There are some replacement chips that are leg and current compatible with the 5532. I should have some stashed somewhere.
If a stupid word substitution made you laugh, thank my iPhone
On 26 באוק 2013, at 13:39, Jamie Howarth <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> 553x Not fast enough. Not even really fast enough for I/v use in a 176.4 DAC.
> Retire it.
> Please pardon the misspellings and occassional insane word substitution I'm on an iPhone
>> On Oct 25, 2013, at 10:50 PM, Ellis Burman <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>> Not only what listening environment outside of an anechoic chamber has 120
>> dB dynamic range, but also what recording environment? I'd imagine the
>> breathing of the musicians would be well above that!
>> True, a mic pre-amp is a much more demanding application for an op-amp than
>> a line-level buffer. Still, I'd be more concerned with the slew rate
>> limits of the 5532. In my mind, the whole idea of DSD is to capture
>> transient information (at least that's what I hear with DSD or higher
>> sample rates, or direct-to-disc recording for that matter.) I haven't done
>> the math though - maybe 9V/uS is fast enough, even at 5.6 MHz sample rate.
>> On Fri, Oct 25, 2013 at 4:19 PM, Tom Fine <[log in to unmask]>wrote:
>>> You two are more expert than I, but I think a 5532 is fine in this
>>> application because you have built-in level limits by the nature of digital
>>> zero. So as long as you can design your analog sections to accomodate low
>>> distortion at digital zero (and leave a few dB headroom for over-sample
>>> problems with rate and format conversions), then I'm not sure what audible
>>> differences there would be in using a designer chip. Aren't the designer
>>> chips more appropriate for mic preamps or inside condenser mics?
>>> With the high-resolution formats in the download world, I'm starting to
>>> see marketing again based on crazy claims of dynamic range. Benchmark, a
>>> company that can stand on its reputation, showed a new power amp at the AES
>>> Convention. Their marketing hook is that they can demonstrate something
>>> like a 120dB range from their noise floor to whatever distortion figure
>>> they find objectionable. But, what listening environment outside of an
>>> anacholic chamber has 120dB dynamic range? And what music that provides any
>>> pleasure needs 120dB dynamic range? It's not good for your ears to be
>>> exposed to 120dB above silence, but no one seems to talk about that. I
>>> remember the dynamic range claims with early digital, which definitely had
>>> a lower noise floor than any tape recorder. The problem was, when there was
>>> sound, it often wasn't as good as the sound coming off the allegedly noisy
>>> -- Tom Fine
>>> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Paul Stamler" <[log in to unmask]>
>>> To: <[log in to unmask]>
>>> Sent: Friday, October 25, 2013 6:48 PM
>>> Subject: Re: [ARSCLIST] $1K DSD recorder
>>>> On 10/25/2013 4:28 PM, Ellis Burman wrote:
>>>>> But it's funny how manufacturers are still touting the NE5532 op-amp. I
>>>>> used them over 25 years ago in my designs for Quad Eight. They're fine
>>>>> lot of legendary consoles used them - Neve, Quad Eight, SSL, etc) but
>>>>> are many better op-amps available now.
>>>> Yes, the good ol' 5532 has been surpassed in many ways by more recent
>>>> designs -- but for an excellent balance of low noise and clean performance
>>>> *at low price*, it's hard to beat.
>> [log in to unmask]