Re: It isn't about specs only...
somehow i do'nt think there are substantive grounds to justify this assertion.....i think susceptability to the subconcious, and wholy erroneous notion that 'higher price=better quality' may have more to do with it....😉
jean-paul said:
somehow i do'nt think there are substantive grounds to justify this assertion.....i think susceptability to the subconcious, and wholy erroneous notion that 'higher price=better quality' may have more to do with it....😉
Better op-amps
Mikek,
I couldn't disagree more with you on this.
I'm with Jean-Paul.
It seams that you never tried an OPA627.
I changed NE5534s with OPA627/637 in many devices, and even did A-B tests with a phono preamp (I always use good machined sockets).
Even the OPA2604 is a much better op-amp than the NE5532, and it's cheap.
And the OPA2604 has lowsy specs.
But then... vinyl has lowsy specs and plays better.
Forget the specs and the graphics and test it, and than say something.
Mikek,
I couldn't disagree more with you on this.
I'm with Jean-Paul.
It seams that you never tried an OPA627.
I changed NE5534s with OPA627/637 in many devices, and even did A-B tests with a phono preamp (I always use good machined sockets).
Even the OPA2604 is a much better op-amp than the NE5532, and it's cheap.
And the OPA2604 has lowsy specs.
But then... vinyl has lowsy specs and plays better.
Forget the specs and the graphics and test it, and than say something.
The Universal true...
So you mean that vinyl must be universaly considered better than CD...because you think so!
For me it's not...i sold long time ago my Linn LP 12....Itok...Asak...more than 200 LPs...and i don´t regret!!
Whenever the people understand that their opinion(specially without cientific proof) is just their opinion...and it's only true for theirself!!
PS: For me also the NE5534 is one of the best op amp!
Do the null...and you will see!🙂
So you mean that vinyl must be universaly considered better than CD...because you think so!
For me it's not...i sold long time ago my Linn LP 12....Itok...Asak...more than 200 LPs...and i don´t regret!!
Whenever the people understand that their opinion(specially without cientific proof) is just their opinion...and it's only true for theirself!!
PS: For me also the NE5534 is one of the best op amp!
Do the null...and you will see!🙂
Jorge,
It's my oppinion, you're right.
I have a good sound from my CD, but I still find, as always, that vinyl is better.
I always thought that.
For me, 16 bits/44.1 are just not enough for music.
Analog has infinite resolution.
In digital it's quantifiable, you always have a limit.
It's like comparing a good 35mm camera to a digital one.
In the beginning of the 80's I heard one of Phillips's first CD-players and the applauses from the audience seamed like it was raining.
But the press said miracles about that (and almost any) CD player.
I know it has came a long way since then, and much has evoluted for the better.
But it doesn't get to vinyl.
Any good analog source is better than any digital source.
In the beginning and in the end all is analogue.
Why convert it two (or more) times?
Maby your LP12 wasn't properly set up, or you didn't have the patience to listen to vinyl... Yes, CD is more convenient.
I don't blame you.
And did you listened to an OPA627/637?
I know you call that "fancy op-amps", but if this is fancy, so it is the NE5534.
You can try a better choice: TL071
.
It strikes me that a man that loves valves doesn't like vinyl.
Are you trying to "sweeten" the sound of your cd-player?
It's my oppinion, you're right.
I have a good sound from my CD, but I still find, as always, that vinyl is better.
I always thought that.
For me, 16 bits/44.1 are just not enough for music.
Analog has infinite resolution.
In digital it's quantifiable, you always have a limit.
It's like comparing a good 35mm camera to a digital one.
In the beginning of the 80's I heard one of Phillips's first CD-players and the applauses from the audience seamed like it was raining.
But the press said miracles about that (and almost any) CD player.
I know it has came a long way since then, and much has evoluted for the better.
But it doesn't get to vinyl.
Any good analog source is better than any digital source.
In the beginning and in the end all is analogue.
Why convert it two (or more) times?
Maby your LP12 wasn't properly set up, or you didn't have the patience to listen to vinyl... Yes, CD is more convenient.
I don't blame you.
And did you listened to an OPA627/637?
I know you call that "fancy op-amps", but if this is fancy, so it is the NE5534.
You can try a better choice: TL071
.It strikes me that a man that loves valves doesn't like vinyl.
Are you trying to "sweeten" the sound of your cd-player?
carlosfm,
"And the OPA2604 has lowsy specs."
IIRC, its specs are very good.
"Analog has infinite resolution."
I should think the bandwidth of an LP is limited by many physical factors. Not to mention the finite bandwith of our hearing.
"It's like comparing a good 35mm camera to a digital one."
35mm film doesn't have a very high resolution. With 400 speed film, I can often see grain in scans from the negative where the images are only around 2000 pixels wide per frame.
"Any good analog source is better than any digital source."
Do you really mean _any_ digital source? I take it you are talking about recorded sources, in which case your statement is just not true.
"In the beginning and in the end all is analogue.
Why convert it two (or more) times?"
Because digital information can be stored in a more robust manner than analogue information.
I listen to and enjoy both LPs and CDs. You've got to be realistic about the shortcomings of any medium.
See ya,
/Tim - Still enjoys his LPs and his CDs
"And the OPA2604 has lowsy specs."
IIRC, its specs are very good.
"Analog has infinite resolution."
I should think the bandwidth of an LP is limited by many physical factors. Not to mention the finite bandwith of our hearing.
"It's like comparing a good 35mm camera to a digital one."
35mm film doesn't have a very high resolution. With 400 speed film, I can often see grain in scans from the negative where the images are only around 2000 pixels wide per frame.
"Any good analog source is better than any digital source."
Do you really mean _any_ digital source? I take it you are talking about recorded sources, in which case your statement is just not true.
"In the beginning and in the end all is analogue.
Why convert it two (or more) times?"
Because digital information can be stored in a more robust manner than analogue information.
I listen to and enjoy both LPs and CDs. You've got to be realistic about the shortcomings of any medium.
See ya,
/Tim - Still enjoys his LPs and his CDs
The infinit...the finnal frontier...
And the surface noise!!...and the noise in the analog master tape!!!!..."What a wonderfull world"(Louis Armstrong)!!!..
Is dificult to achieve more than 60dB in a analog playback system...so infinite,i don't think so!!...
So i hope that they use a analog source at the demonstration of the Halcro (at Transom)...for to make justice to this splendid amplifier...if not????
Fortunately!!! Huff!!!!
I espect that!!...yes it was properly set up (in my humble opinion)...just for the record i have constructed a tone arm for a Thorens TD160 before owning the Linn ...so i think i have some experience in tourntable set up... but maybe you have more!!
Are you kidding???...right!!🙄
I love valves...i love transistors ...i love mosfets...
I have projected and builded many amps with all this technologies...and a good amp is a good amp independent of technologie!
I'm not a fundamentalist!! 🙂
And if you say so because of my nick name (tube Dude) ...i must say that i use it because it was what my oldest son use to call me...and not to express any particular preference!
And the surface noise!!...and the noise in the analog master tape!!!!..."What a wonderfull world"(Louis Armstrong)!!!..
Is dificult to achieve more than 60dB in a analog playback system...so infinite,i don't think so!!...
So i hope that they use a analog source at the demonstration of the Halcro (at Transom)...for to make justice to this splendid amplifier...if not????
Fortunately!!! Huff!!!!
I espect that!!...yes it was properly set up (in my humble opinion)...just for the record i have constructed a tone arm for a Thorens TD160 before owning the Linn ...so i think i have some experience in tourntable set up... but maybe you have more!!
Are you kidding???...right!!🙄
I love valves...i love transistors ...i love mosfets...
I have projected and builded many amps with all this technologies...and a good amp is a good amp independent of technologie!
I'm not a fundamentalist!! 🙂
And if you say so because of my nick name (tube Dude) ...i must say that i use it because it was what my oldest son use to call me...and not to express any particular preference!
Tim,
Just try a good 100 ISO tranny, forget the negatives.
Or better still, Fuji Velvia, 50 ISO.
I project those on a 2 meter screen and you can't see grain.
Now print a 2 meter image of your digital camera.😎
Color grades are infinite in analog (like in analog tv), but in digital they have a limit (normally 16 million in plasma/LCD tv).
When I talk about resolution I'm not talking about bandwidth, it's got nothing to do with it.
I see you don't know what you are talking about...
I know digital medium lasts longer, there are some advantages, it's not all bad.
I like to listen to CDs too.
But I would prefer to have a Nagra 4s at home that any studio DAT or digital recorder of any type.
And the Nagra keeps it's value, while a digital recorder doesn't worh any money after a few years.
But that's what digital is all about, isn't it?
I would better have a Leica M6 camera than any digital camera you mention.
Some of the best studios have always kept recording in analog, even today.
Others spend millions with digital gear every 2 or 3 years, because it's always changing and evoluting.
These last ones (the digital ones) are responsive for 90% of the crappy digital master recordings made in the 80s and 90s.
The others (the analog ones) feel happy to have recorded in analog master tapes, and to release remasters in SACD that justify it.
From a nasty old 16 bits master, you can remaster to SACD, but there's nothing you can do to get good sound.
Just try a good 100 ISO tranny, forget the negatives.
Or better still, Fuji Velvia, 50 ISO.
I project those on a 2 meter screen and you can't see grain.
Now print a 2 meter image of your digital camera.😎
Color grades are infinite in analog (like in analog tv), but in digital they have a limit (normally 16 million in plasma/LCD tv).
When I talk about resolution I'm not talking about bandwidth, it's got nothing to do with it.
I see you don't know what you are talking about...
I know digital medium lasts longer, there are some advantages, it's not all bad.
I like to listen to CDs too.
But I would prefer to have a Nagra 4s at home that any studio DAT or digital recorder of any type.
And the Nagra keeps it's value, while a digital recorder doesn't worh any money after a few years.
But that's what digital is all about, isn't it?
I would better have a Leica M6 camera than any digital camera you mention.
Some of the best studios have always kept recording in analog, even today.
Others spend millions with digital gear every 2 or 3 years, because it's always changing and evoluting.
These last ones (the digital ones) are responsive for 90% of the crappy digital master recordings made in the 80s and 90s.
The others (the analog ones) feel happy to have recorded in analog master tapes, and to release remasters in SACD that justify it.
From a nasty old 16 bits master, you can remaster to SACD, but there's nothing you can do to get good sound.
"When I talk about resolution I'm not talking about bandwidth, it's got nothing to do with it.
I see you don't know what you are talking about..."
Ooops, yes a very basic mistake on my part. I shall be more careful to read though my posts before I reply in future.
FWIW, I use a 35mm SLR camera, not digital. I am impressed that you get such good results from your slide film. I have used 400 speed slide film in the past, and I could see grain on my screen - about 1.5m width. I shall try a slower film in future.
"Some of the best studios have always kept recording in analog, even today.
Others spend millions with digital gear every 2 or 3 years, because it's always changing and evoluting.
These last ones (the digital ones) are responsive for 90% of the crappy digital master recordings made in the 80s and 90s.
The others (the analog ones) feel happy to have recorded in analog master tapes, and to release remasters in SACD that justify it.
From a nasty old 16 bits master, you can remaster to SACD, but there's nothing you can do to get good sound."
From what you say, it seems that older digital equipment sacrificed sound quality. However, I find it hard to believe that a modern digital recording could be bettered by a modern analogue tape recording. I admit though, I haven't done a comparison.
See ya,
Tim.
I see you don't know what you are talking about..."
Ooops, yes a very basic mistake on my part. I shall be more careful to read though my posts before I reply in future.
FWIW, I use a 35mm SLR camera, not digital. I am impressed that you get such good results from your slide film. I have used 400 speed slide film in the past, and I could see grain on my screen - about 1.5m width. I shall try a slower film in future.
"Some of the best studios have always kept recording in analog, even today.
Others spend millions with digital gear every 2 or 3 years, because it's always changing and evoluting.
These last ones (the digital ones) are responsive for 90% of the crappy digital master recordings made in the 80s and 90s.
The others (the analog ones) feel happy to have recorded in analog master tapes, and to release remasters in SACD that justify it.
From a nasty old 16 bits master, you can remaster to SACD, but there's nothing you can do to get good sound."
From what you say, it seems that older digital equipment sacrificed sound quality. However, I find it hard to believe that a modern digital recording could be bettered by a modern analogue tape recording. I admit though, I haven't done a comparison.
See ya,
Tim.
If you listen to them you'll talk a different story. I never look at the price or the reputation a part has, I just listen after having them in the device for some time. OPA627/637 are the best I know till now and I tried a lot. Since I bought them in bulk the price was reasonable for the quality they offer.
Spec hunting is nice but it doesn't really say something about how a chip actually sounds. I do look carefully at parameters though.
Some time ago I switched opamps C4570 in a cd player for simple OPA2604's and in this case the results were quite extreme. There are more factors involved than specs alone. I also have tried opamps with superior specs that were not musical at all.
jean-paul said:
so now my question is .. am i able to do that to my cd player?
and what sort of improvements would i get from doing that?
i'm new at all this electronics stuff .. not even too sure what an op amp is .. but yeah .. i'm learning 🙂
Re: Better op-amps
...actually, i have tested both..used both..etc....,indeed i have recently constructed an improved, (just my humble opinion😀), discrete headphone amp. prototype of the essential elements of the OPA627.....😎
....indeed, i still maintain NE5532/4 has yet to be improved upon to any significant degree....
carlosfm said:Mikek,
I couldn't disagree more with you on this.
I'm with Jean-Paul.
It seams that you never tried an OPA627.
I changed NE5534s with OPA627/637 in many devices, and even did A-B tests with a phono preamp (I always use good machined sockets).
Even the OPA2604 is a much better op-amp than the NE5532, and it's cheap.
And the OPA2604 has lowsy specs.
But then... vinyl has lowsy specs and plays better.
Forget the specs and the graphics and test it, and than say something.
...actually, i have tested both..used both..etc....,indeed i have recently constructed an improved, (just my humble opinion😀), discrete headphone amp. prototype of the essential elements of the OPA627.....😎
....indeed, i still maintain NE5532/4 has yet to be improved upon to any significant degree....
jean-paul said:
..i suppose its ok if you want your electronics to 'sound musical'.......moi?...i would prefer my electronics not to masquarede as musicians, or musical instruments, and get on with the job of transfering signal to transducer without bending it, unless and untill i chose to use tone controls, or some such....
Bad system or what?
Mikek,
If you think it isn't worth changing NE5532/4 for OPA627/637, that may be because the rest of your system doesn't have enough tranparency for you to notice.
But even then I have serious doubts.
Did I understand you tested the OPA627s on a headphone amp??!
May be your crappy headphones?
Please, try changing the op-amps on your cd-player or your pre-amp and enjoy.
Or are you of the "every amp sounds the same" brigade?🙄
Everytime I change NE5532/4 for almost any Burr-Brown op-amp, I never go back.
Even a humble OPA2228 on a friend's miserable NAD PP-1 phono pre-amp did miracles (yes, it had an NE5532!).
My brother's Rega Mira amplifier has OPA2604 in the pre (out with those NE5532!) and he's very happy with it.
He was thinking of changing the amp, and now he will keep the Mira.
I'm the ruin of Hi-Fi brands and dealers!
Not to speak the high-end sound I get from my Audio Alchemy DDE 3.0 Dac, that was already very good with the original PMI OP176, and transfigurated completely with OPA627s.
My wife approved, I already said it.
And believe me, it's very difficult to get her approval, for her I'm always inventing something or fiddling around.
"Do you really need to open that? What's the matter with that now?"
But when she approves without me asking anything, it gives me a tremendous peace of mind!
Note to Jorge: sometimes the OPA2132 gives excellent results, and I can prove it to you.
Mikek,
If you think it isn't worth changing NE5532/4 for OPA627/637, that may be because the rest of your system doesn't have enough tranparency for you to notice.
But even then I have serious doubts.
Did I understand you tested the OPA627s on a headphone amp??!
May be your crappy headphones?
Please, try changing the op-amps on your cd-player or your pre-amp and enjoy.
Or are you of the "every amp sounds the same" brigade?🙄
Everytime I change NE5532/4 for almost any Burr-Brown op-amp, I never go back.
Even a humble OPA2228 on a friend's miserable NAD PP-1 phono pre-amp did miracles (yes, it had an NE5532!).
My brother's Rega Mira amplifier has OPA2604 in the pre (out with those NE5532!) and he's very happy with it.
He was thinking of changing the amp, and now he will keep the Mira.
I'm the ruin of Hi-Fi brands and dealers!
Not to speak the high-end sound I get from my Audio Alchemy DDE 3.0 Dac, that was already very good with the original PMI OP176, and transfigurated completely with OPA627s.
My wife approved, I already said it.
And believe me, it's very difficult to get her approval, for her I'm always inventing something or fiddling around.
"Do you really need to open that? What's the matter with that now?"
But when she approves without me asking anything, it gives me a tremendous peace of mind!
Note to Jorge: sometimes the OPA2132 gives excellent results, and I can prove it to you.
Impressive!
mikek,
On your last note you have described perfectly the sound of the NE5532/4.
Oh plllleeeeeeeeeease!
Take the first flight to Lisbon and come hear my system.
You can bring your NE5532/4s.
Or forget it, I have plenty of those, I aways keep the ones I remove.😎
I wonder why Wadia uses OPA627 on their to of the range cd-players?
I wonder why they play so well...
mikek,
On your last note you have described perfectly the sound of the NE5532/4.
Oh plllleeeeeeeeeease!
Take the first flight to Lisbon and come hear my system.
You can bring your NE5532/4s.
Or forget it, I have plenty of those, I aways keep the ones I remove.😎
I wonder why Wadia uses OPA627 on their to of the range cd-players?
I wonder why they play so well...
The prove
Yes Jorge,
I will prove it.
I did A-B tests with my brother's Audio Alchemy Dac Man.
By the way, it has very good sound, specially with the regulated PSU I made for it some years ago.
It had an PMI OP275 on the analoge stage (not bad at all!!!).
I/V conversion is discrete, with transistors.
With the dac opened, socket fitted, properly bypassed, in his home, with his system, we tried many op-amps.
The one that gave the best results in this case was the OPA2132, believe it or not!
We even preferred it to the OPA2604.
I can tell you that I did the same on his cd-player (Arcam cd7se, he uses it as tranport), and the Audio Alchemy Dac Man has better sound quality, even with the same op-amp (OPA2132).
Go figure.
You even have an SPDIF interface in the middle!
That was later confirmed by a person that deals with high-end every day, and has been in my brother's home.
He preferred the AA Dac too.
The Arcam has a BB 24-bit Dac.
The Audio Alchemy has a Crystal 18-bit Dac.
That also proves that bits in cd-players are marketing ********.
On the disc you only have 16 bits!
Yes Jorge,
I will prove it.
I did A-B tests with my brother's Audio Alchemy Dac Man.
By the way, it has very good sound, specially with the regulated PSU I made for it some years ago.
It had an PMI OP275 on the analoge stage (not bad at all!!!).
I/V conversion is discrete, with transistors.
With the dac opened, socket fitted, properly bypassed, in his home, with his system, we tried many op-amps.
The one that gave the best results in this case was the OPA2132, believe it or not!
We even preferred it to the OPA2604.
I can tell you that I did the same on his cd-player (Arcam cd7se, he uses it as tranport), and the Audio Alchemy Dac Man has better sound quality, even with the same op-amp (OPA2132).
Go figure.
You even have an SPDIF interface in the middle!
That was later confirmed by a person that deals with high-end every day, and has been in my brother's home.
He preferred the AA Dac too.
The Arcam has a BB 24-bit Dac.
The Audio Alchemy has a Crystal 18-bit Dac.
That also proves that bits in cd-players are marketing ********.
On the disc you only have 16 bits!
That's why NE5534 is old news. It colours ( slightly ) and thus is not neutral. It maquerades as you call it, more than OPA's do. It distorts practically nil but as I said before that is not the only parameter to look at. It boils down to whether one wants the best or something a bit less in quality. Decadent I admit when looking at prices. But that also counts for Black Gate, Cerafine, Silmic and other "audio-suitable" parts. You want the last percents squeezed out of your gear ? OK, then you have to pay for it !
Specwise OK, soundwise I don't agree at all as proven by several modded cd-players. Obviously I am not the only one with this experience. But I quit this ever returning boring yes-no discussion as it wasn't the topic.
I am sure the Velleman preamp will be better with OPA627AP/BP type opamps than with the original ones
Especially NE5534 will be outperformed by this small change, OPA134 in a lesser degree. Never liked the sound of the latter though.Elizard, please don't be intimidated by this discussion. Just build the thing, take your time and use good IC sockets. When you have the means you can change the opamps later and change back if you don't like the others. When the definitive choice is made those chips should be soldered in without IC sockets. Always work ESD safe with OPA134 / 627 as they are FET input opamps and thus vulnerable to ESD (static electricity). And be sure to download datasheets and compare parameters like maximum voltage, noise etc. In the case of NE5534 this can be tricky as it's max. voltage is +/- 22V which is quite rare compared to the +/- 18V of most others.
Orientate resistors so that they're soldered the same direction in the left and right channel, same counts for film caps. Maybe a stupid remark but clean the boards after you're finished with them with a cotton cloth to prevent the acids from your fingers corroding the tracks etc. Be sure you ground yourself when you do this. Even if you don't "believe" this will make a difference doing it doesn't take a lot of extra time and it will pay off.
Wait with the cd player till the Velleman is finished otherwise you'll have 2 variables in your system and hearing what has changed the quality will be difficult to distinguish...
I also want to add that modding cd-players requires more skills than building the kit. Mistakes are easily made and the results of that can leave you with a defective cd-player
- Status
- Not open for further replies.