I used the AD797ANZ - it was very nice except that something wasn't entirely smooth and fluid in its midrange, giving also an impression of less-than-ultimate transparency.
Well...I just think that the OPA132 could be a good sonic match with that thing 🙂 Besides sounding good on its own.
What about AD8066? Its also fet input. http://www.datasheetcatalog.org/datasheet/analogdevices/502008876AD8065_6_b.pdf
I also found a whole stick of TL061CP in the desk drawer. http://www.datasheetcatalog.org/datasheet2/8/0iaphwxo1q1uttiq4cc77k6kgu7y.pdf
I also found a whole stick of TL061CP in the desk drawer. http://www.datasheetcatalog.org/datasheet2/8/0iaphwxo1q1uttiq4cc77k6kgu7y.pdf
Last edited:
Thanks! 🙂 And I suppose that would be in that order of preference?
Oh, BTW, the current opamps in my Delta 1010 are NE5532's for both the DAC and ADC chips.
Last edited:
The TL061 has to be ollllld 🙂
The AD8066 is one of those FET opamps that didn't sound natural to my ears (quite a few, actually). It was rather coarse in the upper mids, and what's worse, it had a bland, whiteish tonality. It's like a worse LT1677 (which maintains a slightly flat tonality, but is otherwise quite a bit more refined).
You could try the OPA827 as well - with that STK465 chip it gives 6 different numbers too, although the OPA132's 1-:-6 series looks more reassuring maybe 🙂
Last edited:
Yeah, more or less 🙂 (see e.g. the LM4562HA)
Makes (with the AK4393) "23334559"... it mustn't sound too neutral/transparent in sonic timbre.
Analytic, boring flat soundfield, and slightly raspy treble? The feedback resistor figure is at least twice too much. Lowering all resistor figures (proportionately, of course) can stop that noise. Of course that also increases the load on the source device.
Your information is really really good. To me, it means that these opamps. . . need a preamp. So, I don't need to buy either of those for preamp use. 🙂
I'd like a nice big current capacity, just in case?
Another question. What if the DAC is a Via Tremor?
For example:
Via Tremor > opamp preamp > STK465 = jamout central station? 🙂
(theoretically possible results just like an M-audio audiophile 192 + overdone preamp + well made discrete amp)
Last edited:
ok, not actually the same chip, but look at datasheets, its basically a lower power and cheaper version, I find them identical sounding. there is talk of it simply being the cheaper 'soundplus' version. both are pretty fast and require some sort of bypassing of the power pins to sound their best in most circuits IMO. the OPA827 is 'too good' in some circuits and can sound a bit uninvolving, I found that using a more musical chip (OPA627) in ground on my 4 channel amp this one is amazing
The OPA1611 is cheaper because it has more relaxed DC specifications, but it's improved in AC performance, and that must be why they label it "SoundPlus" 🙂
Identical sounding, not at all. As if (BTW) they didn't each sound like its numbers..
The OPA827 is "too good" to you maybe. For me, the LT1028ACN8 has superior sound quality (with similar sonic colors).
Finally, for my ears, the OPA627 (BP) is one of the least musical FET opamps around (excluding that nasty AD8066). I prefer BB's (much more musical) OPA132UA, and quite predictably their new OPA1641/1642 too 🙂
Last edited:
Feedback resistance was low enough, slightly above 5K as far as I can remember. It was driving (in another headphone amp) some LMH6654 opamps used as output current buffers.
Not all that analytical, anyway... just rough in the mids, and colorless. The AD8620 (not the most natural or musical) was better (smoother and more colorful) in the same circuit.
Don't know if I completely understand, but... you're welcome 🙂
Last edited:
I had a Monster Cable M350i which I had surgically deprived of its shielding foil a few years ago...
Well I just revived it 🙂 as I was curious. Inside it has two tightly-twisted solid copper conductors, composed of two solid copper wires each. It seems to have some nice kind of (transparent) dieletric material too.
Why had I removed the shielding? I don't remember 😛 OK I do...because I thought the shielding foil was damaged, which I'm not sure was the case.
Anyhow...removing the screen must've lowered the cable capacitance, and since the Super Pro DAC has near 0 ohm output impedance, the unshielded-but-twisted geometry could've worked well.
And it does. I'll have to listen a bit better (at higher volume) to hear what's changed from the Audioquest King Cobra. But I can already appreciate that this "customised" Monster M350i sounds really interesting 😎
Well I just revived it 🙂 as I was curious. Inside it has two tightly-twisted solid copper conductors, composed of two solid copper wires each. It seems to have some nice kind of (transparent) dieletric material too.
Why had I removed the shielding? I don't remember 😛 OK I do...because I thought the shielding foil was damaged, which I'm not sure was the case.
Anyhow...removing the screen must've lowered the cable capacitance, and since the Super Pro DAC has near 0 ohm output impedance, the unshielded-but-twisted geometry could've worked well.
And it does. I'll have to listen a bit better (at higher volume) to hear what's changed from the Audioquest King Cobra. But I can already appreciate that this "customised" Monster M350i sounds really interesting 😎
It seems like this cable (whose sound quality - before the surgery - I'd forgotten by now) sounds warm and full as appropriate, but quick in the bass and detailed in the treble too...much like the Audioquest. Maybe it's got a slightly warmer midrange.
OK 🙂
Anyhow the Monster is definitely warmer than the probably more transparent and surely more open sounding Audioquest, but it's not such a big difference. It sounds what I'd call slightly euphonic 🙂
Anyhow the Monster is definitely warmer than the probably more transparent and surely more open sounding Audioquest, but it's not such a big difference. It sounds what I'd call slightly euphonic 🙂
Last edited:
I like Monster, they always give OK or good SQ...maybe you can get "better" for more money, but you can also easily get "much worse"...still for more money 😀
damn the 797B>1028A sounds so amazing, I really don't think the 1611/827 will be able to replace 1028A 😛
damn the 797B>1028A sounds so amazing, I really don't think the 1611/827 will be able to replace 1028A 😛
Last edited:
I agree that they're decent cables. The M series was their better series, when I bought it, although my M350i is the low end of that series, IIRC.
I like it...at least it doesn't sound worse (customised I mean) than the VDH I have.
I like it...at least it doesn't sound worse (customised I mean) than the VDH I have.
Guess what...my liking of the "custom" Monster M350i is increasing. Changing CD has revealed that what seemed less openness with Leonard Cohen's The Future, is actually a silkier treble presentation, which doesn't lack extension nor subtlety at all...pretty fascinating. Makes me want to listen more 🙂
So it looks like the Audioquest, while certainly a quality interconnect, isn't the end of the road 🙂
I should break out my VALab 6N stranded silver interconnect... which however has real chunky plugs...not sure the Super Pro would appreciate.
So it looks like the Audioquest, while certainly a quality interconnect, isn't the end of the road 🙂
I should break out my VALab 6N stranded silver interconnect... which however has real chunky plugs...not sure the Super Pro would appreciate.