From all my opamps, the biggest stock is AD711/712 (next LF412 and OPA111). They are of course original (J/K). But I don't like them. I prefer LF353/356 for input buffer. I can see how they are loved for its ability to produce details (separation and soundstage) but to my ears they sound like reproduced music. Similar to other instrumentation opamps. From all the not so good AC performance, I believe it is the low OLG. That's why it is suitable to be used in composite amp.
OPA134 is special in the LF. Like stable positioning of kick drum, etc. In any opamp circuit, input buffer is always needed. This is where the chip excels. High Zin of JFET, inverting (for common mode performance), gain=1, driving high impedance load...
BTW, if you like the typical sound of AD711, I believe you will like AD795 even more.
Last edited:
Everything you wanted to know about spintronics... (bybee)
Semiconductor Spintronics and Quantum Computation - Google Search
-RNM
Semiconductor Spintronics and Quantum Computation - Google Search
-RNM
And some are buying these bull chips. What can I say, the mother of the idiots is always pregnant.
But, as I said before, it is not Mr. Jack Bybee that drives me nuts, he isn't nearly as annoying as his unconditional disciples.
Last edited:
I had found spintronics does exist.
However the spintronics as described in Bybee products is an invention that has nothing to do with it.
A description that is fun to read, a BS that shows ignorance about electrons and spin.
Last edited:
Seems everybody in the States likes chips. You can buy at Fisherman Wharf, Seven Eleven, Safeway, Las Vegas, Reno, Atlantic City, just about everywhere. Nothing newsworthy about some idiots buying bull chips from Half Moon Bay. 
Not that easy to sell chips here, selling certain chips like idiots bull chips could put you firmly behind bars.
Not that easy to sell chips here, selling certain chips like idiots bull chips could put you firmly behind bars.
Just FYI the AD711 introduced laser trimming to generic FET op-amps so the slew rate and BW had tight tolerance. The LF356, etc. had enough variation in BW and cap load drive that some customers had to select or worse rework boards. This would be invisible if you are just looking at specs.
I'll guarantee Bybee's have nothing to do with this or anything like it, purely a vehicle to fleece the chumps. Speaking of vehicles it must be tough negotiating the streets in Asia with a Bentley.
TL07x have always been useless as line output drivers but for internal stages with mid to high impedance load they have been opamp of choice especially in devices with high opamp count eg mixing desks etc the fet inputs and low quiescent current and low cost is ideal.
Driven correctly and loaded correctly TL07x sound fine and have long been a staple.
Dan.
Driven correctly and loaded correctly TL07x sound fine and have long been a staple.
Dan.
@scottjoplin,
Haven't I posted quite often that you have to include the "blind" property because of internal validity concerns?
But that misses completely the point, as the original post singled out the "sighted" condition, therefore my response for the reason i've mentioned.
@DPH,
Yeah, I missed that.
But given the extremely wide ranging conditions products met at consumers place, it would be surprising if everything could work equally, but could that really attributed to the concept of "sighted" listening done by colleagues ?
One can only try to do it better, but perferction is rare be it research or development.
In that context (relying on the listening results of others) it wasn't imo about the reviewers, but feedback from people who are trustable evaluators (nobody is perfect of course).
And while I totally agree about the "social creatures" parts, that is still true in "blind" equipment tests.
In our "hidden" "blind" preamplifier tests (described earlier in different threads) we were naturally exploring/using the "normal" evaluation process and found out that it indeed works. (limitations and difficulties admitted as noted in the description)
As said (wasn't it numerous times? ) before, we observed that people were able to hear (and describe quite detailed) differences between DUTs when doing "sighted" listening, were strugging to corrobate that under "blind" conditions, but were able to do so after getting used to the specific "blind" test conditions.
Therefore my objection to the notion.
Btw, it is always interesting how the group things play out; someone indeed missed the cue to bring out his famous punch line "did you do a level matched blind listening test?"
Haven't I posted quite often that you have to include the "blind" property because of internal validity concerns?
But that misses completely the point, as the original post singled out the "sighted" condition, therefore my response for the reason i've mentioned.
@DPH,
Perhaps my point was missed--I am more on the D side of R&D so if we cannot make something work consistently, then it's not a product we can take to market. Which, understandably is a hard end point.
Yeah, I missed that.
But given the extremely wide ranging conditions products met at consumers place, it would be surprising if everything could work equally, but could that really attributed to the concept of "sighted" listening done by colleagues ?
One can only try to do it better, but perferction is rare be it research or development.
In that context (relying on the listening results of others) it wasn't imo about the reviewers, but feedback from people who are trustable evaluators (nobody is perfect of course).
And while I totally agree about the "social creatures" parts, that is still true in "blind" equipment tests.
In our "hidden" "blind" preamplifier tests (described earlier in different threads) we were naturally exploring/using the "normal" evaluation process and found out that it indeed works. (limitations and difficulties admitted as noted in the description)
As said (wasn't it numerous times?
) before, we observed that people were able to hear (and describe quite detailed) differences between DUTs when doing "sighted" listening, were strugging to corrobate that under "blind" conditions, but were able to do so after getting used to the specific "blind" test conditions.Therefore my objection to the notion.
Btw, it is always interesting how the group things play out; someone indeed missed the cue to bring out his famous punch line "did you do a level matched blind listening test?"
Last edited:
You mean the kludge that 'theoretically' subjectively improves quantisation noise.......and how come they all sound different ie Yamaha, Sony, Panasonic etc noise shaping all having characteristic signature....and then there are other DAC mfr noise shapings ie ESS etc.
If not that, then what causes dynamic rise in noise floor for the (unspecified) CDP ?.
Dan.
Last edited:
"Just back from the AES NYC."
"Fewer exhibitors and attendees than last year."
"I learned quite a few interesting bits." "Rich Cabot formerly of Audio Precision pointed out in a private conversation that the value of the feedback resistors in a low level amplifier such as a phono preamp should be low values so that their noise contribution is reduced to well below that of the active devices." "Also whenever doing a simple resistor voltage divider to set an operating point throw in a bypass capacitor to reduce any noise contribution from the resistors in the divider."
"A contribution from Mark Gander formerly of JBL, was on using a bit of screening to add diffraction and increase the coverage angle with a high corner frequency." "As an example if a tweeter begins to beam at 10,000 hertz at 1/2" screen can counteract the effect." "Really biggie if you get it."
"Then there was the Dutch fellow formerly from P who mentioned the use of EDM machining to make some very precise parts that previously I would have thought of using laser cutting."
"The last bit I will share came from sitting at the right table for lunch. A fellow there following his hobby was a retired mechanical engineer of some accomplishments. Discussion covered a wide range from techniques for producing parts to suppliers of some hard to get gizmos."
""Scare quotes" used in the spirit of "Halloween.""
"Fewer exhibitors and attendees than last year."
"I learned quite a few interesting bits." "Rich Cabot formerly of Audio Precision pointed out in a private conversation that the value of the feedback resistors in a low level amplifier such as a phono preamp should be low values so that their noise contribution is reduced to well below that of the active devices." "Also whenever doing a simple resistor voltage divider to set an operating point throw in a bypass capacitor to reduce any noise contribution from the resistors in the divider."
"A contribution from Mark Gander formerly of JBL, was on using a bit of screening to add diffraction and increase the coverage angle with a high corner frequency." "As an example if a tweeter begins to beam at 10,000 hertz at 1/2" screen can counteract the effect." "Really biggie if you get it."
"Then there was the Dutch fellow formerly from P who mentioned the use of EDM machining to make some very precise parts that previously I would have thought of using laser cutting."
"The last bit I will share came from sitting at the right table for lunch. A fellow there following his hobby was a retired mechanical engineer of some accomplishments. Discussion covered a wide range from techniques for producing parts to suppliers of some hard to get gizmos."
""Scare quotes" used in the spirit of "Halloween.""
- Status
- Not open for further replies.