I have to support jewilson 😉 . NE5532 measures well, but fails when influenced by D/A spikes from CD and RF interference, cannot manage it. He is right, every BB like 2134 etc. is better. And - 5532 has horribly high input bias current and current noise. So called advantage of low voltage noise can be utilized only for source output impedances and input resistors of some 100 Ohms.
Good grief, Charlie Brown........
Some of the stuff in this thread is ludicrous. But what do I know........30+ years of doing this has taught me nothing.
Jocko
Some of the stuff in this thread is ludicrous. But what do I know........30+ years of doing this has taught me nothing.
Jocko
Nope, I've just checked and the original question wasn't "is the NE5532/4 any good?".
Op-amps make sense in low cost and pro equipment where there are constraints on cost, power consumption, board space, heat dissipation and where an impressive on-paper specification is important. But for us DIYers, at least as far as pre-amps are concerned none of the above is really an issue.
Connecting up an op-amp can hardly be described as 'designing a high-end pre-amp'.🙄
Op-amps make sense in low cost and pro equipment where there are constraints on cost, power consumption, board space, heat dissipation and where an impressive on-paper specification is important. But for us DIYers, at least as far as pre-amps are concerned none of the above is really an issue.
Connecting up an op-amp can hardly be described as 'designing a high-end pre-amp'.🙄
Asbjørn, I think that you have to deside what you want to do and then go for it. JFET's, tubes, BJT's are all very good in good designs AND very bad in bad designs.Asbjorn said:
Maybe you can take some advice from Jocko if he want to give any. He knows something I believe.
Just a few part that out perform 5532/4
OP27, OP37, OPA2604, OP249, OP275, LM6172/ AD825/26, AD797 AD8610, OPA627, OPA637, OP134, AD8610, AD8620. These are just a few of the part that sound better than the yesterday news 5532/4 parts.
An for most applications the FET sound better low odd harmonics.
I mean you don't see any bipolars on the front end of any of Nelson's, Curl work now why is that.
OP27, OP37, OPA2604, OP249, OP275, LM6172/ AD825/26, AD797 AD8610, OPA627, OPA637, OP134, AD8610, AD8620. These are just a few of the part that sound better than the yesterday news 5532/4 parts.
An for most applications the FET sound better low odd harmonics.
I mean you don't see any bipolars on the front end of any of Nelson's, Curl work now why is that.
I am reminded of the story of the ''audiophile'' who returned home from a concert complaining that there was not enough ''presence''. The quest for clarity, detail and precision is fine up to a point, but every recording represents an imperfect replica of a real musical event and posesses imperfections that easily distract the listener from the music. As a musician I know how music sounds both on and off stage, the most cohesive sound is often to be found some way from the stage.
In my view FETs produce an unnatural spotlight on detail, rather like sitting in the front row. I find Bipolar devices convey a more balanced sound, not quite as detailed as the FET sound, though more realistic overall. In general I have found BJTs convey a more realistic sense of perspective. This brings us back to the NE5534 which incidentally is a dual version of the NE5533 according to the datasheet, not the NE5532. I don't pretend it is perfect, my discrete S.E. class A op-amp circuit sounds better to me, but the NE5534, especially when biased into class A, plays music with sufficient clarity, tonal neutrality and a believable perspective in a way that I have not experienced with many more modern IC op-amps.
Regarding the previously suggested (in this thread) visit to the doctor for a cure for the NE5534 ''thing'', doctors are very well educated people who enjoy good music and culture, the NE5534 might be to their liking!
Tim.
In my view FETs produce an unnatural spotlight on detail, rather like sitting in the front row. I find Bipolar devices convey a more balanced sound, not quite as detailed as the FET sound, though more realistic overall. In general I have found BJTs convey a more realistic sense of perspective. This brings us back to the NE5534 which incidentally is a dual version of the NE5533 according to the datasheet, not the NE5532. I don't pretend it is perfect, my discrete S.E. class A op-amp circuit sounds better to me, but the NE5534, especially when biased into class A, plays music with sufficient clarity, tonal neutrality and a believable perspective in a way that I have not experienced with many more modern IC op-amps.
Regarding the previously suggested (in this thread) visit to the doctor for a cure for the NE5534 ''thing'', doctors are very well educated people who enjoy good music and culture, the NE5534 might be to their liking!
Tim.
Re: Just a few part that out perform 5532/4
This means only that they like them/prefer them in some way.jewilson said:
Well many of us then perfer them in some way......
Well If there were only 709's, 741, uA739, 540's, available in this world then I might think that a 5534 was some kind of marvel. Having said that, na I would use tubes.
Tim, sorry you can here the difference, but where did you do this research. You must have been in bad environment maybe faulty towers.
Well If there were only 709's, 741, uA739, 540's, available in this world then I might think that a 5534 was some kind of marvel. Having said that, na I would use tubes.
Tim, sorry you can here the difference, but where did you do this research. You must have been in bad environment maybe faulty towers.
You forgot TL0x1s,and the like. And LM833s too, although some here seem to think that they are also good.
If they are so good, then why didn't the place that buys my pull-outs want them??
Answer: they couldn't sell them. About the only truly useless crap that I have pulled out in the last 20 years.
Jocko
If they are so good, then why didn't the place that buys my pull-outs want them??
Answer: they couldn't sell them. About the only truly useless crap that I have pulled out in the last 20 years.
Jocko
Some of you (myself included) like so much the NE5534 because it's lowest distortion opamp ever made, it even beats the AD797 in a null test. take the OPA627, it has 20dB more distortion at 20khz than the NE5534 or the AD797(these NE haters guys don’t like the Ad797 too, can you see why?)
if you do the null test to the OPA627 you can clearly see where the frequency compensation(1khz aprox.) point is and there is where distortion rises skyward! and there were the NE really shines, it has a brilliant compensation scheme that maintains the open loop gain linear over the audio band, and the distortion down as well.
And by the way, add more 10db of distortion to the OPA627 if you are driving a 1k load...region were the Ne5534 and the AD797 really shines because distortion is almost the same with load or without
you guys can say all you want but the NE5534 is an audio engineering masterpiece and its performance isn’t equaled by any monolithic device ever made and some of us now this!...
(I can show the various null results of various audio opamps if you guys want)
Best regards
Ricardo
if you do the null test to the OPA627 you can clearly see where the frequency compensation(1khz aprox.) point is and there is where distortion rises skyward! and there were the NE really shines, it has a brilliant compensation scheme that maintains the open loop gain linear over the audio band, and the distortion down as well.
And by the way, add more 10db of distortion to the OPA627 if you are driving a 1k load...region were the Ne5534 and the AD797 really shines because distortion is almost the same with load or without
you guys can say all you want but the NE5534 is an audio engineering masterpiece and its performance isn’t equaled by any monolithic device ever made and some of us now this!...
(I can show the various null results of various audio opamps if you guys want)
Best regards
Ricardo
Null Results
Yeah, Ricardo,
Show us your null results. I am looking forward to it!
Ciao,
🙂
rickpt said:
Yeah, Ricardo,
Show us your null results. I am looking forward to it!
Ciao,
🙂
to the end of this week you will have them, i have to convert all the voltage values to dB and that takes time...
The forum members that dont now this type of mesurement, search the forum and also search the hafler XL280 excelinear manual. there is very relevant info on the null test in this forum...
A test invented by a genius named David Hafler.
the opamps measured were the:
NE5534(texas)
NE5534(signetics)
OPA627BP
AD797
OPA604AP
OP27GP(PMI)
OPA134PA
TL071
Best Regards
The forum members that dont now this type of mesurement, search the forum and also search the hafler XL280 excelinear manual. there is very relevant info on the null test in this forum...
A test invented by a genius named David Hafler.
the opamps measured were the:
NE5534(texas)
NE5534(signetics)
OPA627BP
AD797
OPA604AP
OP27GP(PMI)
OPA134PA
TL071
Best Regards
I second Elso's input. In principle, the AD797 should run rings around the 5534. Please understand, I have used the 5534, since 1977, when I was first sampled by Signetics. It was a serious improvement in audio IC op amp design and performance. However, we found that IF you bypassed the input stage and substituted a fet input stage, we could make a better sounding device. We (my tech actually) made them for Dave Wilson for his $100,000 speaker system's active equilizer. Dave paid $80 each, 15 years ago, I believe.
The AD797 is similar to the 5534, but significantly improved, at least in principle. I'm sure that the designer of the AD797, Scott Wurcer, knows the ins-and-outs of the 5534. He would not have made an inferior device on purpose, at least.
The AD797 is similar to the 5534, but significantly improved, at least in principle. I'm sure that the designer of the AD797, Scott Wurcer, knows the ins-and-outs of the 5534. He would not have made an inferior device on purpose, at least.
> The AD797 is similar to the 5534
The spec-sheet puffery says otherwise:
"The new architecture of the AD797 was developed to overcome inherent limitations in previous amplifier designs. Previous precision amplifiers used three stages ..... The AD797 on the other hand, uses a single ultrahigh gain stage to achieve dc as well as dynamic precision."
The way they draw it, I was very puzzled for a while. Mostly it is a semi-conventional bipolar op-amp, though it takes great advantage of the "Complementary Bipolar (CB) process" (good PNP and NPN on the same die) which was not available to the 5534 designer. But the bootstrapped current mirror and the compensation it allows are pretty wacky, at least novel, to these old eyes.
On gross-specs, it has noise voltage similar to or better than 5534. Input current, rather high on 5534, has been reduced on the 797, but still can't be confused with a TL071. Output current is almost/not-quite as high as 5534. Gain at low-Z loads is better. Max rated supply voltage does not match the 5534's exceptional +/-22V, which may not matter to most people but is sometimes handy. (I'm not sure there is a difference in the silicon, or just in the specs. Certainly normal +/-18V chips do not explode at 18.1 or even 20 volts.)
Others have noted the 5534's unhappiness when you feed it DAC spikes. My reaction is: "Don't DO that if it hurts!" The 5534 was designed for an older mellower world without digital gizmos, and we always put some thought into out-of-band crap-control before signals hit an active junction. Yes, for typical crap-levels, a bipolar is wiped-out and most FETs just take it without distress. And not dealing with crap-control may lead to better sound. But that is one of the trade-offs we face.
The spec-sheet puffery says otherwise:
"The new architecture of the AD797 was developed to overcome inherent limitations in previous amplifier designs. Previous precision amplifiers used three stages ..... The AD797 on the other hand, uses a single ultrahigh gain stage to achieve dc as well as dynamic precision."
The way they draw it, I was very puzzled for a while. Mostly it is a semi-conventional bipolar op-amp, though it takes great advantage of the "Complementary Bipolar (CB) process" (good PNP and NPN on the same die) which was not available to the 5534 designer. But the bootstrapped current mirror and the compensation it allows are pretty wacky, at least novel, to these old eyes.
On gross-specs, it has noise voltage similar to or better than 5534. Input current, rather high on 5534, has been reduced on the 797, but still can't be confused with a TL071. Output current is almost/not-quite as high as 5534. Gain at low-Z loads is better. Max rated supply voltage does not match the 5534's exceptional +/-22V, which may not matter to most people but is sometimes handy. (I'm not sure there is a difference in the silicon, or just in the specs. Certainly normal +/-18V chips do not explode at 18.1 or even 20 volts.)
Others have noted the 5534's unhappiness when you feed it DAC spikes. My reaction is: "Don't DO that if it hurts!" The 5534 was designed for an older mellower world without digital gizmos, and we always put some thought into out-of-band crap-control before signals hit an active junction. Yes, for typical crap-levels, a bipolar is wiped-out and most FETs just take it without distress. And not dealing with crap-control may lead to better sound. But that is one of the trade-offs we face.
Limit out-of-band stuff?????!!
Might be a radically new concept to some.
Mandatory to the rest of us. Even with JFETs, although they tolerate it more easily.
Jocko
Might be a radically new concept to some.
Mandatory to the rest of us. Even with JFETs, although they tolerate it more easily.
Jocko
A bit off the subject, but........
A friend recently tried to sell one of his D/A converters (built by me) that he has an extra one of.......
Tried to sell it to a guy who just spent $$$$$ on having all of his system cryogenically treated. (I have no idea why....waste of money that he could have spent on me!)
Anyway, he declined to buy the D/A box. Said that he now heard "too much detail", and that "frightened" him.
No explanation why some people like to spend $$$ on stuff, yet want it to sound all mucked up.
IOW, if JFETs have "too much detail", maybe something else is wrong with your system.
Uh, change that "maybe" to "probably".
Jocko
A friend recently tried to sell one of his D/A converters (built by me) that he has an extra one of.......
Tried to sell it to a guy who just spent $$$$$ on having all of his system cryogenically treated. (I have no idea why....waste of money that he could have spent on me!)
Anyway, he declined to buy the D/A box. Said that he now heard "too much detail", and that "frightened" him.
No explanation why some people like to spend $$$ on stuff, yet want it to sound all mucked up.
IOW, if JFETs have "too much detail", maybe something else is wrong with your system.
Uh, change that "maybe" to "probably".
Jocko
The art of electronic engineering is to put the right component in a right place within a budget, not to populate your board with the most expensive, most recent so-called "technological achievements". Don’t choke the cat with cream! 😀
… and you can find helpful Scott Wurcer design note AN348 here:
http://www.analog.com/UploadedFiles...018494695982855668424783486554001060AN348.pdf
and ad797 story here:
"An Operational Amplifier Architecture with a Single Gain Stage and Distortion Cancellation," AES Preprint 3231
… and you can find helpful Scott Wurcer design note AN348 here:
http://www.analog.com/UploadedFiles...018494695982855668424783486554001060AN348.pdf
and ad797 story here:
"An Operational Amplifier Architecture with a Single Gain Stage and Distortion Cancellation," AES Preprint 3231
dimitri said:
Hi Dimitri,
Do you have an online source for the ad797 story? Google didn't help me.
JF