The Ultimate Op-amp?
Loren Alldrin
for the NE5532 (Signetics or equivalent). Any scoop on a ultra low-noise
op-amp that I could use in this application?
If I'm firing up my soldering iron to build something, I don't mind
spending a few bucks more for optimum performance. Please include any
sources, if you've got 'em.
Thanks!
Loren
Monte P McGuire
Here's a copy of the op amp list from rec.audio.tech. I repost it
here because I haven't seen it in r.a.t. for a while...
----8<----[snip here]----8<--------8<--------8<--------8<--------8<----
From kst...@phoenix.Princeton.EDU Mon Aug 22 13:48:22 EDT 1994
Article: 2633 of rec.audio.tech
Xref: world rec.audio.tech:2633
Newsgroups: rec.audio.tech
From: kst...@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Kurt Stephen Thorn)
Subject: List of audio opamps, v1.2
Message-ID: <1994Aug20.0...@Princeton.EDU>
Originator: news@nimaster
Keywords: Op-Amp
List of (mostly) Audio Op-Amps, v1.2
Sender: ne...@Princeton.EDU (USENET News System)
Nntp-Posting-Host: phoenix.princeton.edu
Organization: Princeton University
Date: Sat, 20 Aug 1994 04:26:03 GMT
Lines: 74
Part # en @ 1kHzin @ 1kHzSlew rate PBW GBW THD S/D/Q Price Mfr
(nV/Hz1/2(pA/Hz1/2 (V/us) (kHz) (MHz) (%) ($)
AD712 18 0.01 20 200 4 0.0003 D $3.60 1
AD744 18 0.01 75 1200 13 0.0003 S $6.40 1
AD745 3.2 0.0069 12.5 120 20 0.0002 S $4.50 1
AD797 0.9 2 20 280 110 0.0001 S $11.71 1
AD811 1.9 20 2500 40000 100 0.02 S $9.95 1
AD841 15 NA 300 4700 40 NA S(14) $7.74 1
AD844 2 10 2000 20000 60 0.005 S $4.13 1
AD845 25 0.1 100 1750 16 NA S $5.32 1
AD846 2 6 450 6800 80 0.0005 S $14.90 1
AD847 15 1.5 300 4700 50 NA S $5.90 1
AD848 5 1.5 300 4700 175 NA S $8.93 1
AD849 3 1.5 300 4700 725 NA S 1
HA5147 3 0.4 35 500 120 NA S $4.55 2
HA5221(2) 3.4 0.97 25 238 100 <0.005 S(D) 2
JE-990 1.13 1 18 145 >50 0.005 S $87.00 6
LM833 4.5 0.7 7 120 15 0.002 D $1.26 3
LM837 4.5 0.7 10 25 0.0015 Q 3
LT1028 0.85 1 15 75 NA S $7.52 4
LT1037 2.5 0.4 11 60 NA S 4
LT1056 14 0.0018 12 6.5 NA S 4
LT1122 80 14 S 4
MA-334 8 3 50 800 20 NA S $4.08 5
MA-362 2.5 0.4 17 270 60 0.0001 S $13.47 5
MAX410 1.8 1.2 4.5 28 S $1.50 8
MAX412 1.8 1.2 4.5 28 D $2.45 8
MAX414 1.8 1.2 4.5 28 Q $4.50 8
OP-07 9.6 0.12 0.1 0.4 NA S $3.82 1,4
OP-176 5 1.1 25 10 0.0006 S 1
OP-237 2.5 0.4 15 63 NA D 4
OP-27 3 0.4 1.7 5 NA S $5.40 1,4
OP-275 6 1.5 22 9 0.0006 D $2.01 1
OP-37 3.2 0.4 11 NA 40 NA S $4.93 1,4
OP-42 13 0.007 50 800 10 NA S $6.32 1
OPA2604 11 0.004 25 20 3E-05 D $4.00 7
OPA604 11 0.004 25 20 3E-05 S $3.00 7
OPA627 5 0.0016 55 16 3E-06 S $15.00 7
OPA637 5 0.0016 135 80 3E-06 S $15.00 7
SSM2131 13 0.007 50 800 10 0.01 S $3.19 1
SSM2134 3.5 0.6 6 95 10 0.025 S $2.06 1
SSM2139 3.2 0.6 11 130 30 0.002 D $3.05 1
Notes:
S/D/Q refers to single, dual or quad packages.
Manufacturer codes are as follows:
1) Analog Devices, One Technology Way, PO Box 9106, Norwood MA
02062-9106 USA. 1-800-262-5643.
2) Harris Semiconductor (Literature Dept.) PO Box 883, MS CB1-28
Melbourne FL 32901. 407-724-3937.
3) National Semiconductor, 2900 Semiconductor Drive, PO Box 58090,
Santa Clara CA 95052-8090. 1-800-272-9959.
4) Linear Technology, 1630 McCarthy Blvd., Milpitas CA 95035.
408-432-1900.
5) Analog Systems, PO Box 17389, Tucson AZ 85731-7389.
602-290-1818.
6) Jensen Transformers, 10735 Burbank Blvd., N. Hollywood CA 91601.
213-876-0059.
7) Burr-Brown (I only know the NY office number now - 914-964-5252)
8) Maxim Integrated Products, Inc. 120 San Gabriel Drive
Sunnyvale CA 95086. 1-800-988-8800.
Most prices are taken from Newark catalog 113, except for those for
op-amps from Burr-Brown, Analog Systems, and Jensen Transformers.
Analog Systems and Jensen Transformers sell direct; apparently Newark
doesn't stock Burr-Brown or Harris, as well as some of the other
op-amps in this list.
References:
[1] Duncan, B. "How Clean is Your Audio Op Amp?", The Audio Amateur, 4:1993.
[2] Berglund, R. "Choosing Low-Noise Op-Amps", The Audio Amateur, 2:1994.
As well as data books from the above companies and email from various
----8<----[snip here]----8<--------8<--------8<--------8<--------8<-----
As for my $.02, you will get better performance with singles than
duals; the AD797 has very low noise and distortion with low impedance
sources - highly recommended.
Regards,
Monte McGuire - N1TBL
mcg...@world.std.com
Scott Dorsey
>
>Here's a copy of the op amp list from rec.audio.tech. I repost it
>here because I haven't seen it in r.a.t. for a while...
[ list removed ]
This list is patently biased, because it doesn't include any Motorola
parts. I'll put a good word in here for the MC34082 dual. Ft is 25 MHz,
slew rate is high and symmetric. It does tend to be noisier than some
of the other devices out there, so I might not recommend it in a mike
preamp front end, for instance, but it has a very clean sound to it and
sounds less harsh to my ear than many of the other devices out there.
>As for my $.02, you will get better performance with singles than
>duals; the AD797 has very low noise and distortion with low impedance
>sources - highly recommended.
This is true. However, with duals, you have the advantage of having
two very well matched halves on one die, for stereo operation. With
singles, you may have unit-to-unit variations which may affect your
channel balances. On the other hand, with singles, you may have better
separation, though I don't think this is as significant.
I recommend the duals because the packages are more standardized; you
can pull out pretty much any dual and replace it with any other and expect
it to have the same pinout. This is not at all the case with the singles.
And the AD797 isn't bad, definitely a better choice with a low-Z source
than the 34082. On the other hand, the 2604 isn't a bad-sounding device
either in some applications.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."
Monte P McGuire
Scott Dorsey <klu...@netcom.com> wrote:
>
>I recommend the duals because the packages are more standardized; you
>can pull out pretty much any dual and replace it with any other and expect
>it to have the same pinout. This is not at all the case with the singles.
Actually, as long as you don't use those _other_ pins, like 1, 5 and
8, all singles are pin compatible. The other advantage to singles is
that the per-device dissipation can be higher and this generally means
that more bias current is available for either lower input noise
voltage or better output drive. However, there are some good duals
too, just not that many below 4nV/root Hz noise voltage.
Whatever you do, don't use quad op amps!! There are exactly 3 or 4
good sounding quads out there and all of them are basically the same
BiFET amp: the TL0[78]4. I'm stuck with a mixing console crammed with
TL074 and to my knowledge, the AD713 is the only significant upgrade.
If only Burr Brown would create a quad OPA604!! With 40mA idle
dissipation, I guess you'd need a heatsink...
Bill Thompson
> And the AD797 isn't bad, definitely a better choice with a low-Z source
> than the 34082. On the other hand, the 2604 isn't a bad-sounding device
> either in some applications.
I played around with the Linear Technology LT1037 and LT1028 and
generally liked the sound of them. The LT1028 is quieter for
ultra low impedance sources (<1k Ohm) and the LT1037 is quieter
with 1k Ohm to 10k Ohm range. One thing I liked was the total
absence of "popcorn" noise. Has anyone else listened to these
parts?
<-- Bill Thompson -- Ashly Audio Inc. Rochester, NY -- ga0...@vnet.net -->
PETER LARSEN
Following up on:
LA> ˙@FROM :lo...@ecst.csuchico.edu
LA> ˙@UMSGID :<38kip2$o...@charnel.ecst.CSUChico.EDU>
LA> ˙@UNEWSGR:01rec.audio.pro
LA> I'm going to be building a preamp real soon, and the design spec
LA> calls for the NE5532 (Signetics or equivalent). Any scoop on a ultra
LA> low-noise op-amp that I could use in this application?
AD OP275 (double) or AD OP176 (single). The AD OP 176 has some 10
percent better specs. Use AD OP275 instead of '5532' and AD OP176
instead of '5534' or LF 356 or just about anything else, except
perhaps ultra-low noise mic preamps. If replacing 5534 with
offset-nulling circuitry beware: it should be removed or rewired
because the AD OP176 uses a different pin for that function. Both are
unity gain stable. Experience indicate that they need some burn in
time (not the IC's, probably their interface to the socket) to really
give their best ... some 100 hours for really superior sonic
performance. They seem to be so good that even the interface to the
socket will matter. Simplisticly said they offer a reduction of
distortion with a full order of magnitude. Note: they will perform
better when running on +/- 20 V dc than when running on +/-15 Volts,
so you might like to design for that rail voltage. Mostly they are
just 'plug'n play' when replacing existing IC's, but get a spec sheet
anyway before designing.
LA> If I'm firing up my soldering iron to build something, I don't mind
LA> spending a few bucks more for optimum performance. Please include
LA> any sources, if you've got 'em.
Source for facts: Analog Devices specs. Source for high opion and
observation of 'burn in time': replaced the LF356's in my crossover
last week - i. e. firsthand. As for the price ... in quantity
(20+) they should be around a dollar to $1.50 a piece (both types) or
less, of course depending on what quantity really is. 'Burn in time'
supposed to be related to interface between IC and socket rather than
being an attribute of IC itself.
LA> Loren
Kind regards
Peter Larsen
Mithat Konar
Expires:
References: <Cy9Ko...@world.std.com> <kludgeCy...@netcom.com> <CyAL1...@world.std.com>
Sender:
Followup-To:
Distribution:
Keywords: op amp list
In article <CyAL1...@world.std.com> mcg...@world.std.com (Monte P McGuire) writes:
>
>Whatever you do, don't use quad op amps!! There are exactly 3 or 4
>good sounding quads out there and all of them are basically the same
>BiFET amp: the TL0[78]4. I'm stuck with a mixing console crammed with
>TL074 and to my knowledge, the AD713 is the only significant upgrade.
>
You should look at TI's TLE2074, the specs of which I summarize below:
SR: 28V/us
GBW: 10Mhz
phase margin: 56degrees
noise: 11.6nV/sqrt(Hz) @ 10kHz
supply current: 1.6mA/channel
I haven't had the chance to use any of the TLE207x family, but they look
promising.
-Mithat
_______________________________________________________________________________
Mithat Konar ~~ who uses an anonymous server because his employer
doesn't want him to express
(a.k.a. an14...@anon.penet.fi) opinions which are not necessarily
those of his employer in any way
that identifies his employer.
_______________________________________________________________________________
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
To find out more about the anon service, send mail to he...@anon.penet.fi.
Due to the double-blind, any mail replies to this message will be anonymized,
and an anonymous id will be allocated automatically. You have been warned.
Please report any problems, inappropriate use etc. to ad...@anon.penet.fi.
Scott Dorsey
>In article <kludgeCy...@netcom.com>,
>Scott Dorsey <klu...@netcom.com> wrote:
>>
>>I recommend the duals because the packages are more standardized; you
>>can pull out pretty much any dual and replace it with any other and expect
>>it to have the same pinout. This is not at all the case with the singles.
>
>Actually, as long as you don't use those _other_ pins, like 1, 5 and
>8, all singles are pin compatible. The other advantage to singles is
>that the per-device dissipation can be higher and this generally means
>that more bias current is available for either lower input noise
>voltage or better output drive. However, there are some good duals
>too, just not that many below 4nV/root Hz noise voltage.
There are actually quite a few singles with weird (non-741 style) pinouts,
including some of the higher performance beasts. Your point is very well
taken, however, and I agree that the better dissipation is a real advantage.
>Whatever you do, don't use quad op amps!! There are exactly 3 or 4
>good sounding quads out there and all of them are basically the same
>BiFET amp: the TL0[78]4. I'm stuck with a mixing console crammed with
>TL074 and to my knowledge, the AD713 is the only significant upgrade.
Sorry about that. Whatever you do, don't try the TI Excalibur series as
replacements. The numbers are nice, but the sound quality leaves something
to be desired.
Bob Groschen
In article <CyAL1...@world.std.com>, <mcg...@world.std.com> writes:
> Newsgroups: rec.audio.pro
>
> In article <kludgeCy...@netcom.com>,
> Scott Dorsey <klu...@netcom.com> wrote:
[Much discussion regarding op-amps deleted]
> If only Burr Brown would create a quad OPA604!! With 40mA idle
> dissipation, I guess you'd need a heatsink...
If you were to put these in your mixing console, you might consider liguid
cooling with some 3M Florinert... :-).
Regards,
Bob Groschen (rpgro...@mmm.com)
Data Cartridge Systems Laboratory
Memory Technologies Division
3M Co.
Standard Disclaimers apply here -->[X]
-------------------------------------------------
Why does a _Slight_ tax increase cost you $200 and
a _Substantial_ tax cut save you $0.30?
Kevin J. Shuholm
>
>
>Following up on:
>
>LA> ˙@FROM :lo...@ecst.csuchico.edu
>LA> ˙@UMSGID :<38kip2$o...@charnel.ecst.CSUChico.EDU>
>LA> ˙@UNEWSGR:01rec.audio.pro
>
>
>LA> I'm going to be building a preamp real soon, and the design spec
>LA> calls for the NE5532 (Signetics or equivalent). Any scoop on a ultra
>LA> low-noise op-amp that I could use in this application?
>
>AD OP275 (double) or AD OP176 (single). The AD OP 176 has some 10
>percent better specs. Use AD OP275 instead of '5532' and AD OP176
>instead of '5534' or LF 356 or just about anything else, except
>perhaps ultra-low noise mic preamps. If replacing 5534 with
The OP275 is a good choice for an input amp. However, it is not a 5532
replacement. In my searches, however, I've found the 275 to be
excellent as far as noise, thd, power consumption...But, as stated before, read the data sheets. As for the
OP176 vs the 5534 (essentially the same as the 275 vs 5532) if you are
using it for a line driver, be careful with the OP176. It does not have
near the ouput drive capability or the headroom that the 5534 does.
Kevin
\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\
Kevin Shuholm "If you think it's digital,
Grass Valley Group look closer. It's really
k...@gvgdsd.gvg.tek.com analog!"
Standard disclaimer: My employer is not responsible for my opinions.
\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\
Ralph Williams
>In article <38kip2$o...@charnel.ecst.CSUChico.EDU>,
>Loren Alldrin <lo...@ecst.csuchico.edu> wrote:
>>I'm going to be building a preamp real soon, and the design spec calls
>>for the NE5532 (Signetics or equivalent). Any scoop on a ultra low-noise
>>op-amp that I could use in this application?
>>
>>If I'm firing up my soldering iron to build something, I don't mind
>>spending a few bucks more for optimum performance. Please include any
>>sources, if you've got 'em.
>
sweet. Also Linear Tech LT1028 is highly rated. I think that
it's used in a Forte Preamp. It's very important to get an
amplifier with sufficient slwe rate.
If you were building a D/A converter, try using a video op amp
like the analog Devices AD829 or AD947.
Good Luck
--
All opinions expressed herein belong to me and not my employer.
Ralph Williams
ra...@thecoast.gvg.tek.com