I was using didn't work very well whatever resistive load and subsequent equalistaion I gave them. That annoying capacitance helps HF fall off.
I found Grado low inductance types were best of the type, but needed heavier tonearm. Ideally I wanted centre-tap coils too. All pointed to MC types as being generally better, and my idea went down the trashcan of history! 🤣