Substitute for JRC4558D (TS-clone)?

[Mann]

Looking for substitutes for the JRC4558D - is a MC4558 suitable?

[Fret Wire]

Yes. There's better though. Texas Instruments' RC4558 (sounds very good), and RC4559 (more dist., good), and the NE5532 (sweet & quiet, great). The above are cheap and plentiful. Hi-Fi chips are Burr-Brown OPA2134 and OPA2064, both expensive. TL072, cheap and works also.

[Paul Marossy]

You could also try an OP275, LF353 and a NTE928M I think it is...

[dmjones43701]

Yes. There's better though. Texas Instruments' RC4558 (sounds very good), and RC4559 (more dist., good), and the NE5532 (sweet & quiet, great). The above are cheap and plentiful. Hi-Fi chips are Burr-Brown OPA2134 and OPA2064, both expensive. TL072, cheap and works also.

The TI RC4558P is a superior part to the JRC chip, smoother and greasier, very sweet sounding.  the 4559 is the same with a bit more grind.  the OPA2111, OPA2132, and OPA2227/2228s are very good as well, actually just about any burr brown chip is good.  The 2111 is linear cmos, one of my favorites.

[sir_modulus]

for me personally I like the LM833 (it's Nat semiconductor's basic dual opamp, thats used for most general applications(its like the 3904 of opamps)). This sounds good and has really low noise.

[cd]

The posts above may make it sound like there's a huge difference between chips, but there's not.  The difference is subtle, and more often than not can be obliterated with a tweak of the tone control.  Get your circuit working with a socket for the opamp, then swap to your heart's content.

[Fret Wire]

The posts above may make it sound like there's a huge difference between chips, but there's not.

No one above was saying that. Most on this people on this forum know the difference is subtle, but noticeable. Of course, when you replace the TA75558 in a TS-9 with any of the above, it's a very noticeable difference. Then, swapping amongst the better chips, the difference is way less, but you can still hear it.

[cd]

The posts above may make it sound like there's a huge difference between chips, but there's not.

No one above was saying that. Most on this people on this forum know the difference is subtle, but noticeable. Of course, when you replace the TA75558 in a TS-9 with any of the above, it's a very noticeable difference. Then, swapping amongst the better chips, the difference is way less, but you can still hear it.

That was why I wrote *MAY MAKE IT SOUND*.  Read some of those posts again - if you're a newbie with no idea of the difference (which is what the original post reads like), you may think a whole new pedal will result just by changing the opamp, which is definitely not the case.

[mugan]

I like how the RC4559 sounds over the JRC4558, it's a little more crunchy.

[Transmogrifox]

another two chips I haven't seen listed above:

TSH22
MC33078

The TSH22 boasts of good behavior at the rails, ie, no inversion at saturation.  It saturates gracefully.

The MC33078 is a good low noise low THD+N chip that will probably produce a smoother, more "pristine" sound.

You really need to put a socket in your box and buy a supply of assorted IC's, ideally all that have been mentioned so far.

Put a piece of tape on the top of each one so you can't read what it is, jumble them up in a box and start plugging and playing.

The "blind" approach keeps you more objective so your pre-conceived opinions about "good" and "bad" IC's don't taint your idea of what sounds good.

When you narrow it down to a few that you like the best, take off the tape and see what they are.  From there, you're probably good to use any of them.

If you honestly can't tell the difference between all the chips you try, then pick the one that makes you feel the best about your TS...then go to modding other things that make a more drastic change.

[Gilles C]

Try to convince these people that op-amps all sound the same...

http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/showthread/t-27812.html

http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/showthread/t-23538.html

http://tangentsoft.net/audio/opamps.html

http://www.soundlabsgroup.com.au/components/opamp_modules.htm

And I can't find another site that had even more details about tests that some guys did.

I would say that it's about the same difference than between op-amps and discrete circuits. Some people hear a difference, some don't.

I can't say who's right because I didn't make any test myself. But I find it interesting enough that I will try a different op-amp for my next op-amp project.

For now, I prefer to use FETs and transistors because that's the sound that I prefer.  :wink:

Gilles

[Transmogrifox]

From one of the links from Gilles C. :

I guess the 5532 has pretty close specs to a 12AX7 tube

Whoever said that has no idea of what they're talking about.  Tubes and linear semiconductor circuits share 2 things in common:

1.  The input is related to the output linearly for low amplitude signals.
2.  They have a maximum headroom before they become non-linear.

In that sense, semiconductors are no different than tubes, however, there is a big difference when you get to the non-linear range of operation, and op-amps are the least like tubes of all semi-conductor devices and IC's.

Now, I agree that the IC in a TS does not make a substantial difference.  I do, however, detect a subtle difference between IC's, but in a live setting if somebody gave me a TS overdrive pedal with a different IC in it than what I have in the one I usually use, I wouldn't even know it.

Therefore, I have an OP275 in mine primarily for the low noise aspect.  I think I like the subtle change in the tone as well, but that was only determined by careful listening and A/B comparisons with other op amps...which means it took very careful listening to detect a difference.

[Fret Wire]

The posts above may make it sound like there's a huge difference between chips, but there's not.

No one above was saying that. Most on this people on this forum know the difference is subtle, but noticeable. Of course, when you replace the TA75558 in a TS-9 with any of the above, it's a very noticeable difference. Then, swapping amongst the better chips, the difference is way less, but you can still hear it.

That was why I wrote *MAY MAKE IT SOUND*.  Read some of those posts again - if you're a newbie with no idea of the difference (which is what the original post reads like), you may think a whole new pedal will result just by changing the opamp, which is definitely not the case.

I do read before I post, and once again, no one gave that impression. You're are right, some newcomers may draw the wrong conclusions on their own. But newcomers most will ask, and are usually given the right answer. If you want to point that out, go ahead...just don't do on the back of anyone who gave solid, good advice.

It gets to the point where you could type four paragraphs about IC's  everytime someone asks, but how many of us are going to do that? Why don't you write up a articulate primer on this, and the final difference when you play out live, and Aron can stick it in the beginners section. Then we can link to it when someone ask's.

"More often than not obliterated by a tweak in the tone control". Expand on this a little more. Was this something you read? What specific testing did you find this to be true? Be specific too, on which chip vs. which. When I decided to find out what was what with all this,  I used six indentical TS-9's to compare IC's in a pretty thorough manner. That's why I'll speak on some specific IC's because I did test them.  How specifically did the tone control obliterate the difference in noise (hiss) between the JRC4558 and the NE5532/OPA series? It didn't in my testing, nor would it in anyone's, for that matter. RC4559 vs. RC4558? The gain control evened out the playing field on that one. The gain control affected the difference in most of the IC's. Tone control to a degree amongst the OPA's. The volume affects more that the tone also. But, the whole idea is invalid because if one chip's subtle difference click's with your gear just right, you're not going to then use another eq setting to mimick another chip. Think about that.

Don't take this wrong, I'm not ball busting or looking for an argument, I have better things to do. I'm always looking to learn something new, or correct myself. I covered alot of ground when I tested TS IC's, but some of the results account only for my ears, and my gear. Love to see someone else's results.

[Fret Wire]

Gilles, I couldn't find the exact thread, but that forum you linked too is out there with some stuff. There was one thread where they were claiming that one brand of NE5532's sounded different from another, not because of specs, but because the pins were thicker and stiffer than the other brand. claimed there was an acoustic tone difference. I you read some of their threads, they claim that IC sockets tone-suck ckts. I wonder if they measured this, or hear this. If you think IC differences are subtle, swapping sockets! 20hz-20,00khz or not, I think that's out there.

[Transmogrifox]

yeah, that forum was pretty out there...however, that's an indirect compliment to the people in this forum.  This thread is a good example of people giving down-to-earth answers about a TS IC change.  I haven't yet seen someone claiming there's phenomenal magic smoke in one chip that isn't quite as magic as another...or claiming that sockets are a tone-suck.  Maybe they suck tone if you are using a super high slew rate chip that goes unstable at 56 MHz in a socket, but then it's not the socket, is it?

Either way, kudos to you guys that know what you're talking about.  It's pretty evident who has actually tried their theories objectively and who has not; and there are many who have a lot of builds and experiments under their belts who frequent this forum.  They don't offer crap for advice.  Keep learning!

[Fret Wire]

I wish I could find that thread about the NE5532. If I remember it right, The TI NE5532 had stiffer pins than the National or Fairchild, thus the TI sounded better. My home stereo is pretty good, but I doubt I'd hear IC pin stiffness, or sockets tone-sucking. And I don't think I'll be testing that either!

Regarding sockets, they always say that sockets tone-suck on that forum. They usually say that after they are done swapping and testing, they get rid of the sockets and solder the IC directly in. It seems if you aren't carefull soldering IC's directly, you'll get tonesucking alright.

Even with all the testing of TS-9/808 IC's, the results are still part fact, and part subjective. And six tubescreamers in a row gets pretty old after awhile.

[Eric H]

I wish I could find that thread about the NE5532. If I remember it right, The TI NE5532 had stiffer pins than the National or Fairchild, thus the TI sounded better. My home stereo is pretty good, but I doubt I'd hear IC pin stiffness, or sockets tone-sucking. And I don't think I'll be testing that either!

Regarding sockets, they always say that sockets tone-suck on that forum. They usually say that after they are done swapping and testing, they get rid of the sockets and solder the IC directly in. It seems if you aren't carefull soldering IC's directly, you'll get tonesucking alright.

The issue with the sockets is added parasitic capacitance. This is a real issue with very high-speed opamps, and soldering to the board (without sockets) is strongly recommended in the data sheets for these types of chips.

Even with all the testing of TS-9/808 IC's, the results are still part fact, and part subjective. And six tubescreamers in a row gets pretty old after awhile.

I'm curious how you managed to get six --identical-- ts9's for your testing.

-Eric

[mikeb]

I think there's a lot of money to be made selling things on subjective differences - checkout the people doing TS9 -> 808 conversions with carbon-comp resistors, 'real-deal' 4558s etc etc. I'd even put the Ge transistor thing (i.e. you MUST have blahblahblahs in your fuzz-face otherwise it won't be as 'good' as it could be) in this category - as long as the devices have the 'magic' gains (which have been recognised and documented) it will sound pretty bloody good.

I salute people who actually take the time to DO testing rather than just talk about the theoretical differences.

Mike

[Fret Wire]

The issue with the sockets is added parasitic capacitance. This is a real issue with very high-speed opamps, and soldering to the board (without sockets) is strongly recommended in the data sheets for these types of chips.
Eric

That's interesting, I didn't know that. Would that difference be noticeable in home stereo, because that's what they were saying. They were specifically talking about tonal differences with their sound systems of socket vs direct soldered.

Not hard to get six identical TS-9's. Not talking originals or early reissues, but six later vintage MIJ TS-9 reissues. Same values, same TA75558 IC's. Is that what you meant?

[Transmogrifox]

The issue with the sockets is added parasitic capacitance. This is a real issue with very high-speed opamps, and soldering to the board (without sockets) is strongly recommended in the data sheets for these types of chips.
Eric

That's interesting, I didn't know that. Would that difference be noticeable in home stereo, because that's what they were saying. They were specifically talking about tonal differences with their sound systems of socket vs direct soldered.

Unless one is looking at very high resistance in the feedback loop, or very large input impedances, the parasitic capacitance should not effect anything until well into the RF range.  Hi-Fi audio systems avoid this for additive noise purposes.  We're talking about 10-20 pF farad here.  I can't imagine it has any effect on audio.  I wouldn't be convinced unless somebody took about 10 identical hi-fi systems, set 5 with the IC's soldered to the board and 5 socketed and did a blind test on a bunch of audiophiles.  If it turned out near unanimous that half the systems were "tone-sucking" and this half correlated strongly with the systems with socketed IC's, then it may turn my head.