Difference between NE5532 and MC33178

Is there any?

Cheers

Ian

ruffrecords said:

Is there any?

Cheers

Ian

Click to expand...

From a quick glance at the spec sheets more differences than similarities. Both drive 600 ohms. 

5532 is faster slew rate, more GBW, lower input noise voltage, etc... several things that count for audio designs.

I suspect applied conservatively the differences might not be audible, in the margin or for specific applications perhaps audible.

JR

JohnRoberts said:

From a quick glance at the spec sheets more differences than similarities. Both drive 600 ohms. 

5532 is faster slew rate, more GBW, lower input noise voltage, etc... several things that count for audio designs.

I suspect applied conservatively the differences might not be audible, in the margin or for specific applications perhaps audible.

JR

Click to expand...

OK that makes sense. I just found them on a couple of EELA broadcast mixer PCBs. It seems to be principally a line out board. I suspect most of the op amps are close to unity gain. Both boards have mainly the MC part but both have a few NE ones. Both boards are identical except the NE parts are not always in the same places on both boards. Hence my question.

For some reason some of them drive what looks like  Neutrik 1:1 transformer. Belay that. The transformers are labelled NEUTRAF which I ASSumed was code for Neutrik AF transformers. But Netraf seems to be a German trasnformer manufacturer:

https://www.bayern-international.de/en/company-database/company-details/neutraf-electronic-components-gmbh-5396/

Cheers

Ian

Cheers

Ian

Here is an advert where someone is selling the identical transformers in the EELA PCB:

https://www.odnd.nl/console-transformers/11751-set-with-neutraf-au-121-314-transformers-.html

Cheers

Ian

ruffrecords said:

OK that makes sense. I just found them on a couple of EELA broadcast mixer PCBs. It seems to be principally a line out board. I suspect most of the op amps are close to unity gain. Both boards have mainly the MC part but both have a few NE ones. Both boards are identical except the NE parts are not always in the same places on both boards. Hence my question.

Click to expand...

I would think some IC's needed replacing, and since the 5532 is much more easily available than the 33178, and its performance better in most respects, that's why.
However, a notable difference is the quiescent current, of only about 1.5 mA for the 33178, compared to about 8-10mA for the 5532. This is quite remarkable in view of its capability of driving 600R. That's a reason why I used thousands of them in some units that had about 60 dual opamps.

abbey road d enfer said:

I would think some IC's needed replacing, and since the 5532 is much more easily available than the 33178, and its performance better in most respects, that's why.
However, a notable difference is the quiescent current, of only about 1.5 mA for the 33178, compared to about 8-10mA for the 5532. This is quite remarkable in view of its capability of driving 600R. That's a reason why I used thousands of them in some units that had about 60 dual opamps.

Click to expand...

That lower operating current density probably explains the lower gain bandwidth, the slower slew rate, and higher input noise voltage.

Of course probably fine for modest closed loop gain and audio speed signals. Note the different polarity bipolar input LTP may require checking polarity of DC blocking capacitors if swapping one for the other.

JR

JohnRoberts said:

That lower operating current density probably explains the lower gain bandwidth, the slower slew rate, and higher input noise voltage.

Of course probably fine for modest closed loop gain and audio speed signals. Note the different polarity bipolar input LTP may require checking polarity of DC blocking capacitors if swapping one for the other.

JR

Click to expand...

That's right; I wouldn't have used them in a mic or phono preamp. I used them in bridged-T resonators, that sometimes require decent OLG, without any issue, though.

Thanks for all the info everyone. I did not know if it was just a different part number for an identical device but clearly it is not.

Cheers

Ian

..I know I'm late, but i think that the MC33178 is much closer to the LM833 technology..

Jakob E.