[robjrock]

Quote:

Originally Posted by hopeless /img/forum/go_quote.gif Maybe you think its soundstage sucks because it has good midrange presence. Its crosstalk is very good, so there's no particular reason for it to sound "mono".

Perhaps.
To me other op amps provided 'eye opening' soundstage, while the OPA2132PA felt very narrow and 'pushed together' - but a lot of people love the 2132, so you know, YMMV and all that.
Could also have something to do with what circuit / equipment one has it in!

 

[hopeless]

Quote:

Originally Posted by robjrock /img/forum/go_quote.gif Perhaps. To me other op amps provided 'eye opening' soundstage, while the OPA2132PA felt very narrow and 'pushed together' - but a lot of people love the 2132, so you know, YMMV and all that. Could also have something to do with what circuit / equipment one has it in!

Yeah, sure. I know that it doesn't like too much high input impedances. I guess you did not use it in a DAC output stage.


Maybe it's not as good as the LM4562 I'm listening to right now, but it's good. The 2x OPA132UA should be even better.

BTW as a dual opamp I do love the LT1469... I will say I miss it a bit, but it had some little problem with the Super Pro's muting circuitry. If only they sent me those LT1632 and LT1678 to try...

 

[hopeless]

Given my satisfaction with the LM4562 (it's an opamp for all seasons - i.e. for all records), the LME49720HA will be the next (and logical) step. It worked very well before; I'm just curious to hear if it sounds as warm as the LM4562 inside this DAC, or more transparent but more sterile tonally? We'll see.

 

[Pluto2]

Hi majkel,

Have you ever compared LME49710 x2 on a Brown Dog with LME49860? I know you had pointed out LME49720 had some colder characters relatively. Wondered if 49710 x2 is same as 49720....anyone tried?

BTW, thanks guys for the advice I swapped the 12 LM4562s in my active 2-way crossover with eight LME49860s and four LT1358s (as the last opamp in each channel), and the results are great with improvement in every area - clarity, focus, spatial resolution, etc. Now voical is much sweeter and string instruments seemed more realistic : )

 

[hopeless]

Proving that no single opamp is "transparent", but paradoxically putting more & different opamps together in the signal path can yield a subjectively much better sound.

I say this for those who would blame a player or DAC for having an OPA627 in the signal path, when it may be the ideal solution when paired with other opamps with opposite/complementary sonic peculiarities, as often happens. That of matching different opamps is a delicate art.

BTW glad you like the LT1358 as I do. I'm sorry I've finished them, otherwise one would be inside my DAC in place of the LM4562 (which is good, but doesn't quite make me fall in love with the sound as happened with LT1358 and LT1469, and previously with the OPA211).


BTW of course LME49710 x2 must be a little better than a single LME49720, but they must be placed on individual sockets for single opamps, separately power supply bypassed, in order to make the most of them. I have two LME49710 working like that inside my SVDAC05.

On the other hand, if you use the LME49720HA, i.e. the T099 ...

 

[hopeless]

Think I will first try replacing the LM4562 with a LME49860. Last time I thought that the the LME49860 had a more 'saturated' sound especially in the mids.

What I don't entirely like is the "digital" sounding treble of the LME49860 especially. Here definitely the OPA2211 is going to be better

since the OPA211 was.

 

[Pluto2]

Hi hopless,

I thought you also liked LME49860 before, no?
Would you say LM49710 x 2 or LME49720HA or opa2211 could be a better match to LT1358 then?

 

[hopeless]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pluto2 /img/forum/go_quote.gif Hi hopless, I thought you also liked LME49860 before, no? Would you say LM49710 x 2 or LME49720HA or opa2211 could be a better match to LT1358 then?

Sure and I still like it. I think that you can't like one of the LM/LME's and then dislike the rest of the family.

They're sooo close to each other... (compared to how all the other different opamps are to each other)



Having said that, perhaps it's the LM4562 that's the better match for the LT1358. Why not try putting back the LM4562 where you have put the LME49860's and seeing how things change? I'd be curious to know the outcome...


Anyway the OPA2211 will also be a great match to the LT1358. Try and decide what you prefer. For me, I think that the sound of the OPA2211 (well, OPA211) is better than that of the National counterparts. I'm awaiting the adapters to use mine.




Later I might try the LME49860 again (as I said before) and if so I will tell you what I prefer for my DAC, though after all I'm still enjoying the LM4562 and not finding particular faults to it..


Wish I had another LT1469...

Oh... why don't you try to pair the LT1358 with the LT1469? It will work for sure...

 

[hopeless]

BTW also try the THS4052 (single: THS4051). It's a great sounding opamp, more natural than the THS4032, to use wherever 2.5 uA of Ib is not a problem.

 

[diditmyself]

Quote:

Originally Posted by hopeless /img/forum/go_quote.gif Sure and I still like it. I think that you can't like one of the LM/LME's and then dislike the rest of the family. They're sooo close to each other... (compared to how all the other different opamps are to each other)

LM4562=LME49720=LME49860... as said before

 

[Pluto2]

Thanks hopeless : )

Will try swapping the LM4562s back and see.

LT1469? How about LT1364 with LT1358?

 

[hopeless]

The LT1469 has the same low bias current of the various LM & LME, and also has great distortion specifications. It could be a great alternative (for me it is).



But...

I'm listening to the DAC with a LT1355 inside. This is the slowest of the LT13xx series (12 MHz and 400 V/us), and I feel that it possibly is the best

No matter the 1 mA of quiescent current... it sounds more "analog" than the LM4562 yet with an even nicer transient response. Leonard Cohen's Recent Songs just turned sweeter and more fascinating.


I remember that when I first tried it, in between 2x THS4031 and LT1358, I found the LT1355 to be more natural and "right" than the former, and also a bit less protagonist than the latter. In short... why did I overlook it? I guess I was fooled by it being "too slow" or "too low quiescent current", LOL.

Not that it's going to stay forever... probably. Too restless.

 

[hopeless]

Yeah, the LT1355 is fine sounding. Sounds warm yet open, sweet yet precise.

I think that the better capacitive load drive (less overshoot) might be its advantage over the even quicker brothers.

 

[hopeless]

While the SVDAC05 with its LME49710's is a bit more cozy in the upper midrange (typical of this opamp), the Super Pro now is a bit more open and direct. Small difference, and I like them to not sound identical. They both sound great.

 

[hopeless]

Has majkel fleed in shame? We did love his comments