Sparkos SS3602 Opamp Rolling In Fosi P4

[Fleuch]

looks like the Sparkos SS3602 performs well. thanks.

.... but only as well as the NE5532P for many $$ less!! Another advantage is other components on the board do not have to be bent (or broken) to insert the discrete op amp in the socket, for example in the Fosi V3 where the Sparkos is a very tight fit. It can be done but why, when the NE5532P provides the same measurements for less than a $ ?

 

[D700]

 

[sealman]

Once again we are at 70+ dollars of added cost for no gain.

Since we are rating the article and not an opamp any of the 4 options to the poll could be correct regardless of your point of view on opamps performance.

 

[Multicore]

So far, we have tested these discreet opamps in both high-end and budget power amplifiers and a DAC. Suggestion was made to test in this pre-amp as that removes the variable of output stage swamping differences in opamps. So here we are.

Indeed we are and I am sure that this time, thanks to your instrumentation, care and diligence, the controversy will finally be over and we can move on from opamp rocking and tube rolling. Your duty to the cause is admirable, Amir.

 

[Multicore]

Once again we are at 70+ dollars of added cost for no gain.

Nah. Amir has a Sparkos module and is shuffling around equipment racks day and night muttering "What can I put my precious in next?"

 

[Multicore]

NE5532 is an audiophile's worst nightmare. Something as venerable and performant can't possibly be so ubiquitous and affordable.

I know. Like copper conductors, there's something indecent about it being that simple.

 

[gamerpaddy]

Conclusion, for the price of one Sparkos SS3602 I can buy 160 X NE5532P. Marketing makes us dream)

or just slap 40 NE5532 per channel onto a board directly and use it straight as an amplifier. for less than a single sparko
its only 20w tho and gets pretty toasty but performs good enough for me

( i know wrong scaling and horrible measurement hardware :/)

 

[Joe Smith]

Glad I ended my swapping by just trying some 4562's in place of the 5532's in some of the D amps. I was initially interested in the discrete amps, but the free ones I got from Burson cured me of thinking I would be able to perceive any difference. happy to leave well enough alone...

(What with the new tariff war, glad all of my hardware is in a good place, and just got an iPhone 16 from Verizon with a trade in for very little cost. No need for new cars at present, either. Planning on buying less and less for the near future...)

 

[Lambda]

.... but only as well as the NE5532P for many $$ less!! Another advantage is other components on the board do not have to be bent (or broken) to insert the discrete op amp in the socket, for example in the Fosi V3 where the Sparkos is a very tight fit. It can be done but why, when the NE5532P provides the same measurements for less than a $ ?

But the NE5532 is already an excellent audio op-amp for this application.
Making a small discrete part with equal performance is an engineering achievement.


That's like comparing a mechanical wristwatch to one with a quartz oscillator and saying the "mechanical watch is only as precise as the quartz watch."
Of course the mass-produced micro-mechanical etched quartz oscillator is more precise...


Same with the monolithic integrated amplifier.


We have <$100 DACs that are audibly exactly as good as $600 or more DACs, but still everyone is excited about a new chart-topper.
Because SINAD is a proxy for engineering excellence. And pulling this off with discrete components is a way bigger engineering achievement.

 

[Bartez2000]

I wonder where the audible differences in YouTube videos come from. Because I hear these differences, I hear clearer transients, and it turns out that even the frequency curve does not change. In a blind test, despite it being YouTube, you can hear changes, could it be that the reviewers manipulated the recordings? Surprising and interesting. Or is there something more that we do not measure but hear? One thing is for sure, some reviewers are sellers or brokers.

Amir, you are great! Thank you!

 

[pma]

Manipulation with files. The YouTube clips are unreliable source of information.

 

[Herbert Shooler]

This gets better I always learn from Amir, a master of truth, someone who sane audiophiles should regard as a prophet,but the best kind of prophet who uses science, audio science. Thankyou Amir

 

[staticV3]

I wonder where the audible differences in YouTube videos come from.

Please send a link to one such video with audible changes and I'll take a closer look using Deltawave.

It's important that the same track/section of track is played back with different Opamps.

 

[taner]

Not for these amps, no.

I really, really like having the OPA1641 family in my quiver, though - I have no idea if they're appropriate for Fosi's design, naturally. Likely not.

I'm particularly fond of the OPA1641 in the OPA Alice microphone impedance converter circuit, where their lower noise and lower power requirements let you use them with phantom power. The NE5532's power requirements are just too high (shocker! Old chip uses more power!)

Sure, the OPA1641 cost several times what an NE5532 does, but at ~$1.25 each @ DigiKey, at the quantities I'd buy/use, shipping is going to be the killer, not the part cost.

Now: Would the NE5532's 0.002% THD vs the OPA1641's 0.00005% THD matter? For a microphone, yes, but that's largely because it's the first stage in a string of high-gain pre-amps on the way from microphone to loudspeaker.

For a power amp? Maybe, if you're the first stage at a music festival's audio system. In a home system, with (likely) close to an order of magnitude less total amplification? Nah.

Bear in mind that OPA164x are JFET input opamps so they are alternatives for TL07x/8x series. JFET opamps makes sense in very high impedance applications such as microphone gain stages, vinyl cartridge amplifiers etc. Bipolar input NE553x series are workhorses of audio industry, especially in the professional gear. You can't go wrong with them if you use them in a proper gain and buffer stages. And not everyone prefers JFET opamps in their signal chain like mine. If I have to pick one, that would be OPA2192 or OPA828.

 

[beefkabob]

Alright. Are we done? No more of this opamp rolling BS?

 

[Bartez2000]

Please send a link to one such video with audible changes and I'll take a closer look using Deltawave.

It's important that the same track/section of track is played back with different Opamps.

If you don't find any differences, I'll lose confidence in my hearing. I'll assume the placebo effect worked. Thanks for your involvement. Best regards!

 

[M.C. Logan]

The P4 far exceeds the performance above for 5532. It has THD+N of 0.0005% or four times lower.

A quarter, not 'four times lower', it's a division, not a multiplication.
Sorry, got my pedant hat on.

 

[amirm]

A quarter, not 'four times lower', it's a division, not a multiplication.

Ah, no. They both mean the same thing and correct English. The reason to say it my way is to clearly specify a ratio that is easily understood. Saying one quarter requires some mental gymnastic vs four times lower. See: https://ludwig.guru/s/four+times+lower

"four times lower" is correct and usable in written English.
You can use it whenever you need to describe a decrease in a quantity by a factor of four. For example, "Comparing the prices of similar products, we found that ours was four times lower than theirs."

 

[wwenze]

But the NE5532 is already an excellent audio op-amp for this application.
Making a small discrete part with equal performance is an engineering achievement.


That's like comparing a mechanical wristwatch to one with a quartz oscillator and saying the "mechanical watch is only as precise as the quartz watch."
Of course the mass-produced micro-mechanical etched quartz oscillator is more precise...


Same with the monolithic integrated amplifier.


We have <$100 DACs that are audibly exactly as good as $600 or more DACs, but still everyone is excited about a new chart-topper.
Because SINAD is a proxy for engineering excellence. And pulling this off with discrete components is a way bigger engineering achievement.

No audiophile DAC or USB receiver was ever seen using a mechanical clock instead of quartz.

 

[Scrivs]

Ah, no. They both mean the same thing and correct English. The reason to say it my way is to clearly specify a ratio that is easily understood. Saying one quarter requires some mental gymnastic vs four times lower. See: https://ludwig.guru/s/four+times+lower

"four times lower" is correct and usable in written English.
You can use it whenever you need to describe a decrease in a quantity by a factor of four. For example, "Comparing the prices of similar products, we found that ours was four times lower than theirs."

Thank you for saying "four times" instead of the lazy, brain dead "4X."

Not all heroes wear capes!