THAT vs TI

Help Support GroupDIY:

ruffrecords

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 10, 2006
Messages
13,403
Location
Norfolk - UK
Both THAT and TI make line drivers and receivers with apparently identical specs. Is there anything to choose between them?

Cheers

Ian
 

Newmarket

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 10, 2016
Messages
579
Location
Brighton Sussex UK
Are you comparing specific devices ? THAT do some stuff that TI doesn't really duplicate I believe. Eg the "Ingenius" and "Outsmarts" parts.
 

Mike Havok

Active member
Joined
Feb 26, 2017
Messages
36
Are you comparing specific devices ? THAT do some stuff that TI doesn't really duplicate I believe. Eg the "Ingenius" and "Outsmarts" parts.
They have the INA134 & DRV134, which I believe is what Ian was referring to
 

john12ax7

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 14, 2010
Messages
1,848
Location
California, US
Yes, important to consider what specific parts you mean. THAT 1240 will be similar to TI INA134. 1200 should improve CMRR at increased cost and complexity. 1646 is supposed to tolerate unbalanced loads better than DRV134.
 

ruffrecords

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 10, 2006
Messages
13,403
Location
Norfolk - UK
I should have said I am thinking specifically of the TI INA137 and the DRV134 and the THAT equivalents.

Their data sheets are extremely similar I just wonder if they are the same parts? The TI data sheet also has Burr Brown stamped all over it.

Cheers

Ian
 

abbey road d enfer

Well-known member
Moderator
Joined
Jan 22, 2008
Messages
12,363
Location
Marcelland
THAT is a David compared to Goliath TI. TI acquired the BB brand many years ago. THAT are proudly independant. Les Tyler and Gary Hebbert are great guys (ex-dbx).
 

emrr

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 12, 2006
Messages
7,800
Location
NC, USA
Both THAT and TI make line drivers and receivers with apparently identical specs. Is there anything to choose between them?

Cheers

Ian
The outputs are specd differently. One is +6 into 600 the other is +6 into 10K. 0.77dB difference from memory.
 

Gustav

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 4, 2004
Messages
2,125
Location
DK
I base my findings mostly on feedback - "try this, report back". The 1646 was always prefered by real world users, when I put together units.

For what its worth, I attribute these words from a review mostly to just using those chips, and this type of feedback is very common with the 1646.

"
Before I get onto how the thing actually behaves in use, I wanted to give a big, big shout to Gustav for something that’s not particularly sexy or interesting, but is very important to me. That is, the balancing / input-output buffering on this unit.

I have a lot of oddball, finicky passive stuff (courtesy of another Danish maestro), and simply, a lot of gear just isn’t up to the task of driving it. Sonic degradation / level loss and therefore restricted routings to avoid it become a fact of life. Fact is, the typical electronic balancing you find in a lot of gear just isn’t up to the task. It just doesn’t play well with everything, which can be restrictive.

With Gustav’s recent designs, this unit included, there’s a confident assurance to the sound. It plays nicely wherever you patch it, wherever you want to use it. This cannot be said for all other gear, including very reputable stuff. The DSEQ helps everything sound that bit better, if you’re using trickier gear.

I don’t pretend to know the ins and outs (ho ho!) of active buffers and their design. But whatever it is Gustav is doing, everyone should be doing it."
 

Timjag

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 23, 2016
Messages
153
I'm going to be that awful subjective sound engineer guy, I have Mick Hinton's DAV BG8 preamps that are loaded with the THAT mic amp IC and the line buffer, they're fabulous wide sounding preamps, please don't shoot me I'm just the end user,LOL!

I'm repeatedly told there's nothing special about Mick's design but we alway go back to them and I've got plenty of other supposedly cool things here to play with so there you go. Make of that what you will they're so cheap why not try both?
 

Newmarket

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 10, 2016
Messages
579
Location
Brighton Sussex UK
Which ones?

I think I'd get the part numbers wrong. But, oddly enough, the switches controlled by logic level.
Charge pump inside IIRC. Much less fuss than having to arrange a -24V (or whatever) bus for discrete jfets.
Also their 'Analogue |Engine" (integrated detection and VCA) and RMS detection parts.

Specifically not SSM2142 cross balanced output devices. Because using them in a commercial product I found the quality (this was under AD) wasn't reliable.
Whilst they normally measured fine (testing to essentially 16bit performance on a Neutrik A2) we had a batch where the measurement (prob unweighted THD+N - it was a long time ago now !) was recording only c -75dB where I usually got -89.9 or so. Checking / Cross Testing etc conformed the issue with the batch.
I could see that the -75dB figure was within the published datasheet spec' but you know...
Fed it back to AD for comment - and basically got a "It's in spec" response.

Also their application notes were great. And because it was before the web had really taken off you got a nice printed book ! I was going to recommend it as text but didn't as it's not really available now afaik.
 

Newmarket

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 10, 2016
Messages
579
Location
Brighton Sussex UK
I'm going to be that awful subjective sound engineer guy, I have Mick Hinton's DAV BG8 preamps that are loaded with the THAT mic amp IC and the line buffer, they're fabulous wide sounding preamps, please don't shoot me I'm just the end user,LOL!

I'm repeatedly told there's nothing special about Mick's design but we alway go back to them and I've got plenty of other supposedly cool things here to play with so there you go. Make of that what you will they're so cheap why not try both?

Well that's not nearly subjective enough to earn the title :)
You need to claim that a NE5534 brings out the detail of a floor tom whilst an LF351 will lose midrange from percussion unless you use a polyester output capacitor with a specific epoxy coating...
 

ccaudle

Member
Joined
Mar 18, 2010
Messages
20
Location
Houston
data sheets are extremely similar I just wonder if they are the same parts?
I believe THAT still has their own analog fabs, so all the THAT Corp. parts are custom THAT design, not rebranding any TI die.
Vendors commonly make a part with the same pinout as another vendor, especially if their part comes out later, or if the other vendor has larger market share, so that they can take advantage of designs done originally with the first vendor in mind.
For larger volume products done in a larger company, you often get a lot of pressure from production/procurement (for good reason) to not use parts that are available from only one vendor, so that if you get suddenly caught out because your original vendor decides to EOL the part, or their factory catches on fire (cough AKM cough), you have a fall back plan to avoid all of your revenue suddenly stopping.
 

abbey road d enfer

Well-known member
Moderator
Joined
Jan 22, 2008
Messages
12,363
Location
Marcelland
I think I'd get the part numbers wrong. But, oddly enough, the switches controlled by logic level.
Charge pump inside IIRC. Much less fuss than having to arrange a -24V (or whatever) bus for discrete jfets.
This part of the market is taken by their line of CMOS switches. See ADG419.
Also their 'Analogue |Engine" (integrated detection and VCA) and RMS detection parts.
Isn't "Analogue Engine" a registered TM of THAT?
 

Timjag

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 23, 2016
Messages
153
Well that's not nearly subjective enough to earn the title :)
You need to claim that a NE5534 brings out the detail of a floor tom whilst an LF351 will lose midrange from percussion unless you use a polyester output capacitor with a specific epoxy coating...
well I can give you all that waffle if you like! I have a earlier BG1 that has the TI equivalent in it that no one uses! LOL, but that might have more to do with the weird choices on the front panel of extremely low HP filter at 33htz and only phase switch on the first channel than it does with the op amps inside but who knows?! The BG8 gets all the love and the BG1 notsomuch
 

Latest posts

Top