[Jim Williams]

Originally posted by dcollins
Yes they are quirky, and more likely to break-into-song than other parts, but they can have fantastic performance sonically, imo. A "kink" in the Bode plot -- well it wouldn't be the first time...

Yep, the 5534 comes to mind...

We'll have to agree to disagree here.

I'm thinking of a well regarded digital audio product that has nothing but AD parts. Renowned, as it turns out, for its superior low-level performance.

Even with the dreaded 797! How can it be?

If their using an AD dac chip, like a 1853/5, they're missing a lot of low level details that can be revealed with the BurrBrown 1704 or 1792 dacs. The AD1955 doesn't get there either.

In your experience, is there any parameter we can look to for better "low level detail" or "dynamic filtering?"

I know what pleases the ear is all that _really_ matters, but sometimes measurements can also be useful, imo.

I don't know of any test gear that can qualify fidelity of sound.
I use good stuff like Audio Precision, but it only tells you if something is wrong, your ears will tell you if something is right.

Jim Wiliams
Audio Upgrades

P.S. The boring quality I called the 275 is due to the masking of some low level details, particularly fast and small transients like bell trees buried in a mix. I don't like dual opamps in general compared to single one's due to the increased crosstalk but I do use a lot of them in other people's stuff. Just personal taste, like music.

DC