If you have the best dual op amps, why not use them?

[catman]

G'day all, I'm talking about LM4562 dual op amps which are by all accounts about the best of the present crop for audio use, at least judging by the data sheets!  So after doing a few wiring repairs on my existing DIY ESP P06 phono stage, I whipped out the existing dual op amps and put in two LM4562's from my existing stocks. 

 

Yeah it sounds pretty good and the hiss is noticeably less so I guess that I'll leave them in there.  I mean with 140 db open loop voltage gain, high slew rate (20 v/us) and ultra low noise and distortion (.00003% THD), they've got to be better, right?  Regards, Felix.      

Edited May 10, 2016 by catman

[Gruffnutz]

Yes, and absolutely perfect for that application.

[CraigS]

Note that the through-hole version of the LM4562 has been obsoleted.  So going forward only surface mount and metal can (expensive!) versions will be available.  

 

All in the brave new world of Texas Instruments' acquired businesses (National Semiconductor and Analog Devices).  Like the now-obsolete lowest noise pnp dual transistors available - the SSM2220 and MAT03 http://www.analog.com/media/en/PCN/ADI_PDN_16_0034_Rev_-_Form.pdf .  The MAT12 is still available at UKP18 *each* in metal can only.

[mwhouston]

Cost and are they a direct replacement for OPA2134?

[catman]

G'day mate, yes they are and they seem to be readily available from the usual online suppliers for the moment anyway.  Interestingly enough Element 14 (Farnell's) show the same device available at two different prices.  I'm not sure what that means.   They're not too expensive in any case!  Regards, Felix. 

Edited May 10, 2016 by catman

[CraigS]

Yes - they are compatible.  The OPA2134 has more voltage noise than an LM4562 (8nV/rootHz for OPA and 2.7nV for LM).  

 

The lowest noise opamp is the AD797 at 0.9nV/rootHz, but it is only a single opamp in a package - and is good enough for higher resistance moving coil cartridges all by itself (like the DL103).  For lower noise than that you have to go for a discrete transistor front end.

 

The originals for the ESP06 were NE5532, which has 5nV/rootHz, so broadly the LM4562 will be about 5dB quieter.  The other key thing is that the 1/f noise is lower with the LM, so there will be less low frequency noise.  Definitely a worthwhile upgrade for the ESP06.

[catman]

G'day mate, thanks for all that.  Whilst I really like the OPA2134 for a number of reasons, it is audibly quite 'hissy' in the P06.  I have actually discussed this with Rod Elliott who confirms this, but downplays its importance in actual playback, something that I don't really agree with.  As you say the use of LM4562's is a definite upgrade for the DIY ESP P06.  Regards, Felix.       

[CraigS]

For sure the LM4562 is a whole lot quieter than the OPA2134.  It is difficult to say precisely how much because of the rather complicated impedance character of a moving magnet cartridge, and then RIAA EQ.  

 

But, a useful figure of merit is the "noise factor" which compares the total noise from the cartridge connected to the amp to the thermal noise from the cartridge resistance alone.  For a typical moving magnet cartridge with 500 ohms resistance the noise factor for the OPA is 9.3dB - in other words the opamp+cartridge is 9.3dB noisier than the noise from the cartridge resistance alone.  For the LM it is 2.7dB (which is rather good).  So the upshot is that confirms that the OPA is 6.6dB noisier than the LM.  Which is very clearly audible - it is a major league difference.

 

What does this mean with a 5mV cartidge?  Well you multiply the total noise from amp+cart in nv/rootHz by the root of the frequency range, 20kHz.  For the OPA that is 8.5 * root(20,000) = 1.2uV, giving an SNR of 72dB.  A high quality 200g pressing with have an SNR approaching 80dB, so there is more noise from an OPA than is coming from the vinyl.  Same calculation for the LM gives SNR of 79dB, which is quiet enough not to degrade significantly the best pressings you can buy.

Edited May 10, 2016 by CraigS

[catman]

G'day mate, the cartridge that I mainly use is a Shure M97xE with a coil resistance of 1550 ohms.  That makes it a lot worse with the OPA2134 I think.  Regards, Felix. 

[CraigS]

I've just realised that there is another factor that can dominate - the input noise current.  That is tiny (3fA/rootHz) in the OPA because it is FET input, and irrelevant.  It is much higher for the LM because it is bipolar (1.6pA/rootHz), and contributes a bit to the noise.

 

For your fairly high resistance cartridge that makes the noise factors a closer run thing:

 

OPA2134 - 5.5dB

LM4562 - 1.9dB

 

So the LM is still 3.6dB quieter with your cartridge - still worthwhile

 

Since your high resistance cartridge is 1550 ohms, the noise from that is 5nV/rootHz and your cartridge is 4mV output - so the ultimate signal to noise ratio, if the amplifier was noiseless and all the noise came from a 1550 ohm resistor, is 75dB.  The LM degrades that to 75-1.9 = 73.1dB, and the OPA gives 75-5.5 = 69.5dB

 

The LM part is still worth that 3.6dB in my opinion, and a 1.9dB noise figure for your cartridge is about as good as you will get.

[Addicted to music]

Yes - they are compatible.  The OPA2134 has more voltage noise than an LM4562 (8nV/rootHz for OPA and 2.7nV for LM).  

 

The lowest noise opamp is the AD797 at 0.9nV/rootHz, but it is only a single opamp in a package - and is good enough for higher resistance moving coil cartridges all by itself (like the DL103).  For lower noise than that you have to go for a discrete transistor front end.

 

The originals for the ESP06 were NE5532, which has 5nV/rootHz, so broadly the LM4562 will be about 5dB quieter.  The other key thing is that the 1/f noise is lower with the LM, so there will be less low frequency noise.  Definitely a worthwhile upgrade for the ESP06.

Here's a pic of an AD797 and an OP27G utilised in a $6k preamp for the phono stage.

[Addicted to music]

Notice that noise is due to the resistance as the higher the value the higher the thermal noise. So the idea is to use resistors that are metal film and not carbon as this will effect your noise figure significantly. I do wonder about highly glamorised carbon resistors!

[CraigS]

Which phono stage is that?

[catman]

G'day all, yes this is all rather interesting if a little difficult to grasp.  On resistors, I've only ever used metal film types for noise reasons however it is interesting that at least with the OPA2134 datasheet it is suggested that resistor values around the op amp feedback loop are kept as low as practicable for noise reasons. 

 

Even Rod Elliott has mentioned that, and suggested scaling resistor/capacitor values for this reason.  Regards, Felix.   

Edited May 11, 2016 by catman

[Guest Muon]

Notice that noise is due to the resistance as the higher the value the higher the thermal noise. So the idea is to use resistors that are metal film and not carbon as this will effect your noise figure significantly. I do wonder about highly glamorised carbon resistors!

IMO it depends on the resistors, there are carbon film ones now that are very low noise, like Kiwame are touted to be lower noise than metal film types.

 

The claim has been there for many years now, and if it were false someone on would have exposed things if it was wrong, I imagine.

 

Have a few of these in my amp.

Edited May 11, 2016 by Muon

[Addicted to music]

IMO it depends on the resistors, there are carbon film ones now that are very low noise, like Kiwame are touted to be lower noise than metal film types.

 

The claim has been there for many years now, and if it were false someone on would have exposed things if it was wrong, I imagine.

 

Have a few of these in my amp.

Interesting reading:

http://www.eetimes.com/document.asp?doc_id=1272283

And:

[Guest Muon]

Carbon comp' resistors is a total different kettle of fish.

 

That's another reason I like Kiwame, rated to 750vdc max, so along with their very low noise characteristic they are suitable for most applications....if you like their sound character

 

Edit: I notice part of it has no reference and states "citation needed" 

 

And in the context of this thread, I can't see voltages of anything that would upset a resistor that has a max voltage rating of 750vdc. Mind you, I have 2w Kiwame resistors across the Mundorf power filter caps that are in series in my EL34 amp, been there for years with 450vdc and higher peaks at switch on. Hmm...need to dust again

 

You are championing the plight of the metal film resistor, no problems, I get that.

Edited May 11, 2016 by Muon

[CraigS]

Good article by Bruce Hofer linked below.  Hofer cut his teeth designing parts of the Tektronix 7000-series scopes back in the 70's.  He then set up Audio Precision, which manufactures the best audio measurement systems in the world http://www.ap.com/ .  Because part of these astonishing measurement devices measures distortion at 0.00014% over 22kHz.  To achieve that needs bewildering attention to detail in passive components.

 

Darn - AP have in the last few days decided that you have to register to download the file!  Attached my earlier copy.Designing_for_Ultra-Low_THD_N.pdf

[Guest Muon]

Pity our member Susan isn't very active, she designs scientific measurement equipment for a living.

[Guest Muon]

Anyway, in my opinion lowest noise does not always represent best sound.

[catman]

G'day mate, really?  I ask myself this very question frequently and in all honesty I don't really know.  I think that I would rather have less noise than more noise.  Regards, Felix.   

[Guest Muon]

G'day mate, really?  I ask myself this very question frequently and in all honesty I don't really know.  I think that I would rather have less noise than more noise.  Regards, Felix.   

If the noise is audible I might agree.

 

But I won't sacrifice tonality or something else I regard as important for a realistic reproduction for lower noise just for the sake of the numbers.

[CraigS]

Although I tend to analysis as a starting point, the component which has revolutionised my system is using an LDR passive pre.  Looked at from a measurement perspective it is lousy - cadmium sulphide photocells are not anything like as linear as a good opamp by a good margin. So it should not sound as good - right?  Wrong - it sounds better by a country mile than any of the resistive passive pre's I've used, or Audio Research pre's (one of which I still have).

 

I have no idea why that should be the case - which is kind of frustrating, but there it is!

 

One of these http://www.tortugaaudio.com/ but made from a kit of bits that he supplies, rather than a complete product.

[Zaphod Beeblebrox]

Whilst OP amps have certainly come a very long way since the 709 and 741 OP amps of my youth, I would argue that ALL OP amps are fundamentally hamstrung by the huge amounts of global NFB used in all audio configurations. I prefer zero global NFB amplification stages where possible. I suspect others share my view.

Edited May 11, 2016 by Zaphod Beeblebrox

[Guest Muon]

Whilst OP amps have certainly come a very long way since the 709 and 741 OP amps of my youth, I would argue that ALL OP amps are fundamentally hamstrung by the huge amounts of global NFB used in all audio configurations. I prefer zero global NFB amplification stages where possible. I suspect others share my view.

*Puts hand up*

 

Not a fan of global neg' feedback, and I assume in the content of an opamp it is global in that circuit itself if looking at it alone?

 

local neg' feedback in valve amps I'm OK with but not global. Edit: i should say that GNFB is not my preferred.

Edited May 11, 2016 by Muon