Blind test: opamp rolling in the Pearl 3 phonostage

[Lvandoorn]

Well, I do hope that more participants will give us their findings (soon). This was just a start with, very likely but I cannot be sure, other very nice opamps not in my subset...

 

[Mark Johnson]

The decryption password for the .zip archive attachment to Pearl 3 post #1,817 is below. There are four repetitions, giving you four opportunities to copy and paste.

On the other hand, in case members find the decryption process to be tedious and tiresome, I have also attached the final, unencrypted image files to the bottom of this post. Smile at the Customer Purchase Order Number.

Password is:

FJV9HycgnTsNrHMqEy9plq1oglq1gll0gp011po0

FJV9HycgnTsNrHMqEy9plq1oglq1gll0gp011po0

FJV9HycgnTsNrHMqEy9plq1oglq1gll0gp011po0

FJV9HycgnTsNrHMqEy9plq1oglq1gll0gp011po0


_

 

[Mark Johnson]

And here are listening panel manager's @Lvandoorn team results, in tabular form:

_

 

[Boydk]

What a revelation...... The oldest and slowest get´s the best subjective review.
Thanks Mark, for doing this
And here I was saving my last two pcs. of 1656 . Not anymore.

 

[6L6]

It makes me immediately wonder if the objectively poorest-performing chip was making the biggest subjective difference, and lots of difference is perceived as “good.”

 

[mworthin]

No data sheet parameter predicts this ranking…

 

[Boydk]

It makes me immediately wonder if the objectively poorest-performing chip was making the biggest subjective difference, and lots of difference is perceived as “good.”

This actually reminds me (again) of the history of Ortofon cartridges.
Started out as mellow and (IMO) really good sounding VMS 10/20/30, Rondo Bronze etc.
In their pursuit of high freq. revelation and definition (again IMO) they lost musicality on that behalf MC2000/3000/5000 and further up the scale.
But that may be only me

 

[jitter]

It makes me immediately wonder if the objectively poorest-performing chip was making the biggest subjective difference, and lots of difference is perceived as “good.”

Would you still wonder this if the devices under test were speakers instead of opamps?

 

[Lvandoorn]

Boy oh boy, getting really curious about results of other testers....
I can state objectively that we stand by our subjectivety!

 

[Mark Johnson]

Take a look at the internal schematics. The MC1458 is just a dual-741 without offset trimming pins.

 

[Mark Johnson]

Here are the others for your ease and convenience

 

[ClaudeG]

Intriguing results!

Can't wait to read the other testers!

Fun!

Enjoy music

Claude

 

[Lvandoorn]

The most simple opamp..... I think that this outcome can be seen as in agreement with a lot of the findings here in Pass country

 

[rhthatcher]

This is quite fascinating!

For those who want to try a few of these easily without messing around with SMD work here are some DIP options with single-piece pricing in USD as of 09 Mar 2024:

MC1458 $0.57
https://www.digikey.com/en/products/detail/texas-instruments/MC1458P/277049

NN5532 $0.67
https://www.digikey.com/en/products/detail/texas-instruments/NE5532P/277056

LM833-N $0.99
https://www.digikey.com/en/products/detail/texas-instruments/LM833N-NOPB/20798

LM833P $5.63
https://www.digikey.com/en/products/detail/texas-instruments/LM833P/2426174

Not in Mark's test, but I know 2 users with these in their P3's with happy results. I'm one of the 2.

LME49720 $3.57
https://www.digikey.com/en/products/detail/texas-instruments/LME49720NA-NOPB/1647708

 

[analog_sa]

But that may be only me

It is not. Perhaps the market today expects vinyl to emulate digital, i don't know. The last few Ortofon carts i have owned were all getting progressively worse in comparison to older models. By the time i bought a Cadenza Black the trend was becoming quite clear.

 

[hbtaudio]

It makes me immediately wonder if the objectively poorest-performing chip was making the biggest subjective difference, and lots of difference is perceived as “good.”

@6L6
But this is almost impossible to answer, because what difference is there?
Do we know the difference we have heard, have we seen it at the same time? Seen it on an analyzer? What does the watermark or fingerprint look like?

So the first subjective result doesn't surprise me at all.


Thank you very much Mark Johnson for the idea.


Kind regards,
HBt.

 

[jitter]

Boy oh boy, getting really curious about results of other testers....
I can state objectively that we stand by our subjectivety!

The problem from now on is hat expectations have been set. You were the first and as such you were not prejudiced.

 

[Lvandoorn]

Well there will be others that did the experiment like I/we did. So maybe I/we will be shown to be total outliers...
On the other hand Mark offered this blind test in a totally open format....
Everybody was welcome ...

 

[Mark Johnson]

I am very grateful to diyAudio member @Lvandoorn and his team, for the hours and hours of diligent effort they spent, listening and comparing. I'm also sorry that nobody else tried the experiment. Regrettably, no other members agreed to the listening test proposal in post #1,396 . Only @Lvandoorn .

Please let me encourage anyone and everyone to create a blind listening test for themselves, where the listener doesn't know what gear s/he is auditioning, and the experiment creator is thousands of kilometers away during the evaluations (where s/he cannot influence the test subjects either directly or indirectly). You'll have fun and there will be delightful surprises. However I must caution you: it takes significant time and money to create the anonymous test opamps, and it takes significant time and concentration to evaluate their sonic strengths & weaknesses. This is a major commitment, not a weekend diversion. I'm happy to pass the torch to the next set of brave experimenters, and I wish you great success. I'll be an enthusiastic spectator, watching intently from the sidelines.

 

[stocktrader200]

L353 is excellent, been using and comparing with other op amps for a while. Always seems the best.