So, now that the TI folks have die-shrunk the NE5532 and broken decades
of designs that were optimized for those chips, what are the popular alternatives? We have so many circuits optimized for 22k input Z and
8K output Z to get the lowest possible distortion.
Scott Dorsey <kludge@panix.com> writes:
So, now that the TI folks have die-shrunk the NE5532 and broken decades
of designs that were optimized for those chips, what are the popular
alternatives? We have so many circuits optimized for 22k input Z and
8K output Z to get the lowest possible distortion.
I don't know about popular but speaking of lowest possible distortion
getting off 15 volt rails works for me.
In article <10vr8kf$c98$1@reader1.panix.com>, <billy@MIX.COM> wrote:
Scott Dorsey <kludge@panix.com> writes:
So, now that the TI folks have die-shrunk the NE5532 and broken decades
of designs that were optimized for those chips, what are the popular
alternatives? We have so many circuits optimized for 22k input Z and
8K output Z to get the lowest possible distortion.
I don't know about popular but speaking of lowest possible distortion
getting off 15 volt rails works for me.
Well, the new "5532" now has +/-15V maximum, unlike the normal +/-22V ones. So I suspect they changed the process and not just the layout.
Last night I did an open-loop Bode plot and the new chip doesn't have the three humps, so I am suspecting that this is more than just a process change and a die shrink, but it's also a complete topology change.
--scott
Looking at the number and type of the changes, should they not have
changed the part number? Leaving aside those currently using it in new >equipment, who can probably design round the changes, what happens when >someone repairs an item and can't make it function as it should because
the replacement chip is now, in effect, leaving the factory with faults?
Or even blows up because the power rails are okay for the old version,
but too high for the new one?
On 6/4/26 08:16, Scott Dorsey wrote:
Well, the new "5532" now has +/-15V maximum, unlike the normal +/-22V ones. So I suspect they changed the process and not just the layout.
Last night I did an open-loop Bode plot and the new chip doesn't have the three humps, so I am suspecting that this is more than just a process
change
and a die shrink, but it's also a complete topology change.
--scott
John Williamson <johnwilliamson@btinternet.com> wrote:
Looking at the number and type of the changes, should they not have >>changed the part number? Leaving aside those currently using it in new >>equipment, who can probably design round the changes, what happens when >>someone repairs an item and can't make it function as it should because >>the replacement chip is now, in effect, leaving the factory with faults? >>Or even blows up because the power rails are okay for the old version,
but too high for the new one?
They should have changed the part number.
They should have warned customers.
They should have given an opportunity for a last-chance buy.
They should have done a lot of things rather than leave people to find
out when their boards hit QA testing.
--scott
On Thu, 4 Jun 2026 14:39:15 -0400 (EDT), kludge@panix.com (Scott
They should have done a lot of things rather than leave people to find
out when their boards hit QA testing.
Have they sold the original tooling to anyone? I hope they haven't
just dumped it
Don Pearce <spam@spam.com> wrote:
On Thu, 4 Jun 2026 14:39:15 -0400 (EDT), kludge@panix.com (Scott
They should have done a lot of things rather than leave people to find >>>out when their boards hit QA testing.
Have they sold the original tooling to anyone? I hope they haven't
just dumped it
The tooling itself is just masks... and if they don't have the masks they >can fab new ones up from the drawings very easily.
In fact, they could fab up masks easily from pictures of someone else's >die... which is what NEC did to make copies of Intel products in the >seventies until they got caught at it.
Process parameters are more difficult because they ARE moving to a different >process at a different fab line in a different country. I don't know how big >an issue this is, but they are certainly moving to a newer and more advanced >process with higher resolution. That should be a good thing, right? I don't >know.
--scott
On Wed, 29 Jul 2026 14:56:26 -0400 (EDT), kludge@panix.com (Scott
Dorsey) wrote:
Don Pearce <spam@spam.com> wrote:
On Thu, 4 Jun 2026 14:39:15 -0400 (EDT), kludge@panix.com (Scott
They should have done a lot of things rather than leave people to find >>>> out when their boards hit QA testing.
Have they sold the original tooling to anyone? I hope they haven't
just dumped it
The tooling itself is just masks... and if they don't have the masks they
can fab new ones up from the drawings very easily.
In fact, they could fab up masks easily from pictures of someone else's
die... which is what NEC did to make copies of Intel products in the
seventies until they got caught at it.
Process parameters are more difficult because they ARE moving to a different >> process at a different fab line in a different country. I don't know how big
an issue this is, but they are certainly moving to a newer and more advanced >> process with higher resolution. That should be a good thing, right? I don't
know.
--scott
Well, for a given mask geometry, better resolution will mean cleaner
edges etc. But low noise demands a bigger base area - the normal added
noise vs added signal equations apply here. And voltage handling needs physical separation of collector and emitter. So although the device
could be copied in new geometry, the fab process would have to be
compromised to achieve the performance. So my guess is that production
would really require recommissioning old fab stations.
d
Den 01-08-2026 kl. 21:43 skrev Don Pearce:
On Wed, 29 Jul 2026 14:56:26 -0400 (EDT), kludge@panix.com (Scott
Dorsey) wrote:
Don Pearce <spam@spam.com> wrote:
On Thu, 4 Jun 2026 14:39:15 -0400 (EDT), kludge@panix.com (Scott
They should have done a lot of things rather than leave people to find >>>>> out when their boards hit QA testing.
Have they sold the original tooling to anyone? I hope they haven't
just dumped it
The tooling itself is just masks... and if they don't have the masks
they
can fab new ones up from the drawings very easily.
In fact, they could fab up masks easily from pictures of someone else's
die... which is what NEC did to make copies of Intel products in the
seventies until they got caught at it.
Process parameters are more difficult because they ARE moving to a
different
process at a different fab line in a different country.-a I don't know
how big
an issue this is, but they are certainly moving to a newer and more
advanced
process with higher resolution.-a That should be a good thing, right?
I don't
know.
--scott
Well, for a given mask geometry, better resolution will mean cleaner
edges etc. But low noise demands a bigger base area - the normal added
noise vs added signal equations apply here. And voltage handling needs
physical separation of collector and emitter. So although the device
could be copied in new geometry, the fab process would have to be
compromised to achieve the performance. So my guess is that production
would really require recommissioning old fab stations.
d
Perhaps you put the cart before the horse, this reminds me of a loaf of bread that I - as well as others - liked a lot because it was a good
spare to have in the fridge. Then the factory - ie. oven and the
building it was in - burned and the bread vanished from the market.
Because newer ovens, ie. baking machines, couldn't bake it. Perhaps the
chip manufacturers got new machines and adapted the chip to them?
-a-a-a Kind regards y'all
-a-a-a Peter Larsen
-a-a-a I have a youtube channel now, it is at https://youtube.com/@digilyd
Perhaps you put the cart before the horse,
Perhaps you put the cart before the horse, this reminds me of a loaf of >bread that I - as well as others - liked a lot because it was a good
spare to have in the fridge. Then the factory - ie. oven and the
building it was in - burned and the bread vanished from the market.
Because newer ovens, ie. baking machines, couldn't bake it. Perhaps the
chip manufacturers got new machines and adapted the chip to them?
| Sysop: | Amessyroom |
|---|---|
| Location: | Fayetteville, NC |
| Users: | 74 |
| Nodes: | 6 (0 / 6) |
| Uptime: | 02:39:16 |
| Calls: | 1,194 |
| Files: | 1,353 |
| D/L today: |
2 files (1,590K bytes) |
| Messages: | 291,195 |