Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Jim Williams]

dcollins wrote on Fri, 19 January 2007 21:30

John Roberts  {JR} wrote on Wed, 17 January 2007 11:24 That was an invited paper for the IEEE written by J.E. Solomon who was a National Semi employee at the time. Thanks.  When you look at the references it's a who's who for the day. Widlar, Dobkin and Fullagar are pretty hard to beat. Just to clarify, you wouldn't see the 5534 in places like the Audio Precision if it sucked as hard as we read here on the 'net. I've even seen mastering engineers build custom line-amps based on the 5534 (and they could afford discrete, or whatever) because they felt in the right implementation it sounded good......... DC

5534's were used in the Audio Precision System One  because they were the best available at the time. Bruce Hoffer has discussed this with me and offered a mod to the generator using AD797's to lower residual THD of the generator. .0005% is still pretty good though for a analyzer in the analog domain.

Sonically, yes they suck. Big time. Anyone messing with these for new product development is either got his head in the sand or is designing to a price, not performance.

[Larrchild]

Bruno states:

Quote:

In all seriousness, I would like to see the day when all analogue stuff is totally transparent and all the euphonics can be done digitally. That's the day black art gets duly separated into true art and science.

Yes, this is my fondest wish for this industry.

As physicians, it would be nice to go "Look! right here on this MRI", instead of "The patient looks sick, let's try attaching these leeches and maybe a bloodletting."

Science: yes
Voodoo: no

[dcollins]

Jim Williams wrote on Tue, 23 January 2007 08:02

Sonically, yes they suck. Big time. Anyone messing with these for new product development is either got his head in the sand or is designing to a price, not performance.

I'm not trying to defend the 5534 and don't use any in my chain, but blanket statements like this are quite ridiculous, imo!  

Unless your definition of "sucks, big time" is different from  Benchmark, tc electronic, Doug Sax, etc....  

I understand you are in the business of selling new, improved, IC opamps, but it's not as bad as all that.  

Bruce Hofer is also the inventor of that neat AP trafo output stage with the negative impedance generator.  I'll look up the patent and post it.

One of those things where you say "can you do that?" or at least I did....


DC

[bruno putzeys]

I would add that when you're designing for low cost, the 5532 becomes the defacto choice, because anything that's not a lot more expensive is a lot worse. The performance/price ratio of the 5532 is staggering. But you need to keep a careful eye on the supply arrangement, if you don't want to get "5532 sound".

[Jim Williams]

dcollins wrote on Tue, 23 January 2007 21:26

Jim Williams wrote on Tue, 23 January 2007 08:02 Sonically, yes they suck. Big time. Anyone messing with these for new product development is either got his head in the sand or is designing to a price, not performance. I'm not trying to defend the 5534 and don't use any in my chain, but blanket statements like this are quite ridiculous, imo!   Unless your definition of "sucks, big time" is different from  Benchmark, tc electronic, Doug Sax, etc....   I understand you are in the business of selling new, improved, IC opamps, but it's not as bad as all that.   Bruce Hofer is also the inventor of that neat AP trafo output stage with the negative impedance generator.  I'll look up the patent and post it.

No, they are not that bad, sounds like an excuse I hear from the kids, "it's not that bad". Well, it's not that good either!

Last time I mastered vinyl at Mastering lab, Doug was proud of his modified MCI deck with class A repro electronics using 2N3391A transistors. I had a discussion with him about those and suggested replacing them with 2SC2547's. This was 1983. I hope he took me up on the suggestions as I have done no vinyl there since then.

For all you Benchmark users out there, dumping that 5534 for any number of improved devices will make a nice improvement. Mytek was originally using the OP275 like Appogee, but now is using the LT1358 and the LM6172. The 1358 is a $4 part in hundreds, must be a reason to spend the extra dough, ehh?

No, I'm not in the biz of selling opamps, I am in the biz of improving audio whether I work on a piece or design it.

I would rather listen to a console full of 5534's than one pass through prostools. It's all relative.

[zmix]

I just want to add some more gasoline to this fire by suggesting that 'discrete' opamps are heralded as much as monolithic opamps are reviled simply because most 'discrete' opamps are application specific devices. and thus are implemented in a very controlled manner.

Bruno pointed to a few issues he has with the 5534 (sensitivity to supply impedance etc..). I contend that armed with his observations he could design a circuit which incorporates the 5534 and performs very well indeed.

[Rivendell61]

zmix wrote on Wed, 24 January 2007 11:34

Bruno pointed to a few issues he has with the 5534 (sensitivity to supply impedance etc..). I contend that armed with his observations he could design a circuit which incorporates the 5534 and performs very well indeed.

Re the 5532: John Siau of Benchmark responded (2004) to some comments about replacing them in the DAC1 with 'better' opamps and he talks about the need to design for and use the 5532 appropriately:


The NE5532 is power hungry, it has high input bias currents, and high offset voltage, but it can drive high-level low impedance circuits with ease. The 5532 should not be used with low signal levels, and it should only be used in low gain circuits. Also, the offset voltage must be managed with appropriate design techniques. I believe the NE5532 has aquired a bad reputation because it has often been missapplied. The DAC1 is carefully designed specifically for the NE5532 op amp. It may surprise you that the NE5532 was selected for transparency and not on the basis of cost.

John Siau
Director of Engineering
Benchmark Media Systems, Inc.
www.benchmarkmedia.com

Mark

[maxdimario]

Quote:

I understand you are in the business of selling new, improved, IC opamps, but it's not as bad as all that.

they suck big time..

thanks to Jim W. for actually ADDING something positive instead of defending mediocrity and convenience.

THD is only one part of the equasion, just like horsepower is only one part of the equasion for a car.

it's better to have a less powerful motor on an agile car than a monster engine in a boat anchor on wheels.

[maxdimario]

Quote:

Mytek was originally using the OP275 like Appogee, but now is using the LT1358 and the LM6172

HA!

my fave 3000 V/S opamp!

...a bandwidth which goes into the stratosphere..

..even though I can only hear up to 16 KHz

I've been using it for years...

I never liked the op275

going to check out an LT1358 next time I need to.

[zmix]

maxdimario wrote on Wed, 24 January 2007 14:10

thanks to Jim W. for actually ADDING something positive instead of defending mediocrity and convenience.

Max,
Seriously, cool it with the straw man arguments!

It should be clear to anyone reading this thread that using a 5534 properly requires quite a deep knowledge of your intended application.
The Benchmark DAC is a perfect example of working intelligently withing known parameters. And excellent carpentry.

"It's a poor carpenter who blames his tools."


-CZ

[bruno putzeys]

What some call defending mediocrity may well be an attempt at adding knowledge. Simply repeating "this is good and this is bad" is not adding anything at all.

[MI]

I've been following this thread very carefully.

All I know is I'm getting more and more confused with each post...

Mario

[bruno putzeys]

Mario I. wrote on Wed, 24 January 2007 22:35

All I know is I'm getting more and more confused with each post...

This thread is a lightning rod for keeping inane "5532 good 5532 bad" posts out of other threads. As a result, it may be less than informative. However, the long and short of this thread is:
1) If you know how (and where) to use them, the 5532/5534 op amps outrun a lot of the competition, especially in the neutrality stakes.
2) When used carelessly (as is often the case), they'll sound dusty and lifeless. They cannot be used universally.
3) Prejudice prevents experience and begets more prejudice.

[maxdimario]

you can use whatever tools you like..

after all it's HOW you use the tools right..?

so now we know that we can make an album on a portastudio with sm57's and it WILL sound just as good as an album done in a major facility..

and then we will design outboard preamps entirely built with old 741's because it's not the component that counts but how it's implemented.. right?

hmm..

[dcollins]

Jim Williams wrote on Wed, 24 January 2007 08:25

Last time I mastered vinyl at Mastering lab, Doug was proud of his modified MCI deck with class A repro electronics using 2N3391A transistors. I had a discussion with him about those and suggested replacing them with 2SC2547's. This was 1983. I hope he took me up on the suggestions as I have done no vinyl there since then.

AIUI, Doug's tape repro is all-tube, but he does use a three transistor solid-state makeup amp on the eq's.  And that could very well use a 2N3391A on the input.  This amp hasn't changed in many moons -- and why should it?  He's cut more great records than I've had hot meals through this amp....... 2N3407 on the second stage and 2N1171 on the output; how can it possibly make music?

Quote:

No, I'm not in the biz of selling opamps, I am in the biz of improving audio whether I work on a piece or design it.

Fair enough.  

Did you ever come across a piece of audio gear that just couldn't be improved by some sort of mod?  If so, what was it?

Quote:

I would rather listen to a console full of 5534's than one pass through prostools. It's all relative.

I've never looked in the HD box, what do they use?  

DC