There are simply no better all round amps. OPA564 has only one channel, is slow, runs hotter, much slower, only +-12V operation and still much more expensive. Opa564 will work in some cases(like with class H supply). it's just that I have designed the circuit using 6120 for very long time it's solid and stable. There's also another THS chip I like and we will use it on A50s.
The mean of the pots we've tested are below -50dB. The one Wolf tested was even more lucky. In combination of the low gain -9.5dB you can easily get -60dB out of most units. And the difference between -40db and -50db is honestly very little in the knob position. We could achieve -70dB even but turned out to be not so meaningful.
It's simple in the name. It's nothing vague like AAA which is completely confusing.So, any chance of a run-down on the design topology described here? I can sort of guess what is being done, especially after seeing the 6120's in the picture. But if you are going to coin terms like NFCA and UHGF you owe it to the rest of the geeks to give us something with a bit more meat on it.
Remember when 2010, 2012 or so everyone liked tpa6120. The reputation got worse and worse as it got cheaper. One of the most audiophile thing I witnessed.I wonder how the TPA6120 haters group (can't sound good) is going to look at this amp.
The BAV99 would do the overstress protection, for the EMI, an RC or LC is needed. Issue is that the C degrades the CMRR, and the R increases the noise, so you need to find a trade-off between immunity and performance. No R and no C is an extreme trade-off
, just wondering how the circuit would behave in harsh environments if these are really omitted.
What about a solution consisting of, for example, OPA1656 + LME49600? The former should be the TI flagship opamp with an even lower THD figure, the latter a current buffer with better slew rate and THD...
I can't take a better picture.
Wait for the preamp and make it a dedicated volume control.slide potentiometer NO！
stepped attenuator YES！
make a plus version pls~
The input impedance is low enough to take care of interference. ESD is built in opa1612. And we run at +-15V, so one really shouldn't put higher voltage in there. Amir's testing environment is known to be not so clean. It doesn't show in the measurements, it's not there. There will be scare cases it can be an issue but in such case I don't think a simple RC will do much if anything. You may need RCR for that and thus noise performance is largely hindered. So for majority of people it's a non issue.The BAV99 would do the overstress protection, for the EMI, an RC or LC is needed. Issue is that the C degrades the CMRR, and the R increases the noise, so you need to find a trade-off between immunity and performance. No R and no C is an extreme trade-off
LME49600 is nothing more than a 1 dollar discrete diamond buffer. It doesn't have any feedback on its own so the distortion by itself is horrendous. It only works in deep feedback situation. With tpa6120, you may only need extra 40dB of gain to clean it up but we got another extra 30-40dB for extremely low distortion. And it can supply over 1A per chip.
Or just attenuate some 6 to 12dB on software (digital volume) and use this pot in its most balanced range.slide potentiometer NO！
stepped attenuator YES！
make a plus version pls~
Well. I have looked into it last year the same time I was working on tpa6120. Only appealing thing TO ME is the higher voltage supply and voltage swing. I got two samples but the board I made for that didn't work. Damn that thing is expensive.
It won't be the "balanced version of e30" then. There are more to come, that's for sure(I do not work on the DACs but amps only).
Well. I have looked into it last year the same time I was working on tpa6120. Only appealing thing TO ME is the higher voltage supply and voltage swing. I got two samples but the board I made for that didn't work. Damn that thing is expensive.
