Quote:
Originally Posted by Shopper /img/forum/go_quote.gif
No I don't have any "notions of house sound"; I heard this expression being used here and just related it to my prior impressions. No prejudice, you see.
As you may tell at this point, regarding subjectivism, and individualism, I'm a committed advocate of it as an objective trait of the human being - probably the only one we can tell. In particular, I'm fully conscious of being subjective and individual in my hearing (ok, well...sometimes I would need to remind it to myself )
So I'm proud and shameless in being wedded to my subjective and individual traits. Not that opening yourself up to 'the rest of the world' is substantially denied, not really! But firstly you need to fully realize, and come to terms with, your own peculiarity - or you can only remain caged in your own subjectiveness of perspective (and subsequent intolerances). Ok I've drifted a bit.
|
It seems like what's really going on here is that you're unhappy that I criticised your evaluative methodology, and so are responding by insinuating I simply lack the ability to make relevant analysis of the suitability of one chip or another for audio purposes in order to argue that somehow your methodology is sound and your evaluations accurate. This is a pretty unconvincing argument, overall, and is mostly just an ad hominem argument instead of a substantive defense of your methodology and does very little to address the issue of accuracy. I'm not sure what to make of your tangent on subjectivity and individuality but perhaps you dislike this 'scientific' approach because it appears to contain underlying deterministic elements which, when fused with a sensitivity to subjective performance, undermines an idea of people carrying individual, exclusive, and perhaps unique ownership of their preferences. Since what you're posting is almost patently incoherent at times, it's rather difficult to be sure this is the case, but that's the impression you've given me.
Science is fundamentally about mastery of the empirical universe, which includes subjective phenomena. Thus an analytical approach that involves science is relevant on the issue of subjective response. It's a matter of abstracting it to analysable data which can be used to obtain the desired results, not a matter of substituting something akin to my written response to you for the somatic elements of my hearing when I listen to music. It is simply not useful data or discourse for me to bother with using unclear subjectivist terms to describe amplifier performance, nor is it particularly useful or productive to act as though my senses will somehow transcend the physical limitations of these devices such that I can sense some (fictitious) essential character and render forth a description for all to bare witness to.
Thus, it remains the case that op-amps are sensitive devices, and some of them may have their performance shifted dramatically by environmental factors that seem negligible, or simply don't occur to the user, and may not necessarily impact the performance so dramatically with other chips. Responding by telling me that you're just relaying what you're hearing and that you have confidence in the designs of the Xenos and Go-Vibe products doesn't change that and, looking at those respective designs, doesn't provide a particularly compelling case that this issue is of negligble relevance. Responding by telling me I'm being too analytical and insinuating that I'm completely obtuse to the matter at hand simply insults the integrity of our discussion and essentially forces us to discuss irrelevant matters.
Quote:
Originally Posted by 12Bass /img/forum/go_quote.gif
Hmmm...... I've found what seems to be cleaner sound with more resolution with the LM4562 as compared to the NE5532. In comparison, the 5532 seems a bit lacking in detail in the highs, along with greater DC offset. LM4562 seems better in this regard.....
|
The Ib on the 4562
is lower, so sure you'd probably get lower offset. The NE5532 is quirkier to work with than the 4562 and is more sensitive to your decoupling/bypassing configuration, so it may be of some benefit to check that first before passing final judgment. Also, which 5532 did you use? There are a few variants out there and, due to some differences in the manufacturing process, performance is shifted somewhat as a result. I've found the TI part to work the best, although I know a lot of people seem to like the old Philips/Signetics (which I have, but have found kind of fuzzy sounding; possibly due to poor settling characteristics onset by a less refined manufacture process). Overall, though, I'm still mostly undecided between the 5532 and 4562 on which sounds better.
