C'mon Andrea! Not long ago LT1028 was the new Christ. Now you agree to that it sounds weird. It gives the impression of more treble and by doing so it gives the bogus impression of being more detailed and spacious.
When speaking of neutral, how do you know what's neutral or not? By rolling opamps? In that case you only know how they sound vs each other, not what they really adds or subtracts. I think we have different goals. You strive for a certain sound, a certain coloration, while many of us strives for the least coloration possible.
When speaking of neutral, how do you know what's neutral or not? By rolling opamps? In that case you only know how they sound vs each other, not what they really adds or subtracts. I think we have different goals. You strive for a certain sound, a certain coloration, while many of us strives for the least coloration possible.
The LT1028ACN8 was "elevated" that way by me just because it was the least (or one of the two least) imperfect opamp I'd heard until that moment (i.e. before the OPA1611). 😉
You keep insisting on the treble... while all my critism about it regards the midrange (which is still an overall better midrange than that of, say, an LME49710NA).
Actually, my criticism regards more a certain way of presenting things from bottom to top, just as I said before, relatively to the more natural sounding OPA1611. But it keeps being a relative criticism, in proportion with all that the LT1028ACN8 does right (especially when you put it side by side with, say, an OPA827).
BTW, am I wrong in assuming that you haven't been using the ACN8 but the lesser grade? 😉
Anyhow... I wouldn't use the LT1028ACN8 all alone, but I'd (and I will) definitely use it again. 😎
You keep insisting on the treble... while all my critism about it regards the midrange (which is still an overall better midrange than that of, say, an LME49710NA).
Actually, my criticism regards more a certain way of presenting things from bottom to top, just as I said before, relatively to the more natural sounding OPA1611. But it keeps being a relative criticism, in proportion with all that the LT1028ACN8 does right (especially when you put it side by side with, say, an OPA827).
BTW, am I wrong in assuming that you haven't been using the ACN8 but the lesser grade? 😉
Anyhow... I wouldn't use the LT1028ACN8 all alone, but I'd (and I will) definitely use it again. 😎
Last edited:
Some things just cannot be explained. That's because they're beyond our rational understanding. Let's just say we all (in various degrees) have an inner/innate criterion of truth. 🙂
I agree about making things work together... but "pre-whitening" !?!? Maeaning, please? 🙂
I don't see it like that. You have a dualist understanding of things, and it shows. The least colored sound is supposed to be the most musical sound, for me; and vice versa.
I certainly don't fall into the classic (for many self-proclaimed audiophiles) mistake of considering what sounds sterile, dull, unemotional, as uncolored. Unless you just like to take the word "uncolored" very literally 😉🙄
Last edited:
It refers to a brighter, clearer, source offsetting a not as clear amplifier. This technique also removes noise, to some extent.
I consider my amp as being very well balanced in all its sonic parameters. If it was as you say, then my holy grail would've been the over-articulate LT1028, or the coldly analytical OPA827, or, to an extent, the OPA211; but it wasn't. 🙂
My "holy grail" opamp is something like the OPA1611, which is very balanced in all its sonic parameters for an opamp... very much like the LME49720HA (though I found this one to be on the edge of being analytical, though to a lesser extent than the LME49722NA or other plastic LME's)
Last edited:
With the OPA1611 my DAC sounds very transparent in every way; so that it becomes real fun to fine tune the sound to my liking through the cables. 😎
In my preamp, I just finished changing my buffer from an AD712 to twin OPA827's, (before the volume pot), and the final from an OPA2604 to twin OPA1611's. I am extremely happy with the results. Much tighter bass and cleaner sounding. The preamp is a Rotel RC-972.
OverM
How funny you should mention the 1632. I printed out the datasheet at just about the same time as you were writing your post. It looks very impressive, and useful too. I came to it as a recommendation on the TI website, having been looking at their new Class D power amps 300 and 600W. The problem with these will be the power supply. Anyone fancy building a 48V switched supply that can deliver 19A?
I will let you know if I get to use them. I tend to find that very well specced amps do tend to sound very good, whatever they say on the last 150 pages. It is a matter of getting the information on how to use them and how they are constructed. I think this is one of the reasons that AD are not so well liked. They had their quirks that made them better and meant they weren't drop-ins for other products, so the lazy audio community didn't bother to make them work properly. Though quite why the OPA2604 is so universally liked is a mystery to me. To my ears it sounds like a new 5534.
How funny you should mention the 1632. I printed out the datasheet at just about the same time as you were writing your post. It looks very impressive, and useful too. I came to it as a recommendation on the TI website, having been looking at their new Class D power amps 300 and 600W. The problem with these will be the power supply. Anyone fancy building a 48V switched supply that can deliver 19A?
I will let you know if I get to use them. I tend to find that very well specced amps do tend to sound very good, whatever they say on the last 150 pages. It is a matter of getting the information on how to use them and how they are constructed. I think this is one of the reasons that AD are not so well liked. They had their quirks that made them better and meant they weren't drop-ins for other products, so the lazy audio community didn't bother to make them work properly. Though quite why the OPA2604 is so universally liked is a mystery to me. To my ears it sounds like a new 5534.
AD opamps are not only the AD797 🙂 It's more the type of sound most of them produce what I don't completely enjoy, personally. AD845KN excepted. 🙂
Glad for you! OPA827 and OPA1611 should work well together... although the OPA827 will probably always detract somewhat from the musicality of the ensemble. You could try the AD845KN...
Originally Posted by u116540
In my preamp, I just finished changing my buffer from an AD712 to twin OPA827's, (before the volume pot), and the final from an OPA2604 to twin OPA1611's. I am extremely happy with the results. Much tighter bass and cleaner sounding. The preamp is a Rotel RC-972.
Hi u116540,
Can you explain why you didn't replace the AD712 by the OPA1611?
Regards,
John
In my preamp, I just finished changing my buffer from an AD712 to twin OPA827's, (before the volume pot), and the final from an OPA2604 to twin OPA1611's. I am extremely happy with the results. Much tighter bass and cleaner sounding. The preamp is a Rotel RC-972.
Hi u116540,
Can you explain why you didn't replace the AD712 by the OPA1611?
Regards,
John
Opa1612
Hi Andrea,
Would you recommend an OPA1612 as I/V-converter for my current-output DAC (PCM63)?.
If not, what would you advise for substituting the actual OPA2604?
Thanks in advance.
Regards,
John
Hi Andrea,
Would you recommend an OPA1612 as I/V-converter for my current-output DAC (PCM63)?.
If not, what would you advise for substituting the actual OPA2604?
Thanks in advance.
Regards,
John
Hi,
No, as the similar (at least in specifications) OPA211 was reported not to be great in I/V...not sure it's true, but anyway...
The ADA4898-1, LT1469 (dual), OPA827, LT1028 are what I'd personally recommend for I/V. It's rather hearsay, along with a consideration of their electrical parameters, than anything directly experienced, though. 🙂
Hi Andrea,
Thanks for your advise.
And how about the new OPA1642; could this be an interesting alternative?
Regards,
John
Thanks for your advise.
And how about the new OPA1642; could this be an interesting alternative?
Regards,
John
Possibly, but it's not faster than the OPA2604, actually slightly slower. I'd prefer to try the OPA827 among the FET opamps, for I/V.
If you want a dual, use the LT1469...🙂
If you want a dual, use the LT1469...🙂
Last edited:
John,
My reason for using the 827 at that location was the fact that it is a FET input and has a much higher input impedance than the 1611 which is a bipolar input type. The 827 is at the input stage before the volume pot and is in a voltage follower config. thus ideally you want the highest input impedance possible. My hobby is building main amplifiers. This is my first time playing around with a preamp. I have been reading through a lot of Andrea's post as I think people that experiment with headphone amps would have some very valuable input. I originally placeed dual 627's in place of the 2604 and although this was an improvement, it didn't impact the sound nearly as much as this last change.
My reason for using the 827 at that location was the fact that it is a FET input and has a much higher input impedance than the 1611 which is a bipolar input type. The 827 is at the input stage before the volume pot and is in a voltage follower config. thus ideally you want the highest input impedance possible. My hobby is building main amplifiers. This is my first time playing around with a preamp. I have been reading through a lot of Andrea's post as I think people that experiment with headphone amps would have some very valuable input. I originally placeed dual 627's in place of the 2604 and although this was an improvement, it didn't impact the sound nearly as much as this last change.