BUF634 vs HA5002 buffers in headphone amp ?
Jul 29, 2003 at 5:16 PM Thread Starter Post #1 of 23
gurevise

gurevise

New Head-Fier
Joined
May 27, 2003
Posts
6
Likes
0
Guys,
What are your thoughts on these two buffers ?
I see that HA5002 is used a lot in headphone amps.
What about BUF634 ? It has a nice specs, at least on paper.
Is HA5002 really much better sounding IC then BUF634 ?
Let me know what you think. Thanks

BUF634 is easity available from digikey.com
HA5002 is harder to get/order

Thanks
Sergey
 
Jul 29, 2003 at 9:16 PM Post #2 of 23
I believe this has been asked an covered quite a bit in earlier threads, doing a search will probably get you a much better selection of opinions than just this thread. These are the two buffers that the META42 v3 will have to use, and I think the PPA is using the HA5002.
 
Jul 30, 2003 at 5:26 AM Post #3 of 23
It's my understanding that the BUF634 has been used far more, historically, than the HA-5002. The 5002 might look popular right now, but only because the PPA has brought it to people's attention recently, not because it has enjoyed long popularity like the 634.

The 5002 is readily available from Newark. You can order from them just as easily as DigiKey. It's cheaper, and yes, I do personally find it to sound better than the 634. The downsides are its strange pinout, lack of output protection, and high supply current.

The 634 sounds good, espeically if you like the Burr-Brown sound, but if you like more transparency it's not as good. They're relatively expensive. It's nice that they are available in so many package types; the HA-5002 is technically available in packages other than DIP, but Newark doesn't offer all of them, so you end up chasing around more to get them. Also, the metal can packaged HA-5002s are much more expensive than the comparable TO-220 BUF634s. I like them better for small amps because the SO-8 version is easy enough to get, and the low default quiescent current is much better than the 5002's. For big amps, you can scale the BUF634 up if you want. I also like the fact that it uses the single-channel op-amp pinout, so you could put an op-amp in their place in an emergency.
 
Jul 30, 2003 at 6:59 AM Post #4 of 23
just wanna say that after hearing the el2009 buffers on the ppa everything else sounds like crap...the buf634s sound somewhat muffled ...i guess is the word ....
 
Jul 31, 2003 at 9:43 AM Post #5 of 23
I was also wondering about the BUF634 and the HA5002, especially when the BUF634 is in wide bandwidth mode does it improve its transparency? thanks for the read tangent

xtreme4099, that must be one amazing ppa, just wondering how many buffers was it using?
 
Jul 31, 2003 at 9:54 AM Post #6 of 23
Quote:

when the BUF634 is in wide bandwidth mode does it improve its transparency?


Yes, it does, but it isn't a dramatic improvement. The 5002 is simply a more transparent buffer.
 
Jul 31, 2003 at 10:54 AM Post #7 of 23
phil put 3 - el2009's on that thing with heatsinks ....sounded mightee fine ..... like crap thats clear....
 
Jul 31, 2003 at 6:05 PM Post #9 of 23
Just fine in all likelihood, it's been done several times before.
 
Aug 14, 2003 at 10:57 AM Post #11 of 23
alas its too bad you cant stack el2009s ... i wonder how that would sound ... *dreams*
 
Aug 14, 2003 at 11:13 AM Post #12 of 23
Quote:

Originally posted by zbuddah
I was also wondering about the BUF634 and the HA5002, especially when the BUF634 is in wide bandwidth mode does it improve its transparency? thanks for the read tangent


I have tested my AD8610/BUF634 amp with medium speed and high speed mode and my opinion here is that the difference is very, very, very little. I can't hear any difference at all. Interesting if anyone can pick this in a blind test.

I have made it easy to switch mode. I have a jumper on the pcb so the switching can be made fast.

But still, it feels better to run it in high speed mode, I don't deny that.
 
Aug 14, 2003 at 11:21 AM Post #13 of 23
hmmm... interesting ... also peranders ive been wondering what that avatar of yours is on diyaudio.com ... it looks like a @#$% but it isnt ...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 2 (members: 0, guests: 2)
Back
Top