The Chinese made a copy of the ancient AN-12, put P & W Canada engines, scimitar propellers, and gradually converted the air frame from metal to largely composite.
Now it has a glass cockpit, pretty much up to date in technology.
They call it the Y-8.
Check the numbers built and flying. Near enough to C-130 class planes?
They also make modified copies of Aerospatiale helicopters. Those were licensed, I think, not pirated by the makers.
The new plane is a near enough competitor to the A-320 class, and they will improve it...many A320 and Boeing parts are made in China.
IIRC it is about one third the price of competing Western aircraft. That is enough incentive for many buyers to consider it.
The world's largest electric car makers are having Chinese names in the top 10 lists.
My free advice is that do not underestimate the Chinese.
They are hard working and perseverant.
Unlike many drug using shop floor workers in other countries.
The OPA 1612, in terms of manufacturing complexity, is not tough, so like Jean-Paul says, it may be that there is sufficient demand from local users that a reputable factory makes them, with or without license. And the quality is consistent from a good plant.
In terms of line width, the equipment needed is available at a very low price, as the newer chips are having much finer line widths, so maybe they use equipment made forcibly obsolete, in good condition.
And it is really the monkey cost that you pay in retail quantities.
You ship 5000 bits once a year to UK, a monkey type worker takes and pack them, and it is delivered.
That worker, and the storage space, are very expensive compared to the Far East and South East Asia.
Monkey as in barely skilled semi literate worker, no slurs intended.
That is where the part prices creep up.
Also, the cost of processing one consignment through Customs is about the same for one container and one pallet.
That is another source of high costs...Spend $100 in clearing a carton with 5k parts, or $500 for a container containing millions of parts.
Now it has a glass cockpit, pretty much up to date in technology.
They call it the Y-8.
Check the numbers built and flying. Near enough to C-130 class planes?
They also make modified copies of Aerospatiale helicopters. Those were licensed, I think, not pirated by the makers.
The new plane is a near enough competitor to the A-320 class, and they will improve it...many A320 and Boeing parts are made in China.
IIRC it is about one third the price of competing Western aircraft. That is enough incentive for many buyers to consider it.
The world's largest electric car makers are having Chinese names in the top 10 lists.
My free advice is that do not underestimate the Chinese.
They are hard working and perseverant.
Unlike many drug using shop floor workers in other countries.
The OPA 1612, in terms of manufacturing complexity, is not tough, so like Jean-Paul says, it may be that there is sufficient demand from local users that a reputable factory makes them, with or without license. And the quality is consistent from a good plant.
In terms of line width, the equipment needed is available at a very low price, as the newer chips are having much finer line widths, so maybe they use equipment made forcibly obsolete, in good condition.
And it is really the monkey cost that you pay in retail quantities.
You ship 5000 bits once a year to UK, a monkey type worker takes and pack them, and it is delivered.
That worker, and the storage space, are very expensive compared to the Far East and South East Asia.
Monkey as in barely skilled semi literate worker, no slurs intended.
That is where the part prices creep up.
Also, the cost of processing one consignment through Customs is about the same for one container and one pallet.
That is another source of high costs...Spend $100 in clearing a carton with 5k parts, or $500 for a container containing millions of parts.
Last edited:
At the moment this is quite plausible as there has been a lot of parts hording by grey market distributers, now primary distributers have stock again they could be offloading unsold parts.
817 / 1010 opto coupler old prices:
Single - 5 Rupees
5 units - 4 Rupees (5 US cents or so) each
20+ units - 2.50 Rupees, or about 3.5 US cents each.
1N4007, 80 for 1 US $, and just $0.005 each in 1000 quantity.
You can check up and compare prices in your area.
60/40 solder, I paid 70 Rupees, or about 90 US cents, for a 50 gram reel a few days back.
Single - 5 Rupees
5 units - 4 Rupees (5 US cents or so) each
20+ units - 2.50 Rupees, or about 3.5 US cents each.
1N4007, 80 for 1 US $, and just $0.005 each in 1000 quantity.
You can check up and compare prices in your area.
60/40 solder, I paid 70 Rupees, or about 90 US cents, for a 50 gram reel a few days back.
So not all sellers seem to be honest,
my last order from a ali seller hong ming ltd were fake. no wonder at 83 cents each.
it extracted the chip and found this inside.. its 1/6 the size of the original.
my last order from a ali seller hong ming ltd were fake. no wonder at 83 cents each.
it extracted the chip and found this inside.. its 1/6 the size of the original.
Attachments
sure.
genuine ones (easy to replicate so dont build on it) have their pin1 marker laser etched two concentric circles and a indented stamp on the back with numbers
the ones i received had a pin1 dot / stamp on the front and no stamp on the back.
Fakeon :
Genuine looking one:
(i dont have one here to take a picture of the backside)
genuine ones (easy to replicate so dont build on it) have their pin1 marker laser etched two concentric circles and a indented stamp on the back with numbers
the ones i received had a pin1 dot / stamp on the front and no stamp on the back.
Fakeon :
Genuine looking one:
(i dont have one here to take a picture of the backside)
Many end users placed orders in all directions during the worst of the shortage and now have duplicate inventory with limited shelf life
I disagree. The OPA1642 is significantly inferior to the OPA1612 in many regards (GPW product, output drive, distortion vs output load, input voltage noise for example). The OPA1642 has the JFET input stage- thus reducing the input current noise- reduced common mode input distortion and sensitivity to source impedances, and lower standing current going for it, so in some circumstances it is better.
I used to work in the semiconductor industry. High performance audio opamps don't sell for $0.10. The processes needed to make them are often boutique and expensive, and the ROI has to be enough to justify the development.Thanks.
A friend of mine, who used to work in the semiconductor industry, once told me that the average sales cost for semiconductors is around USD 0.10/mm2. Looking forward to seeing the OPA1612 at 25 cents.We probably need more competing products for this to happen though.
Fine, there is nothing to disagree on
It is like that on paper, I know and I wrote exactly that. It sounds better though and so in more than a few applications. Apparently specifications don’t tell all there is to know.
Last edited:
I have used the OPA1612, AD797, LT1115, OPA1642 and OPA1656 in phono/analog preamp stages for a while now and have conducted extensive listening tests, sometimes double blind, sometimes blind, sometimes as just an unannounced "impartial" observer to listening/comparison/"shoot out" sessions. I've noted that there are indeed real preferences expressed by the listeners, and that the preferences correlate pretty well with the specs and their relevance to the application, so a blanket statement seems a bit facile.
We did the same in low gain applications and found the OPA1642 to perform very good. Phono/preamps are from another era and definitely not in our interest but in DAC IV and/or filter stages OPA1642 performs adequately and certainly better than many older opamps.
That is why it is used so often and even as replacement for OPA1612 All futile discussion as it is about subjective opinions and obviously different applications and in our view specs don't always correlate with listening tests (otherwise OPA1642 would not have been chosen ). There seems to be a new king in a difficult format:
https://www.diyaudio.com/community/threads/opa828-opa2828-vs-opa627.400109/
That is why it is used so often and even as replacement for OPA1612
All futile discussion as it is about subjective opinions and obviously different applications and in our view specs don't always correlate with listening tests (otherwise OPA1642 would not have been chosen ). There seems to be a new king in a difficult format:https://www.diyaudio.com/community/threads/opa828-opa2828-vs-opa627.400109/
Last edited:
What was the name of the seller that supplied the genuine parts in your first post?