[newdoughboy]

If you swap opamps often, and are ok with leaving the lid open, then I always use an extra set of burson dips to go with the opamp i'm testing. The extra burson dips doesn't fit as tight and slide in and out super easy without causing too much wear.

 

[imran27]

If you swap opamps often, and are ok with leaving the lid open, then I always use an extra set of burson dips to go with the opamp i'm testing. The extra burson dips doesn't fit as tight and slide in and out super easy without causing too much wear.

DIP adapter on DIP socket on a DIP socket!

Too much stray inductance I suppose. This calls for a sure bypassing of V+/- pins

 

[raoultrifan]

Yes, of course, I'll probably use 10uF tantalum caps and 0.1uF or lower values as well. However, a very good explanation could be found here: http://www.seattlerobotics.org/encoder/jun97/basics.html. I'm also quoting some text from the above article, for a better understanding:

​

"The frequency of the ripple can have a role in choosing the capacitor value. Rule of thumb is the higher the frequency, the smaller the bypass capacitor you need. If you have very high frequency components in your circuit, you might consider a pair of capacitors in parallel. One with a large value, one with a small value. If you have very complex ripple, you may need to add several bypass capacitors. Each cap is targeting a slightly different frequency. You may even need to add a larger electrolytic cap in case the amplitude of the lower frequencies is too great. For example, the circuit on the right is using three different capacitor values in parallel. Each will respond better to different frequencies. The 4.7uF cap (C4) is used to catch larger voltage dips which are at relatively low frequencies. The cap C2 should be able to handle the midrange frequencies, and C3 will handle the higher frequencies. The frequency response of the capacitors is determined by their internal resistance and inductance."

I had already cut this morning small PCB parts for this operation and I've also purchased rounded-pins for that, but unfortunately PLAY is still under review by another audiophile during this weekend, so...I'll need to wait few more days to get it back and try this dual-to-single operation.

 

[imran27]

Yes, of course, I'll probably use 10uF tantalum caps and 0.1uF or lower values as well. However, a very good explanation could be found here: http://www.seattlerobotics.org/encoder/jun97/basics.html. I'm also quoting some text from the above article, for a better understanding:

​

"The frequency of the ripple can have a role in choosing the capacitor value. Rule of thumb is the higher the frequency, the smaller the bypass capacitor you need. If you have very high frequency components in your circuit, you might consider a pair of capacitors in parallel. One with a large value, one with a small value. If you have very complex ripple, you may need to add several bypass capacitors. Each cap is targeting a slightly different frequency. You may even need to add a larger electrolytic cap in case the amplitude of the lower frequencies is too great. For example, the circuit on the right is using three different capacitor values in parallel. Each will respond better to different frequencies. The 4.7uF cap (C4) is used to catch larger voltage dips which are at relatively low frequencies. The cap C2 should be able to handle the midrange frequencies, and C3 will handle the higher frequencies. The frequency response of the capacitors is determined by their internal resistance and inductance."

I had already cut this morning small PCB parts for this operation and I've also purchased rounded-pins for that, but unfortunately PLAY is still under review by another audiophile during this weekend, so...I'll need to wait few more days to get it back and try this dual-to-single operation.

Tantalums aren't really as good as electrolytic capacitors for audio purposes

You should try Nichicon PW, their ripple current spec is amazing and even the frequency correction factors are on par with ELNA SILMIC II (PW though has higher ripple current tolerance)

 

[Makiah S]

My Video review is ready!

 

[raoultrifan]

Tantalums aren't really as good as electrolytic capacitors for audio purposes

You should try Nichicon PW, their ripple current spec is amazing and even the frequency correction factors are on par with ELNA SILMIC II (PW though has higher ripple current tolerance)

The bypass/decoupling caps are not in the audio signal path and should have no influence on the final output sound, well...at least if op-amps are not oscillating and PCB and it's ground plane are well designed and also the power supply is free of noise & ripple (only a scope will tell us that, not our own ears!). The decoupling caps are used so the op-amps to receive a less-noisier and ripple-free power and not to improve the audio performance in any ways, well...unless the power supply is really crappy and the capacitors used for decoupling could do improvements indeed (though, usually the design needs to get changed if PSU's ripple is too high). So all it matters for the decoupling would be the lowest ESR possible and the best ripple rejection capacitors and a tantalum cap in parallel with a ceramic would make a very good example for decoupling a high-speed op-amp. Tantalums have lower ESR than regular electrolytics and much better ripple rejection combined with a higher in-rush current.

A really good reading about decoupling here: http://www.analog.com/media/en/training-seminars/tutorials/MT-101.pdf.

Some good stuff to read about tantalums here:

1. https://www.quora.com/What-are-the-differences-between-electrolytic-tantalum-and-ceramic-capacitors
2. https://www.illinoiscapacitor.com/pdf/Papers/comparison_surface_mount_aluminum.pdf (last page)
3. https://www.techwalla.com/articles/the-difference-between-electrolytic-tantalum-capacitors
   
4. https://www.engineersedge.com/instrumentation/tantalum_capacitors.htm

Usually, if an op-amp is not getting stabilised with a regular 10uF electrolytic or with a 1uF tantalum (with a 0.01-0.1 non-polarised cap in parallel), then the design or the op-amp itself needs to get changed. Adding 100uF or more for decoupling could help when length of the PCB power rails from PSU till op-amps are huge and routed across many active electronic devices (DC-DC buck converters, ARM chips etc.), but adding very big caps for decoupling op-amps it's just not a best practice and if design and implementation are good enough then these big decoupling caps should not get the sound changed in any way. However, a simple oscilloscope should prove this with ease, so feel free to give it a try.

P.S.: I've seen this with my scope and it has been proved for several times in audiophile and audio-electronics websites that the power supply noise is getting injected into the final output sound and this is a proven truth, so I'm aware that a noise-free PSU is the key of a very clean output sound, but increasing op-amp decoupling caps will not resolve PSU noise, nor design flaws of your DAC or amplifier! For example, this is what I did when I had noise, hum and high visible ripple shown on my scope on one of the DACs I own: https://www.head-fi.org/threads/asu...-dac-cebit-2011.542563/page-229#post-13130247. So yes, shielding the transformer, resolving PCB and ground plane issues, upgrading to better LDOs (with lower-noise and higher ripple rejection), increasing filtering capacity of the power rails (+5V and +/12V) of the PSU and adding a dedicated +5V PSU only for the DAC chips did resolved most of the issues with my equipment. Also, using big-enough and very good quality electrolytic caps (Nichicon, Elna etc.) in the power supply it is indeed a very good way to decrease noise and ripple on the power rails as long as the PCB traces and rectifying diodes can sustain the higher load when powering up the device, otherwise more modifications need to be done.

 

[imran27]

The bypass/decoupling caps are not in the audio signal path and should have no influence on the final output sound, well...at least if op-amps are not oscillating and PCB and it's ground plane are well designed and also the power supply is free of noise & ripple (only a scope will tell us that, not our own ears!). The decoupling caps are used so the op-amps to receive a less-noisier and ripple-free power and not to improve the audio performance in any ways, well...unless the power supply is really crappy and the capacitors used for decoupling could do improvements indeed (though, usually the design needs to get changed if PSU's ripple is too high). So all it matters for the decoupling would be the lowest ESR possible and the best ripple rejection capacitors and a tantalum cap in parallel with a ceramic would make a very good example for decoupling a high-speed op-amp. Tantalums have lower ESR than regular electrolytics and much better ripple rejection combined with a higher in-rush current.

A really good reading about decoupling here: http://www.analog.com/media/en/training-seminars/tutorials/MT-101.pdf.

Some good stuff to read about tantalums here:

1. https://www.quora.com/What-are-the-differences-between-electrolytic-tantalum-and-ceramic-capacitors
2. https://www.illinoiscapacitor.com/pdf/Papers/comparison_surface_mount_aluminum.pdf (last page)
3. https://www.techwalla.com/articles/the-difference-between-electrolytic-tantalum-capacitors
   
4. https://www.engineersedge.com/instrumentation/tantalum_capacitors.htm

Usually, if an op-amp is not getting stabilised with a regular 10uF electrolytic or with a 1uF tantalum (with a 0.01-0.1 non-polarised cap in parallel), then the design or the op-amp itself needs to get changed. Adding 100uF or more for decoupling could help when length of the PCB power rails from PSU till op-amps are huge and routed across many active electronic devices (DC-DC buck converters, ARM chips etc.), but adding very big caps for decoupling op-amps it's just not a best practice and if design and implementation are good enough then these big decoupling caps should not get the sound changed in any way. However, a simple oscilloscope should prove this with ease, so feel free to give it a try.

P.S.: I've seen this with my scope and it has been proved for several times in audiophile and audio-electronics websites that the power supply noise is getting injected into the final output sound and this is a proven truth, so I'm aware that a noise-free PSU is the key of a very clean output sound, but increasing op-amp decoupling caps will not resolve PSU noise, nor design flaws of your DAC or amplifier! For example, this is what I did when I had noise, hum and high visible ripple shown on my scope on one of the DACs I own: https://www.head-fi.org/threads/asu...-dac-cebit-2011.542563/page-229#post-13130247. So yes, shielding the transformer, resolving PCB and ground plane issues, upgrading to better LDOs (with lower-noise and higher ripple rejection), increasing filtering capacity of the power rails (+5V and +/12V) of the PSU and adding a dedicated +5V PSU only for the DAC chips did resolved most of the issues with my equipment. Also, using big-enough and very good quality electrolytic caps (Nichicon, Elna etc.) in the power supply it is indeed a very good way to decrease noise and ripple on the power rails as long as the PCB traces and rectifying diodes can sustain the higher load when powering up the device, otherwise more modifications need to be done.

Quite an informative write up.

OPA2209 has a PSRR of 140 dB and yet the bypass capacitor improves quite significantly. Different decoupling caps do provide a different sound output.

 

[raoultrifan]

Can you check with a scope ripple & noise on the PSU rails and later to the op-amp's +/GND and -/GND pins?
It would be very interesting to see how the power rails look like.

 

[Wiljen]

And speaking as the next participant, I am anxiously awaiting the arrival of the new unit and a v5i opamp for my Walnut F1 to try out. Right now I have a muses in it so will be interested in how the Burson stacks up.

 

[Wiljen]

V5i arrived today and the first thing I can say is it and the battery will not fit inside the walnut. I took the rear plate off and let the battery set between the F1 and my DAP to free up enough room inside the box for the v5i. Let the fun commence.

 

[raoultrifan]

Just finished a couple of ugly dual-to-single adapters, so next week hope I'll be able to test in PLAY's Voltage Amplification stage some of the below op-amps and several more not showing in these pics.




Only half of the dual op-amp will be used, will see what I'll be getting.

 

[raoultrifan]

I got back the PLAY for few days and I was able to test my above DIY dual-to-single adapters.



There was no overheating and no oscillations found, sound was perfect no matter the op-amps chosen to roll here. I didn't liked the lack of space between the adapter and the capacitor nearby, so I needed to bend one of the adapter a little bit. However, I was unable to to improve the sound in any way after rolling many op-amps I had lying around on my shelf (see my PLAY review and the op-amps I've tested).

Bottom of line: based on the complexity of doing such an adapter, the pins are very soft and very easy to bend, the lack of space between one of the adapters and the big capacitor nearby I can not recommend this mod. Also, to be honest, I'm not sure the SS V6 should be ever replaced from the pre-amplification stage, because this op-amp really sounds the best ever when used in this stage (same like using it in the voltage amplification stage in headphone amplifiers).

 

[Eiffel]

Hi ! I've read this thread for some time and I ordered myself a Play with V6 Vivid - hope to get it in a couple of weeks.

I see you speak now about changing OP-AMP's. Well, I think that can be usefull for those buying the basic version, or the V5i, but changing OP-AMPS for the V5 and V6 may not improve too much the sound ,except perhaps if you add V6 to a V5, or if you combine V6 Vivid with Classics.

Considering Burson implementation, there are 3 OP-AMP's stages - I/V, LP. and Pre-AMP ( I think this play also as buffer for RCA Output ).

In the I/V stage discrete components are the best. I don't think you can find an IC OP-AMP better than a discrete OP-AMP. And this is what gives about 80-90 of the sound - details, layers, dynamics.
So only V6 Vivid or Classic can improve the sound here.- if you have a lower version.

In the L/P - this is the Low Pass Filter, it just filters noise and higher frequencies than the audio ones. It should affect the background and clarity of the sound, also may add a bit of colour. Here may be an OPA2134 can do it best. As it's the "Audio" version of the 2132, wich means it cannot work with more than 100kHz. So it would be perfect for a low-pass filter. It could also improve the SNR with 5-6dB. However in some implementations it may filter a bit more - I've measured once a frequency cut at about 15kHz. Replaced with the "full" 2132 worked fine. I think here is plece for more tests with IC OP-AMP's, not only with discrete.

In the Pre-Amp - this may affect soundstage, air and also add a bit of colour. Considering how well sounds the Burson Op-AMP as air and soundstage, again I think the best here is a V6. Remain only to see wich one. However, here could be also the OPA627 or the new Muses03 ( or half 02 - if you makes adapters ) that coudl be tested, or if yo want a smaller soundstage ( who want it ? ) an 0PA132.

I will make some tests on my unit as soon I will received it, but only in the LP section. Also I'm interested to see how well perform this compared with my Conductor Air.

 

[raoultrifan]

Hi Eiffel and welcome to this thread and Head-Fi too!

You need to be extremely careful with single-to-dual opamp adapters for I/V and LPF (in case you really want to try MUSES03 or OPA627 in I/V or LPF), because there's not much space between these opamps. However, if you can't use SS V6/V5 for I/V and LPF, then try finding low-noise opamps. Myself I got very good results with AD8599ARZ (SOIC-DIP8 adapter) and MUSES8820; also OPA1652 was very good paring.

Imran tested OPA2209 and seems to be a very good pairing too, so give it a try.
Probably AD797 or OPA627 should work fine in Pre-Amp stage, not sure anyone tested those yet.

Best,
Raul.

 

[Eiffel]

Hi Raoul. Thank you.

The best I/V is always made with discrete OP-AMP's - transistors as they can give the best dynamic to the sound, so in I/V and Pre-Amp I intend only to swap between Vivid and Classic ( I've ordered also 2 Classic's ). I don't have the 627 and I'm not sure they will be better than Burson's, for a price almost siimilar.

The LP are the ones I intend to play more. I have a lot of dual OP-AMP's , most from TI, but also some Muses 01 and 02 remaining from my tests with an old Essence STX - now equipped with V5i from Burson. This should change very little to the sound of the Vivids but may give better SNR as most IC OP-AMP's have better SNR than discrete circuits. Also as I've read in the thread that the Classic's have a small noise, perhaps an 2134 or 2132 in LP may reduce it. On the STX with 3x2132 I was able to get the Asus claimed 124dB SNR in RMAA. With stock - only 117dB.

If all is going well, probably I will buy also the basic version of Play to try more experiments.

For 2209 - I've read about it, but had to buy also some adapters. I will think as an option.