Burson Audio OPAs

[dejanm]

Hi,

Did somebody replaced existing OPAs with Burson Audio ? Is the Burson worth the money it costs ?

[XTRProf]

IMVHO, rather expensive. If u can diy to replace the I/V and analogue filter stages, that will be cheaper. I'm still looking out for such a circuit.

[Sol]

Jun 22, 2008 8:28:29 GMT dejanm said:

Hi,

Did somebody replaced existing OPAs with Burson Audio ? Is the Burson worth the money it costs ?

I've swopped out ... on a whim .... and I rather like the results ... far more natural sound, and definately less glare.

As for whether it's worth it .... I suspect that a well executed opamp would probably perform just as well - but having said that I rather like them.

Which reminds me I really must get a couple good quality foil capacitor (MKP caps) across the power intake (V+ and V-) of the Discrete Op-Amp as mentioned here:

www.bursonaudio.com/Burson_Discrete_Opamp_101.htm

... to see if that improves things! Anyone in the UK got some lieing around? Value 50V 0.1uf to 1uf?

[dejanm]

Jun 23, 2008 12:29:56 GMT XTRProf said:

IMVHO, rather expensive. If u can diy to replace the I/V and analogue filter stages, that will be cheaper. I'm still looking out for such a circuit.

It depends for which kind of circuit you are looking after ... If you think about the one with OPAs then you will not do considerably better than you already have.

My suggestion is to go after direct coupling of the tube (triode) with the output transformer. In this way you will omit any kind of filtering. That is very similar to that what Audio Note is doing in their DACs. Audio Note is using AD chips, then directly connecting 6111 triode and then they have output transformers. This solution plays really good but:

- it is more expencieve
- it requires a lot of place, which does not exist in V2 units - maybe it is possible to place it in V3 - I do not know.

Another possibility is to use only resistor (Caddock for example) as I/V convertor ... and nothing behind it. That is again NOS DAC but in its simplest version. I prefer though the Audio Note version of it.

[Deleted]

maybe it is possible to place it in V3 - I do not know.

No, it isn't possible. IMHO, the X-DAC V3 deserves far better than that solution ! There are much better ways to make the X-DAC V3 perform markedly better than even the highly respected (and expensive) Marantz SA11.

SandyK

[XTRProf]

Jun 23, 2008 18:33:22 GMT dejanm said:

It depends for which kind of circuit you are looking after ... If you think about the one with OPAs then you will not do considerably better than you already have.

My suggestion is to go after direct coupling of the tube (triode) with the output transformer. In this way you will omit any kind of filtering. That is very similar to that what Audio Note is doing in their DACs. Audio Note is using AD chips, then directly connecting 6111 triode and then they have output transformers. This solution plays really good but:

- it is more expencieve
- it requires a lot of place, which does not exist in V2 units - maybe it is possible to place it in V3 - I do not know.

Another possibility is to use only resistor (Caddock for example) as I/V convertor ... and nothing behind it. That is again NOS DAC but in its simplest version. I prefer though the Audio Note version of it.

Nope, the V3 doesn't have tube and uses OPA (4562 n my case) for I/V and analogue filtering. Howeever, it's not NOS. It's upsamplng model. It's still possble to put in tubes but on an external box for the V3. Btw, u have the circuit diagram for the Audionote dac? Care to share here as it sounds interesting and simpler for best sound.

[dejanm]

I have found it somewhere on Audio Note site. That is simplified scheme of their actual design. But if you want a simple and effective design, very similar to that what Audio Note is doing (actually Audio Note design was a starting point for this one), then take a look here:

www.audiodesignguide.com/DacEnd/index.html

This is something that is worth trying.

[XTRProf]

Jun 24, 2008 17:14:15 GMT dejanm said:

I have found it somewhere on Audio Note site. That is simplified scheme of their actual design. But if you want a simple and effective design, very similar to that what Audio Note is doing (actually Audio Note design was a starting point for this one), then take a look here:

www.audiodesignguide.com/DacEnd/index.html

This is something that is worth trying.

Great and many thanks for sharing here! I will try to decipher it and come up with something when I have the time. So for u, what route are u approaching after all the alternatives? I know it all depends on doe, time and those love ones around u.


Cheers!

[XTRProf]

Jun 23, 2008 16:30:08 GMT Sol said:

As for whether it's worth it .... I suspect that a well executed opamp would probably perform just as well - but having said that I rather like them.

Which reminds me I really must get a couple good quality foil capacitor (MKP caps) across the power intake (V+ and V-) of the Discrete Op-Amp as mentioned here:

www.bursonaudio.com/Burson_Discrete_Opamp_101.htm

... to see if that improves things! Anyone in the UK got some lieing around? Value 50V 0.1uf to 1uf?

Oh, the discrete approach is the way to improve on sound further except the damn thing is expensive. What u have done is righter and I have no argument on that except for the price. If the Burson is around 100 bucks, that will be worthwhile since we don't have to diy and that takes some time and some research as well.

Heh, heh, the PS caps will work wonder when you use MKP (cheapest and much better then ceramic) but if you can afford, try FKP or even better Teflon or BG Hi-Q NX BP. I concur with Burson Audio on this. It will then be out of this world sound as I had experienced in my X-Dac V3 mode. Guarantee as I have the V3 as well!

[dejanm]

Jun 25, 2008 3:04:31 GMT XTRProf said:

Jun 24, 2008 17:14:15 GMT dejanm said:

I have found it somewhere on Audio Note site. That is simplified scheme of their actual design. But if you want a simple and effective design, very similar to that what Audio Note is doing (actually Audio Note design was a starting point for this one), then take a look here:

www.audiodesignguide.com/DacEnd/index.html

This is something that is worth trying.

Great and many thanks for sharing here! I will try to decipher it and come up with something when I have the time. So for u, what route are u approaching after all the alternatives? I know it all depends on doe, time and those love ones around u.


Cheers!

This question is for me not so easy to answer. I have Naim CD 5x as my main CDP. In my B-system I am playing with these second hand Musical Fidelity stuff. At the moment I am preparing myself to mod MF X-DAC V2. But what I really would like to do is that DAC from Andrea site (posted here). I believe it is a killing stuff. And I had the opportunity to hear Audio Note DACs with very similar design. They are simply .... I do not know how to describe them ... fantastic. NOS with one triode on the output and the better ones also have transformers at the output. That is something that I would go for ....

[dotnet]

Jun 25, 2008 16:01:05 GMT dejanm said:

NOS with one triode on the output and the better ones also have transformers at the output. That is something that I would go for ....

I reckon transformers are evil. There is no other component that's as non-linear (hence distortion-producing) as an iron core transformer. And those distortions are of the bad kind, not euphonic at all.

If and when I build that killer tube amp of mine it'll be OTL.

Cheers
Steffen.

[leo]

I modded a Audionote dac for a guy last year, it was based around a AD1865 , well he actually wanted some new fancy arse caps putting in it

The sound wasn't really my thing but he was happy with it

[Deleted]

I reckon transformers are evil. There is no other component that's as non-linear (hence distortion-producing) as an iron core transformer. And those distortions are of the bad kind, not euphonic at all.

Steffen
You are now also on that collision course with Rick. Be careful, he is big, and can be mean if provoked ! At least you like valves, so he may decide not to grind you into the dirt! ;D
Alex
P.S. I did however, like the combination of Stax transformer, my Class A amplifier, and Stax headphones. (shame about the low
end rolloff of the headphones,though.)

[dotnet]

Jun 26, 2008 0:01:59 GMT @sandyk said:

You are now also on that collision course with Rick. Be careful, he is big, and can be mean if provoked ! At least you like valves, so he may decide not to grind you into the dirt! ;D

LOL, thanks for the warning Thankfully Rick doesn't read this thread...

Cheers
Steffen.

[leo]

The Bursons are very good but won't work in all circuits, without seeing a schematic for the particular unit I can't say if they would work better or not

The Bursons are NOT suitable for I/V conversion, it may work in say some cases but will be far from optimal, they also need at least +/-15v clean low impedance rails to work at their best

[Deleted]

Leo
Another candidate for a JLH ?
Alex

[leo]

I'd imagine the JLH would be ideal Alex

[FritzS]

Jun 25, 2008 17:31:25 GMT dotnet said:

I reckon transformers are evil. There is no other component that's as non-linear (hence distortion-producing) as an iron core transformer. And those distortions are of the bad kind, not euphonic at all.
If and when I build that killer tube amp of mine it'll be OTL.
Cheers
Steffen.

Why? If you hear music - we can bet through many transducer's the music had to run

Lundahl and some others are big players in professional audio!

[Deleted]

IMO, in many applications, transformers are a necessary evil, but shouldn't be used unless there is no other method to obtain an equivalent result. Coupling transformers, output transformers
( not SPDIF or microphone and MC cartridge step up transformers etc.) and JFets in discrete circuitry, as distinct from laser trimmed FETs in opamps, are last century's technology !
Time moves on, so does technology improve over the years.

SandyK

[FritzS]

Jun 27, 2008 4:20:55 GMT @sandyk said:

IMO, in many applications, transformers are a necessary evil, but shouldn't be used unless there is no other method to obtain an equivalent result. Coupling transformers, output transformers
( not SPDIF or microphone and MC cartridge step up transformers etc.) and JFets in discrete circuitry, as distinct from laser trimmed FETs in opamps, are last century's technology !
Time moves on, so does technology improve over the years.
SandyK

Alex,
but many guys makes a SE class A amp with a 300B or 2A3 tube and big fat transformers too and are very happy

Many about I read in audioXpress - but are about new designs with "so bad things " as OPA's or class D amps too

[Deleted]

Friedrich
Yes you can get good results with a 2A3 or 300B in a SE Class A amplifier, but at many times the cost, AND a lesser performance than if you spent anywhere near the same amount of money on an equivalent Solid State amplifier. I am willing to bet that you can NOT recover the same amount of ambience and soundstage with ANY valve amplifier costing less than several thousand dollars, as you can with a properly designed Solid State Class A amplifier at the same cost. Obviously, not everybody is interested in the accuracy of reproduction of an amplifier, as long as it has a nice relaxing warmth to it, and to hell with accuracy.
But , I agree with Steffen, that a modern design OTL valve type amplifier, has the potential to sound markedly better than a valve amplifier with "big fat transformers"
Face the facts, a properly designed solid state amplifier will have >20dB better signal to noise ratio, a much wider bandwidth, and thus capable of pin point separation between voices and instruments,and far lower distortion performance. If you think that the lower S/N and distortion performance doesn't matter, compare the sound quality of DTV audio, which starts out with a penalty of being typically -25dB lower level than CD/DVD and hear for yourself which type of amplification sounds cleaner, and retains detail, yet without harshness in low level ambience retrieval ,as well as naturalness of voices etc., without sounding a little "grainy". DTV audio is an excellent test for system performance for this reason.
But, if YOU are happy with your valve amplification's sound, then that is all that really matters.
Hey, some people even like Mega Poop3 music! !!

Alex

P.S. I forgot to mention the much higher dynamic range capabilities of a good solid state system.

[FritzS]

Jun 27, 2008 6:09:28 GMT @sandyk said:

Friedrich
Yes you can get good results with a 2A3 or 300B in a SE Class A amplifier, but at many times the cost, AND a lesser performance than if you spent anywhere near the same amount of money on an equivalent Solid State amplifier. I am willing to bet that you can NOT recover the same amount of ambience and soundstage with ANY valve amplifier costing less than several thousand dollars, as you can with a properly designed Solid State Class A amplifier at the same cost. Obviously, not everybody is interested in the accuracy of reproduction of an amplifier, as long as it has a nice relaxing warmth to it, and to hell with accuracy.
But , I agree with Steffen, that a modern design OTL valve type amplifier, has the potential to sound markedly better than a valve amplifier with "big fat transformers"
Face the facts, a properly designed solid state amplifier will have >20dB better signal to noise ratio, a much wider bandwidth, and thus capable of pin point separation between voices and instruments,and far lower distortion performance. If you think that the lower S/N and distortion performance doesn't matter, compare the sound quality of DTV audio, which starts out with a penalty of being typically -25dB lower level than CD/DVD and hear for yourself which type of amplification sounds cleaner, and retains detail, yet without harshness in low level ambience retrieval ,as well as naturalness of voices etc., without sounding a little "grainy". DTV audio is an excellent test for system performance for this reason.
But, if YOU are happy with your valve amplification's sound, then that is all that really matters.
Hey, some people even like Mega Poop3 music! !!
Alex
P.S. I forgot to mention the much higher dynamic range capabilities of a good solid state system.

Alex,
my last post are ironically - but I think you have realize ;D

some times ago I had seen a well known "great US HighEnd tube amp" (I forgot the branding) on a HiFi event - big, fat, ... the dealer tells me if I could take this equipment away - only with my hands - it's mine my feeling it was screwed on the floor

Mike should us give a "DIY jabber" forum too

[XTRProf]

Well, guys to me the best sound wins, whether transformer, OTL, SS or class D with distortion or with noise. At present, some of the best sound I had heard are PP tubes or hybrid. This is not to say that there are no good sounding SSs around. Sorry, SET is out for me just as NOS dacs and fullrange speaker as they sounded rolled off or worst still bass on the fatter side, damn them! Just let me hear a proper implementation to change my mind, please, as so far non heard yet. BTW, OTL also has it's disadvantage as it is not very reliable and when it blows (meaning going up in smoke and not in terms of sound wallop ), it will take away your speakers as well. So much for best sound!

[Deleted]

just as NOS dacs and fullrange speaker as they sounded roll off or worst still bass on the fatter side, damn them!

XTRProf
I agree about full range speakers, but I think with NOS, that the actual implementation is what counts. I prefer OS though.
Leo may not agree with this, and Rick may not agree about full range speakers. Looks like we both could be in trouble ?


SandyK

[XTRProf]

Jun 27, 2008 10:26:05 GMT @sandyk said:

just as NOS dacs and fullrange speaker as they sounded roll off or worst still bass on the fatter side, damn them!

XTRProf
I agree about full range speakers, but I think with NOS, that the actual implementation is what counts. I prefer OS though.
Leo may not agree with this, and Rick may not agree about full range speakers. Looks like we both could be in trouble ?


SandyK

Hi Alex,

I also like OS or upsampling better than the NOS. Can hear more details, air and not rolled off. Rolling off, that's what the measurement of the NOS dac to dajanm's dac link showed as well.


"The frequency responce is about 20 - 14000Hz at -1dB and 20000Hz at -3dB"


Even DCS, the "king" of all dac designer, have agreed on something they had disagreed on the mathematical part of OS or upsampling! They have continued to brave the dissonance even in the recent article on the latest DCS cdp in Hifi News. Scholastic disagreement is ok for the sake of advancing the art and science of this hifi thingy, btw.