Opa1612 vs opa1656. OPA1656 sounded worst, Muses 8920 sounded best.

Opa1612 vs opa1656. OPA1656 sounded worst, Muses 8920 sounded best.

Opa1612 vs opa1656. Mar 5, 2020 · I was using opa1656 with fosi v3 ever since I got the uni. I do some current sense functions in power amplifiers using RRIO op amps with low offset. Jul 4, 2009 · Opa1692 actually has a lower CMRR anywhere from 120-140 dB (according to Mouser) vs Opa1656. Tried putting in opa1612 today. Jan 27, 2024 · The advantage of OPA1656 is that it has JFET inputs rather than bipolar, so its input bias current is much lower, making it easier to keep the output DC offset low in some applications. May 9, 2023 · Which of the two mentioned OP Amps (OPA1612 or OPA1656) is the better one, in a scientific point of view. Feb 11, 2021 · As Mark pointed out OPA1612 is a terrific sounding opamp Someone expressing his subjective listening impression doesn't mean it's actually the case, unless he posts measurements along with it as supporting evidence. Jul 4, 2009 · from what i read the CMOS design has a clear advantage in high impedance loads (for example compared to the famous OPA1612) and im wondering if this is the reason it sounds so good with my 10k ohm input impedance studio monitors/speakers i will compare the following days the Burson V6 Vivid with the OPA1656 Jul 4, 2009 · By newer I meantnewer, because OPA1612 is a newer design then let's say NE5532 or even LM4562. Mar 17, 2019 · Last week TI put a preliminary datasheet online for the OPA1656, a low noise, very low distortion op amp targeting audio applications and fabricated in a Jul 4, 2009 · There is a paper out there that I read online comparing the Opa1656 to Opa1612. OPA1656 sounded worst, Muses 8920 sounded best. com with a TI insider involved. OPA1612 is one the most low-noise opamps ever built, so totally recommended for unity-gain stages (LPF or output stage of a DAC, but also I/V stage too). Jul 26, 2020 · I agree with you, OPA1612 is really good regarding details resolution, OPA1656 has the best of both world : ultra high definition regarding micro details and very neutral but still warm. I don't care about listening tests or something else, just want to use the technical better one in my amp. The NE5532 is used everywhere as its sound profile is designed to catch people's attention. For being itself, opa1642/opa2140 is pretty good. Dec 11, 2019 · The OPA1656 immediately raised my attention, plus there was/is a long thread about it on diyaudio. Dynamics felt better, bass felt more defined and the upper midrange seems to have more air. 15ppm, intermodulation way below that, 1. Soundstage and placement felt more solid. It's best use as an alternative to opa1612 when noise is not a big concern. Feb 28, 2021 · However, I won't swap to an OPA1612 because I am sufficiently happy with the LM4562 performance. I believe that range is determined by the DAC chips specs so that’s a factor! May 23, 2018 · Opa1656 and opa1612 without tweaking have better performance than almost any discrete solution. Dry, crisp, analytical and non-intrusive (as compared to the bold NE5532) is what I would describe this opamp as. It’s also a lot quieter and has a faster slew rate (I believe). . If I remember correctly in some areas the Opa1656 outperforms the Opa1612 however, CMOS still don’t outperform across the frequency spectrum because CMOS aren’t at ultra low noise levels that bi polar can easily perform from in-put current and output noise??? Mar 17, 2019 · CMRR is not a big issue. Mar 17, 2019 · Hi John I used previously in IV convertor (current DAC) the OPA1612 with good tested results . IMHO the outcome was mostly decided by how the opamps responded to the RF coming out of the dac chip. Feb 11, 2021 · That's why I prefer the OPA1656 and don't really think of the OPA2156 as an audio amplifier. The OP1656 is the exact opposite, while still being detailed. 1nV/root Hz at 1kHz with a 10Hz 1/f corner and will cheerfully drive 600 ohms. Dual customized solution will give unmeasurable distortion (possibly -180db). Composite amplifier is one of the best application with opa1656. For the case of. I felt a great improvement overall. However I am considering a new DAC and its IV stage (low current output) and I am looking at OPA1656 (fet input is an advantage) My question is , what do you consider the most important parameters on IV convertors , slew rate , settling time , bandwidth. The OPA1642 is “one step down” but still very highly rated, and it is JFET-input which should give a low enough DC-offset to be used directly in this kind of application. I also swapped an LM4562 into the tone control circuitry at the same time as replacing a failed bass potentiometer. Mar 17, 2019 · We tried OPA1612, OPA1656, NE5532, and Muses 8920 opamps in Rohm BD34301EKV Evaluation Board (which came with 5532's installed). May 21, 2023 · One consequence is their stage is slightly narrow, however they have a significant amount of lower midrange warmth, better midbass than the OPA1612, and more midrange detail. Opa1656 has good phase response at high frequency. It's a killer OpAmp, and better suited to non-inverting buffer duties than the OPA1612/2211 Hello, op amp rolling can be really a nice sport specially some more modern popping up. Transparency got way better. Taking into account cheapness of these opamps I would like to test them before going for discrete, could you reply to the following? 1. You should be able to find single-to-dual Mar 17, 2019 · I'm using the OPA1612 dual opamp in a commercial design. Harmonic distortion <0. Apr 5, 2021 · From what I know the OPA1656 is currently the highest-spec audio grade standard opamp that TI offers. djknh z6s bbl rcaj sb 7dg v5 2uuc wz1df 0cwe8