What if the ear has had years to get used to the distortion it produces by itself and still can hear the difference between an undistorted original sound / reproduction?
Just a theory though. And there is still confusion about REproductiom and production/musical instruments and hearing mechanisms. Those are three different things.
Everything IMO as always, just to keep people from freaking out
LOL, my ear also generates several % of whatever frequencies my tinnitus is!
And there is still confusion about REproductiom and production/musical instruments and hearing mechanisms. Those are three different things.
Everything IMO as always, just to keep people from freaking out
No confusion, just recognition of the fact that music production these days requires reproduction every step of the way and therefore its discussion is relevant for those only into purely the reproduction side of things. Of course that doesn't mean they have to listen (pardon the pun).
If that question is directed to me with respect to tinnitus, the answer is yes. Fortunately mine does not cause loss of frequencies, it just creates a noise floor. But when listening to music at reasonable levels, the noise floor is overwhelmed. I feel pretty lucky actually.
LOL, if anyone gets charged with the foul its me for tossing out the joke in the first place.
You seem maybe a little confused. Bruno Putzeys explains hysteresis distortion at: This Thing We Have About Hysteresis Distortion - PURIFI
It is not the same thing that happens in moving coil cartridges because they use a permanent DC magnet to create a fixed flux level (unless perhaps the coil has a soft iron core). On the other hand, in a transformer the point on the BH curve the soft iron core is operating at is constantly changing. Thus, distortion is produced.
Regarding THD, it is a nonlinear distortion that produces spurious frequency peaks that can be seen on an FFT. Hysteresis distortion appears as noise on an FFT.
Hope that helps
Last edited:
is it just me who dont like most OPA and muse opamps?
TL082 and LM4562 sound better than most of them in blind subjective listening test.. (these 2 even beat LME49720 in my opinion)
I havent listening to the new ones soekris dac maker told about tho..
anybody heard TLE2082?
if you measure CS4398 dacs.. please measure with just cap output to fix DC offset (no opamp) and also with transformer output (top jensen) and post it here too =) .. maybe the best opamp is none at all..
TL082 and LM4562 sound better than most of them in blind subjective listening test.. (these 2 even beat LME49720 in my opinion)
I havent listening to the new ones soekris dac maker told about tho..
anybody heard TLE2082?
if you measure CS4398 dacs.. please measure with just cap output to fix DC offset (no opamp) and also with transformer output (top jensen) and post it here too =) .. maybe the best opamp is none at all..
Last edited:
This is uber funny, LM4562 and LME49720 are the same silicon chip, a quick look at the data sheet would reveal they are 100% identical.
Wait, I forgot op amp rollers don’t read data sheets, they listen only and share their subjective conclusions, expecting others to follow.
It's not a problem because goal of AOP is different I think:
1. OPA1642 is for low level signal with high gain,i.e at the input of preamplier ...
2. OPA1656 has a big output current capability so it is more for output stages of preamplifier to drive big loads. So in these later stages, gain is lower (to improve the SNR, gain should be at the first stages).
I'm not 100% sure about what I say but it is as I understood. So for my designs, I use AOP1642 & AOP1656 as it (I'm currently design a "multi" EQ and I will use AOP1642 for input, filters, ... and AOP1656 for line output and headphone. Gain will be 1 for AOP1656 I think).
sorry maybe it was another LME but any idea why they would have 2 name for the same chip?
In case the amplification is less the amplified noise will also be less. Whether referred to input or external. Both op amps are low noise anyway.
LM4562 was released just before National changed their product naming convention. My understanding is the rest of the family was due to get new names, so they created LME49720 to fit with the new convention, but did not drop the LM4562 named part since it had customers already. LME49720 is indeed identical to LM4562. It appears your ears are not as trustworthy as you might think
. It probably wasn't another LME49xxx because there are not many popular duals in that family...
Last edited: