[leeperry]

yes apparently AD8599 is killer, but I'm not willing to pay $40 of shipping costs to Europe..

humm I think I'd prefer the 2604 over the 2111 as buffer, bass is great but the mids sound recessed as hell...more rolling to come

 

[ROBSCIX]

Quote:

Originally Posted by 12Bass /img/forum/go_quote.gif Will have to try OPA1611/12 and see if they are different than OPA211/2211A. I suspect not, though I've not looked into what the numbers say.... After listening a bit more, I'm wondering if some of the comments about the OPA2211A having a somewhat recessed midrange might be true. Though it's really difficult to say due to the time between chips and all of the other variables. I do think it sounds better than the LM4562 with my K702s. However, my Energy Pro22 speakers are already a little lean in some parts of the midrange. I recall when I was testing a number of op amps in my Eden bass amp that the LM4562 did a particularly nice job of clearly reproducing the midrange. When I would swap in another chip, the "voice" of my bass would become less apparent. As I recall, I thought that the OP2211A did as well or better, but sounded more open and organic, and had a bit more roundness in the lows. Still have LME49860, AD797, ADA4898-1, and maybe even LME49722 around waiting to be tested. Ack! Oh, and about the AD8599, while I've found many or the AD op amps to be somewhat forward sounding, perhaps even tending toward edgy, IMO, the AD8599 sounds quite smooth and mellow, with a nice roundness throughout. Not harsh at all, at least in my experience.

I built dual 1611's the other day and they sounded quite good from just intial testing. -Meaning basic listening test to verify they work as built.
I find the LME4562NA is a good chip but you can find ones that may be better matches for certain setups. The LM/LME series is like others, some like them and some do not. The LME49860 is fairly good going from memory. AD797 is another favorite of a few around here in one form or another.

I find some of AD's opamps can sound very forward and agressive -if that is the right word. I guess by your post your using the AD8599 as buffer. I only tested them for I/V position. I have a few new circuits to play with so I have to build some new units for testing in these also.
What are your thoughts on the AD8620, or dual AD8610, if you have tested them?

 

[ecclesand]

Quote:

Originally Posted by 12Bass /img/forum/go_quote.gif Oh, and about the AD8599, while I've found many or the AD op amps to be somewhat forward sounding, perhaps even tending toward edgy, IMO, the AD8599 sounds quite smooth and mellow, with a nice roundness throughout. Not harsh at all, at least in my experience.

This mirrors my impression of the AD8599. Very smooth...almost polite. If you want the music in your face, these are not the opamps for you. The AD8620 is a bit more kicking with a punchy deep bottom end, however, I felt the highs were a little rolled off.

 

[leeperry]

I'm still undecided on what to use as a buffer between the two LT1364(used as AK4396 LPF) and the JRC4580 used to drive my phones...LME49722? OPA211? OPA192U? LT1361? ahhhhhh, the OPA2111 retains the holographic vocals of the LT1364 but the sound has lost some sparkle and earned some analog-like warmth...maybe it isn't such a bad deal, it doesn't sound like computer audio anymore, more like HiFi..

I just want a bassy chip to get my mid-bass back from the 1364, which the 2111 achieves nicely...stock was 2604 btw.

PS: ooops, wrong pick...the LME49722 sounds terrible as buffer on my board...whiney/resonant/artificial as a 49720NA, god I hate that 4562ish sound

 

[12Bass]

Sorry, no experience with AD8610/20. Got the impression it was somewhat harsh, so I didn't bother with it. Most of my applications also require chips that can take +/- 18V.

As for AD8599, it's a bit too mellow for me, as I like a bit more detail/sparkle.

 

[Cynips]

Quote:

Originally Posted by ROBSCIX /img/forum/go_quote.gif Very true. That is why this thread is really only about subjective opinion. We all have to test for ourselves of the unit in question. Add to the that everybody is using different circuits, applicaitons and playback gear..etc. I figured when I started this thread it would be a good place for people to post what units they are working with and which ones are new or worth checking out. That's all this thread is, a bunch of people testing and talking about opamps.

That said, I find it extremely interesting to find patterns where people with somehow similar setups reach similar conclusions - or cases where conclusions differ while setups also differ. I'm talking of what we're all trying to do here, reading about other peoples experiences and trying to figure out if that could be something for you to try out.

I'm very intrigued by the difference in opinion about the LT1057 and LT1364. It is apparent that setups differ, but exactly what is the significant factor (if possible to discern just one or a few) determining this pattern? Maybe I'll never find out, but that doesn't make in any less interesting

 

[Apocalypsee]

My own analog out just got better, I lift the ground from it to the power supply and just leave it float just like that and voila! Not even a single noise/buzzing/hissing comes out when I put the volume to max (no music is playing of course). Now for some serious test on LT1677 vs LT1363.

What I found is LT1363 have much deeper soundstage, and render vocal much more beautifully (more fluid and softer) than LT1677, while LT1677 gives detail on the background much more clearer (more treble?) and much more 'present' feel than LT1363, its like precision tool giving detail without sibilance. Its more like LME49720 but without being airy and too wide and artificial soundstage. But the 49720 is not as bad as 4562, which sounds way too rough and edgy (but 4562 tested on different card, XtremeMusic on CS4382 DAC and +-5V supply).

I thinking of taking NE5534 for another spin, but nah, LT1677 gets my pick

 

[SpudHarris]

Ok, after so much talk of the LT1677's I thought I'd give them another chance but change the buffer and ground set up and man what a difference it has made.... I will do some listening today whilst out and some critical listening this evening, but at present it's looking good.

 

[leeperry]

I wonder if the 8599/1028 would give that same holographic sound to vocals as the 1364...the 1678 clearly does not.

 

[Apocalypsee]

Dang, after been using it for about an hour or so, my ear started to hurt, there is too much treble i guess. Looks like LT1677 don't have the synergy with my system after all. I wonder if there is any opamp that have the detail like LT1677 and great vocal and soundstage of LT1363? Maybe I should try AD744 or AD797 next?

 

[ROBSCIX]

Quote:

Originally Posted by ecclesand /img/forum/go_quote.gif This mirrors my impression of the AD8599. Very smooth...almost polite. If you want the music in your face, these are not the opamps for you. The AD8620 is a bit more kicking with a punchy deep bottom end, however, I felt the highs were a little rolled off.

I have only used them for I/V conversion on the advice of another member.
I have yest to test them for single ended buffer.

 

[ROBSCIX]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cynips /img/forum/go_quote.gif That said, I find it extremely interesting to find patterns where people with somehow similar setups reach similar conclusions - or cases where conclusions differ while setups also differ. I'm talking of what we're all trying to do here, reading about other peoples experiences and trying to figure out if that could be something for you to try out. I'm very intrigued by the difference in opinion about the LT1057 and LT1364. It is apparent that setups differ, but exactly what is the significant factor (if possible to discern just one or a few) determining this pattern? Maybe I'll never find out, but that doesn't make in any less interesting

That is the trouble as the impressions can only go so far. People are using different circuits and different setups. Add to that personal tastes and you can get a wide variety of opinions. However, I find for the most part opinions are generally the same to some extent. I find when the odd opinion differs there is some other reason for it. I use opinions here as guide posts...never as hard and fast truths about any unit.

 

[ROBSCIX]

Quote:

Originally Posted by 12Bass /img/forum/go_quote.gif Sorry, no experience with AD8610/20. Got the impression it was somewhat harsh, so I didn't bother with it. Most of my applications also require chips that can take +/- 18V. As for AD8599, it's a bit too mellow for me, as I like a bit more detail/sparkle.

I have tested the AD8620 and that has a place in my collection. I am thinking of building some dual AD8610's as per suggestion of another member.
I have yet to test the 8599 in any detail...only ever tried it for I/V....

 

[you stink :)]

For the much talked-of LT1363: this one is soothing to listen to, but after a long listen it just lacks the ultimate transparency. I'm terribly enjoying it in my 24V evolved CMOY (driving my HD238), though.

Regarding the recently-talked-of LT1677: this one has the ultimate transparency and sounds quite good overall. However, the LT1028CS8 has a more pacey bass and a more interesting tonality, so the crown must go to the latter.


I wish I had some SMD LT1115 (do they even exist SMD? Too lazy to check) to compare and contrast with the LT1028. When I used the LT1115 (DIP) in my SVDAC05, I thought it sounded fine.

 

[ecclesand]

I also enjoy the LT1028, but I have them in the DIP8 version...the LT1028ACN8. I don't like the clumsy BD adapter I have to use so last night I bought some LT1028CS8 in the SOIC package. I'm looking forward to their arrival.