The OPS627 has very low trimmed offset (not needed for audio).
Here the tax... Laser-trimmed $$$$$$
The cost per hour for laser trimming is very high, laser step align trim, step align and trim, ect....
I did a laser trimmed part in 1992 and it took 6 hours to trim a 4 inch wafer of quad op amps at $200/hour ATE cost. We changed it to poly fuse trimmed which drastically reduced the cost.
"The OPA6x7 is fabricated on a high-speed, dielectrically-isolated complementary NPN/PNP process. It operates
over a wide range of power supply voltage of ±4.5 V to ±18 V. Laser-trimmed Difet input circuitry provides high
accuracy and low-noise performance comparable with the best bipolar-input operational amplifiers."
The wafers for a DI process are also expensive.
Yes sorry , in my leaky mind , I thought I read somewhere in the early 90's BB and PMI merged, but it was AD that took PMI. I still have a big BB databook from the 90's. No easy and free , PDF back then , well not for me anyway.
Laser trimming would explain the higher cost of OPA827 & 828 and 627, but the cost of that didn't come down in more than 2 decades ?
Same for DI process wafers . That's like nothing changed in more than 20 years.
Of course much of the higher cost is due to the margin of companies like Mouser, because it is so much more expensive and labour intensive to cut a OPA627 from a reel than a LM4562 or NE5532. Is it ethical/fair that a distributer (Mouser, RS, Digikey,...) earns so much more on it than the manufacturer (T.I) ?
Low offset is important in audio when you don't use a servo and don't want high offset at the output . 100uV offset x gain of 5 = 0,5mV . A 1mV offset like OPA1642 ( also Jfet) = 5mV , definitely a click when relay switches.
OPA1656 : 500 uV , not laser trimmed ?
Laser trimming would explain the higher cost of OPA827 & 828 and 627, but the cost of that didn't come down in more than 2 decades ?
Same for DI process wafers . That's like nothing changed in more than 20 years.Of course much of the higher cost is due to the margin of companies like Mouser, because it is so much more expensive and labour intensive to cut a OPA627 from a reel than a LM4562 or NE5532.
Is it ethical/fair that a distributer (Mouser, RS, Digikey,...) earns so much more on it than the manufacturer (T.I) ? Low offset is important in audio when you don't use a servo and don't want high offset at the output . 100uV offset x gain of 5 = 0,5mV . A 1mV offset like OPA1642 ( also Jfet) = 5mV , definitely a click when relay switches.
OPA1656 : 500 uV , not laser trimmed ?
Last edited:
...Laser trimming would explain the higher cost of OPA827 & 828 and 627, but the cost of that didn't come down in more than 2 decades ?
Of course much of the higher cost is due to the margin of companies like Mouser, because it is so much more expensive and labour intensive to cut a OPA627 from a reel than a LM4562 or NE5532.
Large volume Mfr do not like to tie up a $250k ATE tester on a finicky laser tool, that gets used once in awhile. This creates a lot of motivation to design parts that do not require laser trimming, unless there is a good margin/volume for the product. The better method is zap Fuses, EPROM or EEPROM which are easier & cheaper than the continuous active trim as was originally used by Burr Brown. Excessive test time can have a large effect on product cost.
The extra cost for buying small quantities at distributors is for the cost of handling and inventory. If you buy in very large quantities, the prices are much lower. Try getting a quote for 100k pieces or more.
Semiconductors are only cost effective in large quantities.
OPA1656 : price for 1000 : 0,924 $ . This is around the price Mouser pays for it .
Mouser charges 2,88 $ per piece , 2,6 per 10 . To put 1 in a plastic baggie 1,95 $.
To put 10 in a baggie : 16,76 $. (1,67 a piece). So TI designs it (R&D + production) + profit for 0,924 a piece . Mouser does some logistic for double the value that TI sells it !
OPA627A price for 1000 14.698 $. Mouser charges 30,39 $ for 1 , 27,73 $ per 10.
So to put 1 in a baggie exactly like the OPA1656 , they charge 15,69 $ !! , to put 10 in a baggie : 130 $ !!! TI does all the work and Mouser leaches more profit off from it.
Not targeting Mouser here , most of the others are worse.
So put 10 x OPA1656 in a bag to send costs 16,76 $ , to put 10 x OPA627 in a bag to send costs 130 $ . Those 627 must weigh a lot more, needing about 7 x more labour/time to cut from the reel or tube , bag and send.
I don't mind paying TI 15 $ for an OPA627 , 1$ for a OPA1656 is unbelievable, but an extra 15 $ for 1 or 130 $ for 10 to send me along with other components, is ridiculous.
Maybe TI should sell directly to us , even in small amount , it will make them more profit than designing and making the chips !!
Mouser charges 2,88 $ per piece , 2,6 per 10 . To put 1 in a plastic baggie 1,95 $.
To put 10 in a baggie : 16,76 $. (1,67 a piece). So TI designs it (R&D + production) + profit for 0,924 a piece . Mouser does some logistic for double the value that TI sells it !
OPA627A price for 1000 14.698 $. Mouser charges 30,39 $ for 1 , 27,73 $ per 10.
So to put 1 in a baggie exactly like the OPA1656 , they charge 15,69 $ !! , to put 10 in a baggie : 130 $ !!! TI does all the work and Mouser leaches more profit off from it.
Not targeting Mouser here , most of the others are worse.
So put 10 x OPA1656 in a bag to send costs 16,76 $ , to put 10 x OPA627 in a bag to send costs 130 $ . Those 627 must weigh a lot more, needing about 7 x more labour/time to cut from the reel or tube , bag and send.
I don't mind paying TI 15 $ for an OPA627 , 1$ for a OPA1656 is unbelievable, but an extra 15 $ for 1 or 130 $ for 10 to send me along with other components, is ridiculous.
Maybe TI should sell directly to us , even in small amount , it will make them more profit than designing and making the chips !!
That's not how the numbers work. To cut a lot of corners: Mouser buys X, and they need a margin P to cover their operation costs and make some money from it.
To do that, they need to sell everything at P*X where P is the margin.
Since the margin is set, the more expensive the item, the more the margin in $.
You make it sound as if people do all the bagging for free, and that they get the bags for free, as well as zero rent for the warehouse, etc.
In a very real sense, they lose money on bagging and selling a $ 1 item at $ 2. If that was all they would sell, they would go broke even at 100% margin.
There is a deadly competition between Mouser, Digikey, AVNET etc. If they could cut cost by 5% to kill the competition, they surely would.
Jan
To do that, they need to sell everything at P*X where P is the margin.
Since the margin is set, the more expensive the item, the more the margin in $.
You make it sound as if people do all the bagging for free, and that they get the bags for free, as well as zero rent for the warehouse, etc.
In a very real sense, they lose money on bagging and selling a $ 1 item at $ 2. If that was all they would sell, they would go broke even at 100% margin.
There is a deadly competition between Mouser, Digikey, AVNET etc. If they could cut cost by 5% to kill the competition, they surely would.
Jan
The point is that it costs nothing more (margin P to cover their operation costs and make some money from it) to cut a cheap NE5532 from a reel and send it than an expensive OPA627. So if you buy the more expensive part you are subsidizing the cheaper parts ?
They make money because you don't buy 1 item , you buy a lot of components.
Hey , it's just an observation and some frustration that I need to pay them more than the actual manufacturer . T.I (and others) have R&D , engineers , highly trained people with knowhow to make those chips, expensive high tech facilities to make the chips, against some orderpickers in a warehouse running some software for online ordering (like supermarkets).
TI does. You can buy in almost any quantity directly from the TI Store on ti.com.
On OPA627 price: there are several factors that make the cost of the device higher than most op amps. There have been several generations of laser trimming platforms since the originals used on the OPA627 (that Burr-Brown designed and built themselves). The main cost driver today is the DiFET process used several very unique steps, and never was scalable beyond the original 4-inch wafer line. Keeping a 4-inch production line up and running for 30 plus years is expensive.
However, at least you are getting a high level of performance for that price. There are more expensive op amps in the market that seem to just be charging for a name printed on them.