Aside from hearing it from a National rep?
I am aware that many suggest they hear differences, which was a partial reason I asked about them during the conversation.
Perhaps I can see if I can find more information on these designs.
Last edited:
They sound different from each other, and this is a fact. And they sound different from the LME49860, as well.
Hi there,
being an Electronics with Acoustic modules Engineer of training, I have to express understanding for Scott Wurcers stance.
It literally took me 3 days to digest the now running 69 pages on this thread, just to discover, that there still only seem to be one 'godly given' LT1028 to do the job...
I have now as a matter of curiosity ordered some samples to see and hear 'what kind of fuss' this is all about, in order to ascertain the to my understanding limited application as a DAC buffer and maybe discover the same 'truth' for a hopefully more universal 'chippy' application(s).
Just tried the OPA2211 and 211 and found them remarkable devices - maybe not decidedly for audio, but I can certainly hear their DC precision abilities and would imagine them to be absolutely stunning for measuring purpose(s).
One of the strong audio abilities of them, is however how they handle the bottom end register... I can't remember anything else in the 'chippy' sector with quite that amount of authority.. - So goodnight National.
I probably own to tell that my current test bed is a 2 stage 'home furcled' RIAA setup with passive HF LP after 1st. and active (in FB loop) Bass enhancement in the 2nd. stage. And so far Ladies and Gentlemen the best universal 'jack of all trades' is the humble 1974? designed NE5532!!! for dual. I currently going through even more elaborate exorcises, by splitting into singles and so far the OPA627 a 1st and OPA211 as 2nd is showing very, very promising results... Now I need to get on to Brown dog or similar again... All good fun I suppose!
I will post my findings when Linear Technology decides to hopefully deliver some samples at some given point. No worries Andrea.:vink:
In the meantime it would be so very nice and I for one would be entirely grateful if one of the big chip manufactures would care to consider an upgrade NE chip - say with fet input for starters and listen to in the development stages and specifically made for Audio!
I for one, would be perfectly happy to rent/lend out my humble little ears with that specific purpose in mind - so maybe over to You Scott Wurcer (don't get me wrong please - I sincerely appreciate Your efforts with the AD797!)???
All the best
a1greatdane aka Sven R. Olsen aka 'Dr' O
Creator
CSW - Chilli Sound Works
London N4
I have to say, Dane, that if the OPA211 is anything like the OPA827 (both are SiGe technology, I believe), then I agree completely with their handling of the bottom register. I'm using the OPA827 in a low frequency equalizer for my Infinity RSIIb speakers, and the weight and definition of the bass is incredible. I compared them to OPA2134, OPA2107 and LF353N (stock) and it is no contest, the 827 is much, much better in the bass. Bass lines are strong and impactful, but at the same time very detailed and under control - no boominess at all. Interestingly, it also provides a more musical midrange and even the treble regions seem to benefit from additional clarity, with no hardness or glare. The equalizer affects frequencies from low bass up through the midrange, circuit-wise.
The LT1028CS8 had better bass dynamics and fullness than the thinner OPA827, inside my DAC. You might want to check it out. Also, the definition of bass lines with the LT1028 is the best I've heard (though there's nothing to criticise in the OPA827, in this regard).
I disagree that the OPA827 has a musical midrange. It's rigorous, and smooth, but musical is another thing for me, that depends on the emotional side alone. I got much more emotion from the OPA132UA, with little or no loss of detail. But I guess this is rather personal.
Interestingly, my findings about OPA827 & OPA132UA were fully replicated when I tried both in my 24V "cmoy", the OPA132UA sounding fuller and more musical..
All in all, I found the sound quality of the OPA827 to be pretty mediocre, and not better than that of an LT1122, similar fast FET opamp with low distortion. My favorite FET opamp has to be the OPA132UA (if it wasn't clear from the above
).
Last edited:
Regarding the OPA211AID - it's a better sounding opamp than the OPA827, as it is more transparent but, at the same time, smoother when demanded to be. Just as a good bipolar opamp should be, as compared to a good FET opamp! And it also had a slightly more musical tonality, for me.
Oh and so was in the cmoy as well, the OPA211 being a lot more engaging than the OPA827 there.
Thinking of it, I must make me a Browndog with two of the OPA211ID (the better grade) that I received not long ago.
Oh and so was in the cmoy as well, the OPA211 being a lot more engaging than the OPA827 there.
Thinking of it, I must make me a Browndog with two of the OPA211ID (the better grade) that I received not long ago.
Last edited:
Just like the AD8397 and the AD45048. They were supposed to be the same die = same chip (as an AD insider confessed, also in that case), yet they sounded different in my testing, with my preference going to the AD45048 whose tonality I preferred.
The specs sheets are identical for the LME4562 and the LME49720.
IIRC, the spec sheet varies for the LME49860 in some places.
Last edited:
Yes, but what I was told is they are the EXACT same part, only difference being the label. They also said they were going to dis-continue the LM4562 but considering all the "publicity" for that part number they decided against it. That is what the rep told me anyway. I will see if I can verify the information.
Last edited:
The only datasheet difference of the LME49860 is the power supply that's specified as +/- 22V max IIRC. This most likely results from a selection of chips that tolerate a higher supply voltage - so the chip again would be identical.
Yet... LM4562, LME49720 and LME49860 all sound different, to me. Although the LME49723 is more different from those three, than they are from each other. But this was expected. Let me repeat again that my favorite (comparing plastic DIP to plastic DIP) is the LME49723, which I bet would positively surprise most of its snobish overlookers
Andre,
The LME49723 is a lower cost part which was made for mass market applications!!! If you like it better than the LME49710 or 713 there is something wrong with your design... or your audio system. (...or your ears
Mark / Audioman54
On that note, I built a few dual LME49710HA modules for associates to test in their circuits and each person gave back positive results. They are one of my favorite.
Andre,
The LME49723 is a lower cost part which was made for mass market applications!!! If you like it better than the LME49710 or 713 there is something wrong with your design... or your audio system. (...or your ears
Mark / Audioman54
I will say the opposite - there's something wrong with the ears of those who like the LME49710, because that one really does lack something. I don't care for how it measures, and what it was made for. I feel that I must have better ears than those guys at National... and I'm not alone. My friend of head-fi jamato8 always said that the LM4562/49710/49860 are "plastic sounding", and I understand what he means.
Ultimately, the only Nationals I'd personally use are the LME49720HA, LME49723, and LME49725. I don't care for the others, because I find that there are better sounding opamps around.
Last edited:
Well Andrea,
You are entitled to your opinion but you are in the minority on this one! Also I know things about the entire series of parts that I really can't (won't actually, even though I could since I am not an engineer at National anymore) talk about. But the part you like is inferior to the 49710 in almost every way! Don't get me wrong though it is a good part but not in the same class as the 49710 or the even better LME49713 CFB part. In my 35 years of audio I have seen a lot of non-engineers that claim to hear things that don't hold up when subjected to close technical scrutiny. In order for something to be repeatable it must have a solid basis in measurements and then it must be listened to under tightly controlled conditions. We did all that and even built 12 identical D/A units to compare and verify all the parts in the LME series were of the highest audiophile standards...as many have agreed in this forum and others as well. You appear to be a lone (other than Jama guy) voice in the wilderness on this issue...sorry but I had to throw than old one in!
Best "Ultra High End Audiophile" AND former "Principal-Audio-Applications Engineer" at National Semiconductor Regards,
Mark / Audioman54
You are entitled to your opinion but you are in the minority on this one! Also I know things about the entire series of parts that I really can't (won't actually, even though I could since I am not an engineer at National anymore) talk about. But the part you like is inferior to the 49710 in almost every way! Don't get me wrong though it is a good part but not in the same class as the 49710 or the even better LME49713 CFB part. In my 35 years of audio I have seen a lot of non-engineers that claim to hear things that don't hold up when subjected to close technical scrutiny. In order for something to be repeatable it must have a solid basis in measurements and then it must be listened to under tightly controlled conditions. We did all that and even built 12 identical D/A units to compare and verify all the parts in the LME series were of the highest audiophile standards...as many have agreed in this forum and others as well. You appear to be a lone (other than Jama guy) voice in the wilderness on this issue...sorry but I had to throw than old one in!
Best "Ultra High End Audiophile" AND former "Principal-Audio-Applications Engineer" at National Semiconductor Regards,
Mark / Audioman54
hi audioman, w/ my tiny experience I realize that we're child playing at blindly rolling op-amps...so please take everything we say as "IMHO YMMV" etc etc
I've always found the LME4972xNA/MA bass shy as hell, and many ppl have reported the same thing...and I found their SS very wide but artificial to the extreme. The 49720HA had a much louder bass response(is it the same piece of waffer? doubt it) but trebles suffered, is seems that when an op-amp gives on the trebles region it takes it off from the low end bass and so on.
I've just rolled the burson for 2*LT1028ACN8 as final buffer: http://img269.imageshack.us/img269/9056/hddd2.jpg
there's more bass, less coloration but the SS is nowhere near as much 3D.
some background stuff that used to sound out of my head and holographic is now just stuck right next to my ear....vocals and drums have *FAR* less resolution, it doesn't sound impressive anymore....boooooring, rolling back
I've always found the LME4972xNA/MA bass shy as hell, and many ppl have reported the same thing...and I found their SS very wide but artificial to the extreme. The 49720HA had a much louder bass response(is it the same piece of waffer? doubt it) but trebles suffered, is seems that when an op-amp gives on the trebles region it takes it off from the low end bass and so on.
I've just rolled the burson for 2*LT1028ACN8 as final buffer: http://img269.imageshack.us/img269/9056/hddd2.jpg
there's more bass, less coloration but the SS is nowhere near as much 3D.
some background stuff that used to sound out of my head and holographic is now just stuck right next to my ear....vocals and drums have *FAR* less resolution, it doesn't sound impressive anymore....boooooring, rolling back
Last edited:
I understand your stance... definitely the stance of an engineer, which I believe you are...
I'm the polar opposite: there's no abstraction such as "technical scrutiny" that can be superposed to the subjective experience of an individual. Man is the most perfect "machine" that has ever existed. Technical scrutiny is much, much more limited than man's perception. Technical scrutiny is a creation of man... and it's pretty obvious that the creator is superior to his creation, no?
The "rational" approach to knowledge is just one way for man to get to know himself and the totality he is part of. The sensitive/aesthetic/perceptive/emotive/whatever approach is the other way, and the two must complement each other. True knowledge comes from the harmonious collaboration of these two faculties of man.
The firm conviction that science brings to the objective and the individual perception to the subjective, is one of the big, dramatic mistakes of western civilization... But I have no means to prove this in your language of choice, so let's leave it at that - my opinion
Bottom line, I still say that the LME49723 sounds better. I haven't tried the LME49713, which looks like a 'different beast' from the LME49710.
I think that the LME49725 might be a compromise between the technical performance of the LME49710, and the musically engaging sound of the LME49723... I'll try to try it soon
It certainly seems like the Burson must sound a lot like the OPA-Earth... (you brought me back to my comparisons between LT1028/OPA211/AD797 etc. and those discrete opamps)hi audioman, w/ my tiny experience I realize that we're child playing at blindly rolling op-amps...so please take everything we say as "IMHO YMMV" etc etc
I've always found the LME4972xNA/MA bass shy as hell, and many ppl have reported the same thing...and I found their SS very wide but artificial to the extreme. The 49720HA had a much louder bass response(is it the same piece of waffer? doubt it) but trebles suffered, is seems that when an op-amp gives on the trebles region it takes it off from the low end bass and so on.
I've just rolled the burson for 2*LT1028ACN8 as final buffer: http://img269.imageshack.us/img269/9056/hddd2.jpg
there's more bass, less coloration but the SS is nowhere near as much 3D.
some background stuff that used to sound out of my head and holographic is now just stuck right next to my ear....vocals and drums have *FAR* less resolution, it doesn't sound impressive anymore....boooooring, rolling back
Kind of a hyper-realistic presentation, and one that's bass and midbass light...
Ah well, someone just likes special effects in audio. Me, I prefer not to be corrupted... and that's why I've always come back to the LT1028 or other chips (including LME49710, OPA211).
49710 vs 49720 plastic or metal can?
Hi Leeperry,
I was giving Andrea a bit of a "good natured" hard time with the LME49723 because I know it is a very good part but inferior to the 49710...However with regards to your comments about the dual plastic part I am not surprised. Yes the die is the same in both parts. Bob Pease and I were trying to find out why the dips did not sound as good as the metal cans in the sound room but we were both laid off before we were able to do that. We had several theories based on the construction differences in both packages. One possible theory was transient thermal stress on the constrained die in the plastic package. Bond wire differences in both packages could also be an issue? Also I only use the singles in all my designs! Never liked duals for a variety of reasons. In fact I had to request the singles while I was at National. The LM4562 dual came first and the LME49710 single came later. A group of us were able to then push through the metals cans based on the fact that I used to use the AD9610 CFB metal can devices in some other designs I did for a company called Eiger Systems. The AD811, a very popular plastic monolithic video CFB opamp used for audio, came from the basic circuit of the AD9610, which was a hybrid.
I want to point out that we did extensive listening to the various parts in the LME series and the metal can parts are "VASTLY" superior to the plastic ones. Even Bob Pease heard the differences between the plastic and metal can parts. We built identical D/A preamps and did single blind A/B listening tests with people in the office. The group of 8 or so all chose the metal cans over the dips!!! It is very rare to get %100 acceptance (which we had not gotten in other tests) but this time it was the case. So for every one reading this (including Andrea) I would use the LME49710HA's (single-metal cans) for comparison sake. Or use my favorite parts the LME49713HA's
Let me also point out power supplies have a "HUGE" impact on high quality analog audio circuits and to get the most out of the LME parts the power supplies should be based on the same opamps! Never use the old 7805 style power supply regulators for audio circuits as their impedance changes with frequency in the audio band.
What a fun morning of audio discussions! Now all I need to do is find a job!
Mark / Audioman54
...and Andrea the audio engineers at National are endowed in other "more important ways" than "synaesthesia"...and yes I had to look it up! Are you an English Major?
Hi Leeperry,
I was giving Andrea a bit of a "good natured" hard time with the LME49723 because I know it is a very good part but inferior to the 49710...However with regards to your comments about the dual plastic part I am not surprised. Yes the die is the same in both parts. Bob Pease and I were trying to find out why the dips did not sound as good as the metal cans in the sound room but we were both laid off before we were able to do that. We had several theories based on the construction differences in both packages. One possible theory was transient thermal stress on the constrained die in the plastic package. Bond wire differences in both packages could also be an issue? Also I only use the singles in all my designs! Never liked duals for a variety of reasons. In fact I had to request the singles while I was at National. The LM4562 dual came first and the LME49710 single came later. A group of us were able to then push through the metals cans based on the fact that I used to use the AD9610 CFB metal can devices in some other designs I did for a company called Eiger Systems. The AD811, a very popular plastic monolithic video CFB opamp used for audio, came from the basic circuit of the AD9610, which was a hybrid.
I want to point out that we did extensive listening to the various parts in the LME series and the metal can parts are "VASTLY" superior to the plastic ones. Even Bob Pease heard the differences between the plastic and metal can parts. We built identical D/A preamps and did single blind A/B listening tests with people in the office. The group of 8 or so all chose the metal cans over the dips!!! It is very rare to get %100 acceptance (which we had not gotten in other tests) but this time it was the case. So for every one reading this (including Andrea
) I would use the LME49710HA's (single-metal cans) for comparison sake. Or use my favorite parts the LME49713HA'sLet me also point out power supplies have a "HUGE" impact on high quality analog audio circuits and to get the most out of the LME parts the power supplies should be based on the same opamps! Never use the old 7805 style power supply regulators for audio circuits as their impedance changes with frequency in the audio band.
What a fun morning of audio discussions! Now all I need to do is find a job!
Mark / Audioman54
...and Andrea the audio engineers at National are endowed in other "more important ways" than "synaesthesia"...and yes I had to look it up!
Are you an English Major?