[sdiy] op amp substitutes

[harrybissell]

anthony wrote:

> Oh I said it was 'technically crappy'. From me that translates to "The
> datasheet doesn't add up to what I've seen in real world applications.

What parameter did you think missed the data sheet specs. Often people
claim "too noisy" in a circuit populated with carbon comp resistors and
electrolytics.  In those cases, its usually the PASSIVE components that
contribute the
major amount of noise.  I replace them with metal film and the noise disappears.

I reach for the 4558 these days for audio opamps that don't need the high
impedance
of the TL07x series.

> > The 741 is extremely rugged. It is NOT fast, that is a virtue in some
> > cases. In
> > a lot
> > of circuits if you use a FASTER opamp it will become unstable.
>
> I haven't run into many 741's oddly enough. Seems like most equipment uses a
> 1458 or a 358 and especially 324's which is kind of weird. It could be
> possible that I simply overlooked the 741's and 1458's when I desoldered
> stuff.

Keep in mind that 741 and 1458 belong in a sentence, and 324 and 358 belong
in another. They ARE both opamps but are otherwise SO different that you need
to consider them separatly (wll imho :^)

Single package opamps are ideal for circuits that might otherwise interact with
the
adjacent package.

> > The LM324 is a different animal.  While for SH!T in audio, it is very
> > useful in
> > single
> > supply applications.  I even use and stock them... and they are on my BBD
> > list
> > :^P
>
> An old electronic drum, the DR7 and also the DR8 used 324's all over the
> place.

If they are in single supply apps... and not trying to pass high quality audio
(and a drum circuit might not be caleed 'high quality' if you are making an
oscillator
anyway..) they are fine. AND cheap.  Manufacturers often opt for cheap, not
good.

Diy'ers don't have to do that...   ;^P

H^) harry