You have a complex system with lots of balancing between fire and ice. If the KRC2 is anything like the KRC3 which i've owned, it errs on the side of dullness. The Utopias perhaps compensate this to an extent. The silver, especially in teflon, is not something i have ever been able to live with and i've tried many times. I even spend hours stripping teflon off OCC copper before using it
Such detailed context is sufficient to understand our different reactions to the 627.
Well, if that is a view that you wish to forward so be it, if it helps your cause. You clearly have not bothered to read objective reviews of the equipment in question, (obviously you can't hear mine) neither do you know the equipment, so your view of it is of little objective value. Neither have you shown some third party reviews that denounce the OPA627 or others, (even though there are possibly better and lower cost options available today) to show how the 5534 betters later devices. Otherwise one can only deduce that the Audio OP Amp design and manufacturing industry has been asleep and or inept for the last 25 years. I really don't want to go any further with this discussion as your conclusions seem counter to everything else I have read or personally heard. But as I have previously said, these things are subjective. I hope that you enjoy your devices. DYOR.
What cause may this be? Is it so hard to accept that we like different things?
And btw this is your second extensive response to the same post...
When did i ever praise the 5534?
Interesting read asilker, thanks.
Are you aware of Sonic Imagery Labs? I bought, tried and liked the Burson v6 Vivids (duals in my use case) as replacement for the On Semiconductor MC33079P quad op-amp used in the pre-amp stage of my amplifier (circa 20 year old design).
Following a recommendation, I've since tried the Sonic Imagery Labs Model 994Enh-Ticha Dual. With adequate decoupling (at least 100uF + 47uF [I'm using Kemet T350 series solid tantalum] bypassed with Epcos B32529 or Wima MKS2 0.1uF + 0.01uF) they produce outstanding results.
It's worth improving decoupling for the Burson's, as they too benefit. My amp originally had Jamicon SK electrolytics initially replaced to good effect with Panasonic FC's before moving to the Kemets.
Regarding your use of 78xx + 79xx regulators. Andrew Sparks has some pin compatible discrete replacements together with excellent advice on integration. Have a look here - SparkoS Labs Discrete Regulator datasheet. Definitely worth considering for your op-amp supplies if they reduce noise (I haven't seen the circuit diagram for your kit). Rectifier diodes are another area where switching noise can be reduced, although you may already be using low noise Schottky parts.
Another suggestion is to EMI shield your IC's - Wurth Elektronik have suitable material although that stuff isn't cheap.
You can also fashion very effective RF screens from carbon fibre sheet to shield your DAC circuitry. Four layer carbon is fairly inexpensive and highly effective.
Final suggestion is to provide some vibration absorption between the toroidal transformers and metal chassis, bitumised felt or similar is very inexpensive and easy to fashion.
Good luck with your mods!
Are you aware of Sonic Imagery Labs? I bought, tried and liked the Burson v6 Vivids (duals in my use case) as replacement for the On Semiconductor MC33079P quad op-amp used in the pre-amp stage of my amplifier (circa 20 year old design).
Following a recommendation, I've since tried the Sonic Imagery Labs Model 994Enh-Ticha Dual. With adequate decoupling (at least 100uF + 47uF [I'm using Kemet T350 series solid tantalum] bypassed with Epcos B32529 or Wima MKS2 0.1uF + 0.01uF) they produce outstanding results.
It's worth improving decoupling for the Burson's, as they too benefit. My amp originally had Jamicon SK electrolytics initially replaced to good effect with Panasonic FC's before moving to the Kemets.
Regarding your use of 78xx + 79xx regulators. Andrew Sparks has some pin compatible discrete replacements together with excellent advice on integration. Have a look here - SparkoS Labs Discrete Regulator datasheet. Definitely worth considering for your op-amp supplies if they reduce noise (I haven't seen the circuit diagram for your kit). Rectifier diodes are another area where switching noise can be reduced, although you may already be using low noise Schottky parts.
Another suggestion is to EMI shield your IC's - Wurth Elektronik have suitable material although that stuff isn't cheap.
You can also fashion very effective RF screens from carbon fibre sheet to shield your DAC circuitry. Four layer carbon is fairly inexpensive and highly effective.
Final suggestion is to provide some vibration absorption between the toroidal transformers and metal chassis, bitumised felt or similar is very inexpensive and easy to fashion.
Good luck with your mods!
So after going thru dozens of boring NE5534s including I/V stages the music all of a sudden got much better from a couple of other opamps?Shootout Procedure
All parts were dropped into a closed box. DAC had something covering the top so I could not peek into the vents. Friend 2 and I would go to the kitchen to refill wine glasses and mix a roux, cut bread etc while Friend 1 would swap opa's and put everything back together before calling us back in. None of us discussed what we heard until we had listened to all 4 opa's. We all kept written notes on notepads and listened to the same sequence of 6 tracks.
Friend 1 is an audio engineer and admitted to having probably the most bias about op amps to begin with, but also obviously the most bias because they were the participant who was not blinded in the comparison. More on this later. Here's what we thought:
- Right away it was apparent to all of us that there are enormous sound differences between all 4 parts. None of them sounded alike and the differences were not subtle.
- We were able to agree on all of our subjective descriptions regarding how each part sounded, but even though we experienced the same things, our conclusions and preferences were much different.
ADA 4627
Huge and dense low end presence, darker EQ profile. Image felt tall and wide but not particularly deep. Felt like being in the center of the mix. Little bit of compression on snare hits and vocal peaks. Smushy during loud, dense passages. To me it felt a little bit like the T27/Bx00 KEF speakers do: little bit soft and compressed but the textures felt good.
I rated the ADA 4627 dead last and couldn't wait for it to be pulled out. My friends rated it #1 and loved it. In my opinion this chip sounded like what people are looking for in tube gear - little bit "vintage", little bit dark, "organic", etc but I personally didn't like it.
NE5534
All of us agreed that this chip was boring. Shouty, uninvolving, bland but passable. Engineer friend says "this is what I expect off the shelf consumer gear to sound like. I would be pissed if I built something nice and it sounded like this".
In my opinion, this isn't a part I could live with. I thought it sounded like garbage. That's my personal preference. Soundstage was all pushed way forward with no sense of dimension, EQ was aggressive.
Burson V6 Vivid
We were split on the Bursons. I rated the Bursons #1 by a mile, and my friends rated it dead last. The Burson sounded extremely different from the ADA 4627. As soon as we powered on and started with the Bursons, I thought "Ah there it is. That's what I'm looking for", and my friends immediately thought "The ADA's sounded 10x better than this".
We agreed that the Bursons sounded: more controlled, more like you were sitting in front of the staging instead of inside it, brighter EQ, less "exciting", and clearly had the most dynamic peaks.
Here's why I liked the Bursons: I am a guitar player and have owned enough small shop dreadnaught's to know how they should sound with monel 13's. the Bursons nailed Tony Rice's inflections. I loved that the vocals and spotlight instruments were pushed forward. Saxaphones sounded brassy and popped out. Everything stayed nice and clear during dense passages. Echo and decay sounded right to me with the Bursons.
My friends did not like this type of sound-staging, but I did. "It felt like the singer was in front of the band with a spotlight on her". Engineer friend says "These feel similar to the Sennheiser 6-- headphone line". I agree. I really liked my Sennheiser 6xx and felt like their presentation was just right. They gave theirs away to a buddy because they disliked them.
TL071
The TL071 is the real winner here. We universally enjoyed this chip. Exciting, textures were good. EQ profile was engaging without screaming (looking at you NE5534). Good low end presence (more than the Bursons, less than the ADA 4627). Good sizzle, cohesive soundstaging, felt wild like live music. And less than $1 per chip.
After our discussion:
We compared results and had a meal. I told my friends I would be keeping the Bursons in the unit, and talked about why I liked them. Engineer friend remarked that they probably had the clearest bias against the Bursons and asked to listen once more before the end of the night. They requested Aja, because it's an eye roller but we all know it well and com'on it's Steve Gadd -- and through the track the drums popped forward just like I thought they would while the rest of the band punctuated behind them. Engineer friend says something along the lines of "Ok, I get it. Not bad."
Conclusions:
- My hypothesis: I would be able to consistently tell that the op amps were different. Yes.
- Hypothesis: I would rank the NE5534 as a peer. NOPE!
- Hypothesis: Bursons will have the largest soundstage: Kind of: the ADA 44627 featured a much larger scale, but the Bursons had a more defined sense of forward to back.
- Hypothesis: I will not have a strong preference. Wrong, I had a strong preference for the Bursons and the TL071, didn't vibe with the ADA 44627, and hated the NE5534
- Friend's hypothesis: All op amps will sound good. Nope.
- Burson's website specifically markets the V6 Vivid as a replacement for the 5532 / 5534. In my opinion, they are significantly better sounding provided your power supply can handle a less efficient chip and you have the physical space.
- Engineer friend "They sounded a LOT different. I learned something new."
My highly subjective conclusion: I will be running the Bursons. They sound good. I would also heartily recommend TL071 / TL072 op amps in hifi gear and I could live happily with these parts. The price difference for 4 single Bursons VS 4 TL071 is about $150. Are the Bursons $150 better sounding than the TL071?
Also my friends loved the ADA 4627 - 1.
Skip the NE5534
Thanks to @John Burson for the pair of amps, in my opinion they sound great and this was a lot of fun.
I think next we may shoot out pairs of output transformers in a KT88 amp.
And with out a proper ABX test you guys are guessing. You do not have proof you could actually hear a difference, anecdotes.
@Protegimus those suggestions are all interesting, thanks for giving me something to look into!
Nobody said that things "all of a sudden got better after dozens of NE5534". 3 of the 4 chips we tested sounded good. None of us liked the NE5534. If that's anecdotal, so be it
Dozens? What are you talking about?
Nobody said that things "all of a sudden got better after dozens of NE5534". 3 of the 4 chips we tested sounded good. None of us liked the NE5534. If that's anecdotal, so be it
That comment probably referred to the music having been processed through numerous op amps prior to
going onto the final recording. This may be true for some recordings, but recordings can sound better than
typical ones if they are processed less, such as with a master tape, or a good direct to disc LP. Certainly
better recordings can be more useful in listening tests, much like a better telescope lens giving more
accurate images. But even average recordings can be very useful, if they are familiar enough.
Last edited:
Its easier to see why burson sounds way they are if you begin to think about their inner workings. Even without looking at their circuit couple things are obvious because of the reasons in parenthesis-
Jfet input (the fuzzy sound is undeniable)
High output bias (heat, duh)
Symmetrical topology (no turn on or turn off behavior of any kind)
I would also say that its under compensated since ive found them harder to stabilize than other ic's and also from their lack of complexitiy psrr has to be low.
Otho it could be overcompensated because an audio company would want their product to be foolproof against any misuse that is the practice of opamp rolling in general.
Combining these characteristics i dont think the opamp can sound bad. Contrary infact, to my experience, the V6 classic sounds wonderful. Used in a linestage its sound is fuzzy, rounded, powerful and full of pleasant distortions- which are all subjectively positive traits to an unconcerning listener. And theres something about their sound not found in any other ic's and i believe that can be attributed to their symmetrical topology whichs rarely found elsewhere except in successful high end linestages
I was a skeptic before but after receiving their sample i have found much respect for the company on how they tuned and targeted their opamp
Jfet input (the fuzzy sound is undeniable)
High output bias (heat, duh)
Symmetrical topology (no turn on or turn off behavior of any kind)
I would also say that its under compensated since ive found them harder to stabilize than other ic's and also from their lack of complexitiy psrr has to be low.
Otho it could be overcompensated because an audio company would want their product to be foolproof against any misuse that is the practice of opamp rolling in general.
Combining these characteristics i dont think the opamp can sound bad. Contrary infact, to my experience, the V6 classic sounds wonderful. Used in a linestage its sound is fuzzy, rounded, powerful and full of pleasant distortions- which are all subjectively positive traits to an unconcerning listener. And theres something about their sound not found in any other ic's and i believe that can be attributed to their symmetrical topology whichs rarely found elsewhere except in successful high end linestages
I was a skeptic before but after receiving their sample i have found much respect for the company on how they tuned and targeted their opamp
The high end professional equipment is all about the coloration. The main reason why equipments with 5534, such as SSL, have been very popular for last 50 years is that they can instantly add our familiar professional sound character to the music. The music through SSL consoles sounds like a very professionally produced music, because it has been by far the most popular, defacto standard of the mixing console among professionals. It is more like a psychological thing, and it does not mean SSL (5534) is the best choice in any context, nor it is the best sounding console in the world. I personally have been avoiding 5534 in playback (monitoring) path.Oh, got it.
to @cbdb 's intent, yes that does bring up an interesting point. I realize the silliness of my conclusion and that many well regarded recording consoles and audio processors use chips like the NE5534... But I stand by my conclusion
Last edited:
Ne5534 populating all recording industry or D Self's quote about "all music having passed through many 5534 before reaching its public" should be called " Late 2010's engineer's myth"...
I think Tl072 deserves way more credit for being the ic mostly used in popular recording consoles.Besides I've recently heard from a friend that some 20 years old high end consoles appear to have had a lot more opa2134 than anyhing else...
Statistically there's barely if any ne5534 in the real equipment used in most recording equipment: https://www.sweetwater.com/insync/legendary-consoles-impact-music-history/
https://www.sweetwater.com/insync/4-decades-iconic-consoles/
I think Tl072 deserves way more credit for being the ic mostly used in popular recording consoles.Besides I've recently heard from a friend that some 20 years old high end consoles appear to have had a lot more opa2134 than anyhing else...
Statistically there's barely if any ne5534 in the real equipment used in most recording equipment: https://www.sweetwater.com/insync/legendary-consoles-impact-music-history/
https://www.sweetwater.com/insync/4-decades-iconic-consoles/
Last edited:
This statement is based on the fact that the majority of the professional produced music has (had) been mixed through SSL consoles. Those 5534 based older SSL consoles were discontinued, but they are still used by many top engineers. Chris Lord Alge is probably the most famous one. Today, digital emulations of those older SSL consoles are sold and used everywhere to add sound signature of SSL.
I don't think 5534 makes SSL sounds like SSL, but it surely is a part of it. Interestingly, Midas analog consoles used to be the defacto standard of the top touring musicians before they were replaced by digital consoles, and Midas is also full of 5534/5532. I don't think it is a coincidence.
Maybe worth remembering that there is some wonderful music performed by top musicians that were recorded with rather distorted sound. Sometimes the distortion was intentional, such as when overdriving tape. Other times the distortion was incidental to the design of the recording equipment. Some of those issues weren't particularly bothersome with reproduction equipment often still in use, say, maybe even something like: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/All_American_Five
"Bruce Springsteen’s sixth studio album Nebraska is a DIY loner classic released long before the term “bedroom producer” was a thing. The album was recorded with the assistance of Springsteen’s guitar roadie Mike Batlin in a spare bedroom using just a Tascam PortaStudio and a pair of Shure SM57 microphones. A few bits of accidental magic here – Mike never figured out how to properly use the Portastudio so many of the settings were completely off… “So they’d ended up recording everything with the varispeed set fast. Then he thought well, maybe it shouldn’t be in that position, so he turned it back to twelve o’clock for mixdown.” An old Gibson Echoplex and a Panasonic boom box that had sunk in the river were also part of the equation, giving the record a uniquely warm, atmospheric sound that could only have come from that time and place."
Having rebuilt and serviced quite a few consoles in the 80's and 90's, this agrees with what I encountered, by quite a large margin.
@Salas, Indeed there have been some wonderful recordings made on very simple equipment. For a different type of example, I have an ELO CD that sounds pretty bad in terms of distortion. Another example, most Steely Dan recordings sound distorted despite featuring some of the best session players in the business.
At the other end of the spectrum, Dire Straights and or Janis Ian issue great sounding recordings.
At the other end of the spectrum, Dire Straights and or Janis Ian issue great sounding recordings.
If it's late 80's and 90's Fostex or Tascam i bet a lot of njm2068, njm2041 and njm2043 fit the bill also...
I put those two links with the first 5 or 10 mixing consoles used in the USA and SSL was the last manufacturer on those lists..I get that british or european music might have had some love for a british manufacturer, but other than that...Abba recorded its first albums on Calrec UA 8000 , DBX and Bill Putnam's valve compressors and a lot of huge artists did it even using Abba's Polar Studio...
https://www.mynewsdesk.com/pop-hous...ios-with-exclusive-pop-talks-on-may-18-996118https://mixdownmag.com.au/features/...on-and-recording-techniques-behind-the-music/https://www.uaudio.com/uad-plugins/compressors-limiters/ua-tube-compressor-collection.htmlI think there must be something wrong with most people's information source on the recording gear that actually made history if SSL came on top of their lists....Google says otherwise.
Besides, looking into ssl 4000 schematic i see most of the ne5534 wired as inverted input to fight as much as possible its not so great native common mode distortion and noise sacrificing the input impedance.I remember Soundcraft's (D Self) mixers doing something simillar ...Is it worth mentioning that this guys seem to know what ne5534 is good at and how to use it the right way so that you won't screw it?
Last edited:
According to your link ABBA's Polar Studio had a Harrison 5632 console. After a bit more research, I found it used Harris HA4605, HA4741, 3504, 3500, HA4905 op-amps and ... 5532's in the VCAs!
Where does the comment about "not so great native common mode distortion and noise sacrificing the input impedance" come from? For the era, 5534 noise and distortion figures are very good, no doubt a contributing factor in its widespread audio use case and extended life.