Can I replace LM833 with LM833N?

[syn]

Is it possible to use LM833N instead of LM833 for the Calrec Eq (DIY).
Sorry if it is a stupid question.
Thanks

 

[bcarso]

The "N" is just the package. If it fits, it will work.

 

[syn]

Thanks

 

[PRR]

> Sorry if it is a stupid question.

Not stupid. Ignorant, but there is an awful lot of little stuff to learn.

You can't buy a LM833: that's a concept, not a part. LM833N is the LM833 idea in a DIP package, which is most likely what you want. They may also make it in teeny-weeny SOP or SOIP or whatever packages that are smaller than the tip of my soldering iron, and much smaller than my eyes. There may be additional letters indicating special grade or temperature (though I don't think there are variant grades of LM833).

Sometimes (not always!) the data-sheet has a decoder chart for the package options. http://www.national.com/pf/LM/LM833.html lists M, MX, MM, MMX, and N suffixes. "M" apparently means "SOIC NARROW" and if you click on that you get a picture of something as big as a pack of cigarettes. But if you read the numbers, it is less than 0.2" long overall... I could hide one between the pins of a tube socket. That's too small for me. "MM" turns out to be even smaller.... it would fit inside the holes of a tube socket. What is the world coming to? Octal tube sockets were the right size for building stuff: 8 pins in a 2-inch space.

I had to dig to be un-ignorant about the "X" on some LM833 part numbers: at National, the "X" means it comes on tape, 2500 chips per reel; no-X implies loose in a bag. Obviously if you are building a million items with inky-dinky M or MM chips, you probably want them on tape to fit your robotic stuffing machine. If you are bold enough to hand-build DIY with SOIP/SOIC packages, X or no-X does not matter much.

"N" turns out to be (usually is) the good old DIP pack with legs 0.1" apart, 0.3" from side to side. Too small for my eyes, but they never made integrated circuits any bigger, and I soldered a lot of DIPs in my youth.

They will also sell you a "LM833" as a naked chip, no epoxy or pins, and apparently even as a wafer of thousands of dice that you can saw-apart yourself. If you have die-bonding machines and wafer-saws, you should call National and find out how much alphabet-soup goes on the end of "LM833..." to get the exact thing you want.

Not at all a "stupid question".

 

[bcarso]

A note of additional caution: some truly evil manufacturers have naked part numbers that do represent a given package---JRC has done this sometimes, I forget the particular chip.

 

[gyraf]

Thanks, PRR - great explanation.. :thumb:

Jakob E.

 

[syn]

Thank You very much for teaching such a valuable lesson.
I have no words left...

Regards

 

[clorax hurd]

You can't buy a LM833: that's a concept, not a part. LM833N is the LM833 idea in a DIP package, which is most likely what you want.

Is this information for sure correct? I mean thanks for the enriching explanation, but it doesn't seem to apply in this case. The DIP version of LM833 idea is NOT called LM833N, but LM833P. LM833N seems like a DIFFERENT (but very similar idea) and it's DIP version is called the same - LM833N. At least from what I see on TI web, the LM833 and LM833-N seems to be different ideas not different packages. They do seem to have similar purposes and parameters, but there are differences like for example: Iq per channel (Max) is 8mA for LM833-N and 2.5mA for LM833
and others... better see for yourself on the the two different web pages for the two different chip "ideas":
- http://www.ti.com/product/lm833-n
- http://www.ti.com/product/lm833

So to sum it up, there seems to be:
- LM833N Dual Audio Operational Amplifier ---- and it's DIP version is also called LM833N (and then there are other version for different packages called LM833MM and other LM833M*)
- LM833 Dual High-Speed Audio Operational Amplifier ---- and it's DIP version is called LM833P

So, I would like to ask also:
What is better to use it better to use the calrec EQ? LM833-N or LM833 ?
Are any of the differences important in such application?

 

[JohnRoberts]

The LM833 generic web page is so guys like you get a result when typing in partial part numbers. At the end of the data sheet there is a list of full part numbers with package types.

If you try to buy a LM833 without the rest of the part number they probably won't let you, but try it and tell us what you get.  8)

PRR gave comprehensive and correct advice, as usual.

JR

 

[clorax hurd]

Seems that you haven't even read my post before replying... So once again:

The LM833 generic web page is so guys like you get a result when typing in partial part numbers.

Why are the two pages different then? If it is the same chip, it should contain the same information and same packages names. Which it does NOT.

If the LM833 is a generic page, then please show me the LM833N listed on that page. According to your assumptions, it should be there listed between the packages there. But it is not.

At the end of the data sheet there is a list of full part numbers with package types.

Yes, and there are listed DIFFERENT full part numbers for the same packages of LM833 vs LM833M

for LM833 it's:
LM833D = SOIC (D)
LM833DGKR = VSSOP (DGK)
LM833DGKT = VSSOP (DGK)
LM833DR = SOIC (D)
LM833P = PDIP (P)
(NO LM833N LISTED AT ALL ON THE LM833 WEB!!!!)

for LM833M it's:
LM833M SOIC (D)
LM833MM = VSSOP (DGK)
LM833MMX/NOPB = VSSOP (DGK)
LM833MX = SOIC (D)
LM833N = PDIP (P)
(i excluded the /nopb versions which are the same)

So how do you explain that?
If LM833 and LM833M is the same chip, then why is its SOIC version called LM833D on the LM833 web page and LM833M on LM833N web page?
Why LM833P for DIP of LM833 and LM833N for DIP of LM833N?
Same for VSSOP packages.
Perhaps because it is a different chip?
It even has different parameters.

Please explain (perhaps using reasoning instead of phrases like "guys like you" )

If you try to buy a LM833 without the rest of the part number they probably won't let you, but try it and tell us what you get.  8)

But I never said that there is a physical part called LM833. Read my post again. I said that there is LM833 kind of chip, of which there is a physical DIP type named LM833P (and not LM833. i never claimed that), and then there is LM833M kind of chip, of which the DIP kind is named LM833M.

So it's two chips. If we consider only DIP packages, then the physical parts are called LM833M for one and LM833P for the other.

PRR gave comprehensive and correct advice, as usual.

PRR gave very nice piece of information which applies to 99% cases, but not this one. Or if it does, then prove me wrong using reasoning.
I can see that he's experienced, but that doesn't mean that he can't make a mistake and it also doesn't mean that we should stop thinking when he speak and stop questioning what he says even when we think he is wrong in some case. And also the fact, that I have only 5 posts in here, doesn't mean that I'm an idiot.

 

[AMZ-FX]

TI bought National Semi a few years back, and absorbed its parts into their system. The datasheet for the LM833N is the old National datasheet for the LM833 while the other one is the datasheet for the TI version of the same part and it was dated July 2010, i.e. before the NatSemi purchase.

Are they now made from the same die?  Don't know, but at some point they most probably will be (if not already).

regards, Jack

 

[clorax hurd]

Thanks for explanation Jack!

So the N suffix means it's the "National Semiconductors" version. Have nothing to do with the package versions. (so PRR really made a mistake and John Roberts was just blindly defending him)

Hard to tell if they are in practice made from the same die, but in theory (if the specs doesn't lie) they slightly differ in few parameters. For example:

Iq per channel (Max) (mA) 2.5   
Iq per channel (Max) (mA) 8   

GBW (Typ) (MHz) 16   
GBW (Typ) (MHz) 15

or Input Offset Voltage is ~twice for the national semi version..

+ if they would be making them the same way in same factory, then I assume they would just ditch one of the versions (make it obsolete) and use only one name for the only lm833. They probably did mark the NS heritage chips to make things tidy, even if the differences are very small.

 

[Brian Roth]

I dug up an old (1988) National Linear Databook I had on my shelf.  In it under LM833, they specified two "order numbers".  LM833N was 8 pin DIP and LM833M was "narrow body" surface mount.  So, in the context of PRR's original posting from 2005, he was absolutely correct.

Looking at the TI data sheet for the "other" version which includes the LM833P, TI didn't appear to make that part until 2010.  So, in 2005 when this thread began, TI wasn't in the game.

Now is the "newer" TI better or worse than the older National version is anyone's guess.

Bri

 

[AMZ-FX]

I dug up an old (1988) National Linear Databook I had on my shelf.  In it under LM833, they specified two "order numbers".  LM833N was 8 pin DIP and LM833M was "narrow body" surface mount.  So, in the context of PRR's original posting from 2005, he was absolutely correct.

Looking at the TI data sheet for the "other" version which includes the LM833P, TI didn't appear to make that part until 2010.  So, in 2005 when this thread began, TI wasn't in the game.

Now is the "newer" TI better or worse than the older National version is anyone's guess.

I used the 1988 Linear 1 databook when I looked it up, and the LM833 sheet is labeled "Preliminary" so the chip was fairly new at that time. I agree that PRR's post from 2005 is correct since there was no TI second source at that time. Currently, ON Semi also makes the LM833NG, and ST Micro offers an LM833N, so there are several sources.

The LM833 is a fairly common chip, and I suspect that there were a large number of wafers in stock for it at the time of the TI/National merger. Probably at some point, the chip with the "best" specs will be the only version sold.

regards, Jack

 

[JohnRoberts]

Thanks for explanation Jack!

So the N suffix means it's the "National Semiconductors" version. Have nothing to do with the package versions. (so PRR really made a mistake and John Roberts was just blindly defending him)

Hard to tell if they are in practice made from the same die, but in theory (if the specs doesn't lie) they slightly differ in few parameters. For example:

Iq per channel (Max) (mA) 2.5   
Iq per channel (Max) (mA) 8   

GBW (Typ) (MHz) 16   
GBW (Typ) (MHz) 15

or Input Offset Voltage is ~twice for the national semi version..

+ if they would be making them the same way in same factory, then I assume they would just ditch one of the versions (make it obsolete) and use only one name for the only lm833. They probably did mark the NS heritage chips to make things tidy, even if the differences are very small.

Yup, pretty much... I did waste a little time yesterday at the links you posted but not much.

Today I wasted even more time and my guess is that there are two versions of the same part. Many parts have multiple sources.

There are subtle differences between the two data sheets that do not strike me as audibly significant

833 specs slightly lower max power supply current  2.75mA per ch vs  8ma max for both in 833-N
833 specs typical gain bandwidth of 16MHz vs typical 15 MHz for 833N
833 specs tighter DC input characteristics. 2mV max vs 5mV on 833N

I have no idea what a Calrec EQ needs so cannot answer your specific question.

My judgement is that they are the same parts run across two different IC FAB lines (different masks etc) so are subtly different. The 833N data sheet was revised in 2012 but I won't speculate if numbers were changed. (If I was TI I might be tempted to make the TI part look better.)

If you want to carry this analysis further look at the schematic for your calrec EQ and see how the apparent spec deviations make a difference.

They are the same part for all practical purposes. I would not expect an audible difference between them in use.

JR

PS: You have confused the current consumption for one amp in the two amp package vs. both. So more correct comparison is 5.5mA vs. 8 mA what isn't completely clear (to me)  is whether the dual opamp duplicates the right side of the opamp schematic (shown on 833-N data sheet).  It seems prudent to use only one zener and current source to feed both opamp bias strings, to save current consumption and silicon real estate. So the per opamp current consumption might be without this common zener and current source. That would get the current draw closer between the two parts, while process differences could explain some difference too.

PPS: you got me, they are the same part from two different foundries, now under one owner. Before the difference would be established as TI vs Nat Semi brand. If you still find my speculation unsatisfactory get some parts and make your own measurements.   

[edit] also be aware that typical and max data sheet specs are not simple objective measurements that fall on neat round numbers but statistical and sometimes conservative numbers plucked from a range of measurements. I recall once being surprised when I looked at the spec sheet for mixer that was copied by another manufacturer to see that they copied the data sheet too.  :  No two engineers would come up with exactly identical data sheets even for the same product, as that 833 and 833N shows. [/edit]

 

[abbey road d enfer]

Anyway, why not use a 5532 instead, since it outperforms the 833 in many aspects?...

 

[JohnRoberts]

Anyway, why not use a 5532 instead, since it outperforms the 833 in many aspects?...

Is that the Gordion Knot solution... Use neither..  ;D ;D

JR

 

[PRR]

Interesting observation.

Yes, it appears that TI renumbered the part when TI bought National; and that they currently have two sheets on the website and they don't quite agree.

Yes, it does appear that TI has replaced National's "N" designation with a "P" designation in the several years since I wrote that.

And that someone at TI could look at *both* sheets and figure out which one is more-correct, possibly re-direct the other. (It was a BIG job to conglomerate Nat's catalog into TI's catalog, I have some annoyances {like a first-page which screws-up the page numbering [they seem to have un-done that bit]} but mostly it's gone well.)

> 8mA for LM833-N and 2.5mA for LM833

The "2.5" is "per channel" on a dual chip. So really 5mA vs 8mA.

Is this sigificant? Note super-small print on first page of "LM833" sheet 2010: "Production processing does not necessarily include testing of all parameters." If you get one that sucks 9mA (all stated test conditions), that's OK with them.

I suspect it's not even a mask/process difference (could be), but a difference of opinion about how much to round-up the design specs to cover worst-case parts. If you bake a hundred, and find 3.5mA to 4.5mA, is it safe to round-up to "5"? Or have hyper-fussy customers driven you to CYA with broader margins on published numbers? And this also depends on the market. Cell-phones do have to watch every mA. Power chips with large current needs, again you may have to watch your mAs. Jellybean wall-power chips, who cares if an individual chip is 5mA or 9mA? We might care in a 100-chip board, difference between a 500mA and a 900mA supply. OTOH the statistics of chip making say that up around 100 chips you are as likely to find some on the low end as the high end, and the average is likely to be near the so-called ha-ha "typical".

I persist in my teaching. You can't buy a "LM833" the same way you can't buy a "Honda Accord". When I bought, I had to choose DX, LX, or SX(?). One was no-moonroof, plastic hubcaps, and basic radio; one was leather seats, wider tires, and CD changer. Then you also had to specify 130HP 150HP or 200HP engine. With the smaller engines you then had to specify row-box or slush-box gears. And of course cars have colors. Each of these must be an additional digit in the code-number the salesman has to put into the order system. And perhaps the 200HP option was "Q" in 2002 but "M" in 2003.

 

[guitar4444]

I always thought N was lower noise and LN was even lower noise, seems I was wrong.

cheers Greg