Quad Op-amp?
Joe Kramer
Please recommend--does a decent quad op-amp exist anywhere on the
planet? Yes, I know "all op-amps suck," but they're a fact of
modest-priced audio life. I'm looking to upgrade a Rane SM82 line
mixer, which uses a horrendously drab-sounding 4741 quad op-amp.
Disqualified candidates include the AD713 (too noisy), and of course the
TLO84/74. My personal favorite sound-wise is the OP275, but there's no
quad configuration.
Many thanks,
Joe
Scott Dorsey
If the 713 is too noisy, you will probably find the MC34084 FET-input
opamp to be worse unless you've got a high-Z source. But it sure does
sound nice!
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."
Matthew Syson
the Motorola MC33079 may be worth a try. The dual MC33078 from the same
family is virtually as good as a NE5532 and the 79 is the quad version.
Matt Syson
My browser says this is rude as there is not sufficeint of my own text
please forgive me!
Scott Dorsey wrote in message ...
John Penovich
you've got. but.....
http://www.burr-brown.com/products/OPA132/
John Penovich
Joe Kramer wrote:
> Hi Folks:
> Please recommend--does a decent quad op-amp exist anywhere on the
> planet? Yes, I know "all op-amps suck," but they're a fact of
> modest-priced audio life. I'm looking to upgrade a Rane SM82 line
> mixer, which uses a horrendously drab-sounding 4741 quad op-amp.
> Disqualified candidates include the AD713 (too noisy), and of course the
> TLO84/74. My personal favorite sound-wise is the OP275, but there's no
> quad configuration.
>
> Many thanks,
> Joe
Mark Plancke
>Hi Folks:
> Please recommend--does a decent quad op-amp exist anywhere on the
>planet? Yes, I know "all op-amps suck," but they're a fact of
>modest-priced audio life. I'm looking to upgrade a Rane SM82 line
>mixer, which uses a horrendously drab-sounding 4741 quad op-amp.
>Disqualified candidates include the AD713 (too noisy), and of course the
>TLO84/74. My personal favorite sound-wise is the OP275, but there's no
>quad configuration.
>
You should check out the Burr Brown 4132 I used them in my
multi-tracks and they work very nicely.
Mark Plancke
SOUNDTECH RECORDING STUDIOS
Windsor, Ontario, Canada
http://SoundTechRecording.com
Wandering into Usenet and asking if the Mac or the PC is better is
sort of like wandering into an Irish bar and asking if Catholics
or Protestants are best. You might learn something about religion
in the process, but not much, and you stand almost certain to be
injured in the crossfire.
Scott Dorsey 5/28/99 2:39PM rec.audio.pro
greg szekeres
>check ot Burr-Brown OPA4132. I don't know if the pinout is the same as what
>you've got. but.....
Most quads have the same pinout. To get the same type of noise performance it
may be better to stay bipolar. Try using a LM837 and then
a 4132, and see what you like best.
greg
>
>http://www.burr-brown.com/products/OPA132/
>
>John Penovich
>
>Joe Kramer wrote:
>
>> Hi Folks:
>> Please recommend--does a decent quad op-amp exist anywhere on the
>> planet? Yes, I know "all op-amps suck," but they're a fact of
>> modest-priced audio life. I'm looking to upgrade a Rane SM82 line
>> mixer, which uses a horrendously drab-sounding 4741 quad op-amp.
>> Disqualified candidates include the AD713 (too noisy), and of course the
>> TLO84/74. My personal favorite sound-wise is the OP275, but there's no
>> quad configuration.
>>
>> Many thanks,
>> Joe
>
>
greg szekeres
>Joe Kramer <muse...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
>>Hi Folks:
>> Please recommend--does a decent quad op-amp exist anywhere on the
>>planet? Yes, I know "all op-amps suck," but they're a fact of
>>modest-priced audio life. I'm looking to upgrade a Rane SM82 line
>>mixer, which uses a horrendously drab-sounding 4741 quad op-amp.
>>Disqualified candidates include the AD713 (too noisy), and of course the
>>TLO84/74. My personal favorite sound-wise is the OP275, but there's no
>>quad configuration.
>>
>
>multi-tracks and they work very nicely.
I noticed most suggest the 4132. The 4134 is 1/4 the price. Has anyone had
problems with the 4134?
greg
Joe Kramer
greg szekeres wrote:
> In article <37622da...@snews.mnsi.net>, NewsG...@SoundtechRecording.com wrote:
> >Joe Kramer <muse...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> >
> >>Hi Folks:
> >> Please recommend--does a decent quad op-amp exist anywhere on the
> >>planet?
> >
> >You should check out the Burr Brown 4132
>
> I noticed most suggest the 4132. The 4134 is 1/4 the price. Has anyone had
> problems with the 4134?
> greg
I just checked the Burr-Brown site and discovered the 4134 for myself. The specs are
nearly identical, and the data sheet also claims it has "high output drive capability"
and that it's "fully specified for audio applications." The fact is it's $2.47 compared
to $10.47 from Digi-Key, and at that price, one can afford to experiment. I hope I'm not
the only one who gets excited about this stuff . . . .
Thanks to all repliers,
Joe
Monte P McGuire
Joe Kramer <muse...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>I just checked the Burr-Brown site and discovered the 4134 for myself.
>The specs are nearly identical, and the data sheet also claims it has
>"high output drive capability" and that it's "fully specified for
>audio applications." The fact is it's $2.47 compared to $10.47 from
>Digi-Key, and at that price, one can afford to experiment. I hope I'm
>not the only one who gets excited about this stuff . . . .
Part of the reason why the 132 series seems expensive is that DigiKey
sells only the select, low offset versions. There is another less
tightly specified (worse offset etc.) version available from other
suppliers like Insight that's a lot less expensive. It's still not as
low cost as the 134 series, but it's a lot closer.
The 134 series is hard to compare to the 132 using the Burr Brown data
sheets, but from what I could gather, it seems that it has a little
worse HF distortion. This could simply be an artifact of how it's
specified and I've never actually compared them in the same circuit,
but the 132 does seem to be slightly superior. Finally, even though
low offset is not such a problem for audio circuits, there are cases
where low offset can allow you to remove a coupling cap or two, and
that can be a sonic advantage.
As for noise relative to a 4741, the 4132 should yield about the same
noise or slightly less in a typical circuit. The voltage noise of the
4741 isn't all that low and and it's probably within a dB or two of
the voltage noise of the 4132. Also, since the 4132 is a JFET amp,
its current noise will be radically lower.
Overall, the 132 series is a great general purpose op amp for audio.
It's not the quietest amp for some circuits and it can't drive the
toughest loads cleanly, but in many many applications, it's an
extremely good performer. The only way to get a better output stage
is to use a lot of bias current, somewhere around 10-20mA, and you
can't get close to that in anything but a single op amp because of
power dissipation problems.
Regards,
Monte McGuire
mcg...@world.std.com
Tom Loredo
Digikey carries the PA-ND variety of both the 4132 and the 4134;
those were the prices compared. These are both the "normal"
versions (the low offset have only a "P" suffix). Digikey started
offering the PA versions of the x132 series some time ago. So I
remain confused about the price differences.
For the record, the per-chip "budgetary pricing" for 1000 qty of each
given on the BB web site is $4.26 for the 4132 and $1.70 for the 4134.
The grade for this price is not mentioned; the 4132 is available
in both P and PA, the 4134 only in PA.
Perhaps Digikey has a mistake in their online and print catalogs,
and the part listed as 4132PA is really the P grade....
Peace,
Tom Loredo