When I post my last video on review of Douk A5 amplifier, I mentioned that rolling (changing) op-amp ICs in there is fruitless. I got have a dozen comments under that video in youtube asking why so I thought I experiment again with the A5. Note that I have done the same testing with both DACs and Power Amplifiers and found the change to not make a difference. But let's see if the results are different this time.
The Douk A5 makes this job both easy and hard. It is easy because you can just lift the plexiglass and replace the op-amps. The difficulty was replacing the standard TI NE5532P opamp with the discrete Sonic Imagery Labs as it was too larger to fit in there. I pushed the adjacent caps more than I was comfortable with to get it to fit. Fortunately it worked.
There is a massive cost difference with the stock NE5532P costing US 57 cents in single quantity compared to minimum of $49 I found for the Sonic Imagery 994Enh-Ticha dual opamp. You would need two of them for stereo operation which would represent a premium that matches that of the amplifier itself! Here is a close up shot the 994Enh-Ticha:
As you see in the above picture, i decided to replace the right channel (Ch 2 below) and left left channel (Ch 1) the same. That way we can compare the two channels simultaneously under the same environmental situation. Amplifiers are temperature sensitive and shutting down to replace the opamp and powering back up would have created another variable. Alas, there is also channel to channel variations so the testing is not 100% exact but very close as you see below.
Opamp Rolling Measurements
Here is our usual dashboard:
As we see the performance is the same with SINAD which sums noise and distortion. This is of course at one power level so let's sweep the input voltage and measure at all power levels up to clipping:
There is the tiniest gap between the two but that may just be variations between channels. Even if it weren't so, it is a miniscule difference.
Maybe the differences becomes more visible if we use other frequencies than 1 kHz represented above:
I have zoomed into this graph to make differences larger. Dashed line is the Sonic Imagery discrete op-amp. We see that both at 15 kHz and at less than 500 Hz, the discrete amplifier is actually worse! But again, that could be variations between channels.
I wanted to investigate that a bit more so ran a couple of FFTs at both 100 Hz and 1 kHz:
The profile of distortion changes but not the high-order message that any difference is relegated to high order harmonics that are at or below threshold of hearing.
Discussion And Conclusions
It is natural to assume that the much more expensive, larger and fancier hand-made opamp IC would do better. All is not as it seems. An integrated circuit (IC) benefits from high precision components and even components that cannot be instantiated using discrete parts. Path lengths are also shorter allowing for better optimization of the design. Mass production using automated systems follows up by sharply reducing its cost.
On the other hand ICs can be subject to thermal coupling where rise in temperature in one part of the IC can negatively impact the performance of the rest of the IC. This doesn't apply here because the opamp is used at the front-end of the amplifier that is not attempting to produce power (only acts as a buffer and/or gain stage). Importantly, there is feedback that is used to correct the non-linearities in the op-amp. This correction highly linearizes both discrete and integrated op-amps as to almost erase any signature of the original part. This is why we don't see much difference in measurements.
People report improvements in sound and with it justify the upgrade. As members of this forum well know, such listening tests are improper. Testing must be controlled to exclude all extraneous (non audible) factors. When done, the measurements powerfully predict no audible difference. Indeed, I only know of one research paper that dug into sonic differences in op-amps and that only happened when the opamp was vastly overdriven.
Finally, I am not saying that all opamps are the same. There are countless ones for a reason. But unless you have instrumentation such as I am using, you have no prayer of knowing if a change improves anything. Or worse yet, made things worse. Here are the results form the DAC test:
There we do see a bit of differentiation but not enough to bother with any of this.
Net, net, leave the engineering to well, engineers!
But a performant audio product and use it as is. Don't risk damaging and spend money on something that has essentially no chance of doing you any good.
Video version available as well:
EDIT: Part 2 with Sparkos SS3602 and Fosi V3 Mono amplifier posted as well: https://www.audiosciencereview.com/...-rolling-using-sparkos-on-fosi-v3-mono.61903/
------------
As always, questions, comments, recommendations, etc. are welcome.
Any donations are much appreciated using: https://www.audiosciencereview.com/forum/index.php?threads/how-to-support-audio-science-review.8150/
The Douk A5 makes this job both easy and hard. It is easy because you can just lift the plexiglass and replace the op-amps. The difficulty was replacing the standard TI NE5532P opamp with the discrete Sonic Imagery Labs as it was too larger to fit in there. I pushed the adjacent caps more than I was comfortable with to get it to fit. Fortunately it worked.
There is a massive cost difference with the stock NE5532P costing US 57 cents in single quantity compared to minimum of $49 I found for the Sonic Imagery 994Enh-Ticha dual opamp. You would need two of them for stereo operation which would represent a premium that matches that of the amplifier itself! Here is a close up shot the 994Enh-Ticha:
As you see in the above picture, i decided to replace the right channel (Ch 2 below) and left left channel (Ch 1) the same. That way we can compare the two channels simultaneously under the same environmental situation. Amplifiers are temperature sensitive and shutting down to replace the opamp and powering back up would have created another variable. Alas, there is also channel to channel variations so the testing is not 100% exact but very close as you see below.
Opamp Rolling Measurements
Here is our usual dashboard:
As we see the performance is the same with SINAD which sums noise and distortion. This is of course at one power level so let's sweep the input voltage and measure at all power levels up to clipping:
There is the tiniest gap between the two but that may just be variations between channels. Even if it weren't so, it is a miniscule difference.
Maybe the differences becomes more visible if we use other frequencies than 1 kHz represented above:
I have zoomed into this graph to make differences larger. Dashed line is the Sonic Imagery discrete op-amp. We see that both at 15 kHz and at less than 500 Hz, the discrete amplifier is actually worse! But again, that could be variations between channels.
I wanted to investigate that a bit more so ran a couple of FFTs at both 100 Hz and 1 kHz:
The profile of distortion changes but not the high-order message that any difference is relegated to high order harmonics that are at or below threshold of hearing.
Discussion And Conclusions
It is natural to assume that the much more expensive, larger and fancier hand-made opamp IC would do better. All is not as it seems. An integrated circuit (IC) benefits from high precision components and even components that cannot be instantiated using discrete parts. Path lengths are also shorter allowing for better optimization of the design. Mass production using automated systems follows up by sharply reducing its cost.
On the other hand ICs can be subject to thermal coupling where rise in temperature in one part of the IC can negatively impact the performance of the rest of the IC. This doesn't apply here because the opamp is used at the front-end of the amplifier that is not attempting to produce power (only acts as a buffer and/or gain stage). Importantly, there is feedback that is used to correct the non-linearities in the op-amp. This correction highly linearizes both discrete and integrated op-amps as to almost erase any signature of the original part. This is why we don't see much difference in measurements.
People report improvements in sound and with it justify the upgrade. As members of this forum well know, such listening tests are improper. Testing must be controlled to exclude all extraneous (non audible) factors. When done, the measurements powerfully predict no audible difference. Indeed, I only know of one research paper that dug into sonic differences in op-amps and that only happened when the opamp was vastly overdriven.
Finally, I am not saying that all opamps are the same. There are countless ones for a reason. But unless you have instrumentation such as I am using, you have no prayer of knowing if a change improves anything. Or worse yet, made things worse. Here are the results form the DAC test:
There we do see a bit of differentiation but not enough to bother with any of this.
Net, net, leave the engineering to well, engineers!
But a performant audio product and use it as is. Don't risk damaging and spend money on something that has essentially no chance of doing you any good.Video version available as well:
EDIT: Part 2 with Sparkos SS3602 and Fosi V3 Mono amplifier posted as well: https://www.audiosciencereview.com/...-rolling-using-sparkos-on-fosi-v3-mono.61903/
------------
As always, questions, comments, recommendations, etc. are welcome.
Any donations are much appreciated using: https://www.audiosciencereview.com/forum/index.php?threads/how-to-support-audio-science-review.8150/
Last edited:
