0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic. Read 23691 times.
Hi Hugh and AllJust tinkering around again and finding out a bit more about one of my favorite products, the LM 4562 op amp; an op amp that was actually, horror of horrors, designed not just using theory, but by listening (heaven forbid). Found out some really high end stuff is using them biased into class A and with an emitter follower output stage capacitor coupled. Seems they recon the better capacitors these days are so good it is close to copper (I presume they mean stuff like the platinum sonicaps) and that in class A the LM 4562 is so good its not worth going discreet.Anyone any thoughts, observations, comments, ideas or whatever? Maybe something to consider for a future Aspen product?ThanksBill
That is not to condemn it, but until I've built one and listened extensively, I wouldn't like to say either way.Cheers,Hugh
Maybe we are better with the oldies, like the AD825, OPA637, OPA627 ?Gaetan
Quote from: bhobba on 21 Mar 2009, 04:40 amHi Bill,Have you seen any comparisons of the LM 4562 vs. other "popular" opamps? From memory, a middle-European guy with the moniker "DVV" used to post here and his site contains some comparative reviews ... although they must be 5-10 years old, now. He liked the AD826 as it had a good bass response. (But I've lost his website! )Regards,Andy Hi Andy, Dejan's site yes, he swears by the AD826 for everything and as a drop in for Marantz Cd players too, I always found his site somewhat misinformative especially when it came to overbiasing Class A/B amps but he did spend alot of time listening. Tangentsoft also has a comparison of OpAmps for headphone amp use. atleast most of the well known ones. After years of fiddling with opamps Ive learned there is no one since fits all, they all sound different, some subjectively better or worse, but this always changes based on application hence why discreet will never lose popularity among the pickiest. Ic's are damn easy to work with though, make designing a cinch but Ive always found every Ic benefits from a discreet buffer follower, always, even in a preamp to these ears..I tend to agree with Hugh these days in that the THD distribution is more important with a descent from the 2nd harmonic onward rather than a general THD figure which is very vague in all opamp datasheets. Colin
Hi Bill,Have you seen any comparisons of the LM 4562 vs. other "popular" opamps? From memory, a middle-European guy with the moniker "DVV" used to post here and his site contains some comparative reviews ... although they must be 5-10 years old, now. He liked the AD826 as it had a good bass response. (But I've lost his website! )Regards,Andy
Quote from: gaetan8888 on 22 Mar 2009, 06:42 amMaybe we are better with the oldies, like the AD825, OPA637, OPA627 ?GaetanCan you explain what the difference is between the AD825 & the AD826?Thanks,Andy
Hi gaetan,sorry, I can't give an opinion on the AD825 v LM4562. For what it's worth, the LM4562 is v good on 3D, soundstage and transparency but as I said above .......Jules
I'm using them in my CDP and while I agree about the transparency and soundstage, there's a certain amount of edginess in the top-end that I don't like all that much. They've been in there for nearly a year now and I'm quite used to them but based on my initial impression, I'll be replacing them audio-gd discrete component op-amps [similar to Burson devices]. Going back to what Hugh, gaetan and others have said, distortion seems a likely culprit.Jules
Page created in 0.089 seconds with 27 queries.