[sdiy] New TI 5532

[brianw]

For something as basic and fundamental as an op-amp, it's very likely that such a translation layer would be impossible.

if it were possible to design a translation layer, it would surely be an order of magnitude more complex than simply designing another op-amp that has the desired characteristics natively.

In contrast, if there is a subsystem like a power supply, then it's more plausible to translate one power supply design to another.

Using the software analogy, I'd say that an op-amp is like the programming language itself, rather than a collection of thousands of lines of code that can be translated. Sure, you can translate programming languages, but it takes an order of magnitude more resources than simply rewriting the code in the new language.


On May 7, 2026, at 8:27 AM, Eric Honour wrote:
> I'm actually curious if it would be plausible to add an additional translation layer that allows a new part to behave like an old one.
> 
> In software development, there's a pattern called an "anti-corruption layer" where you basically segregate legacy code apart from cleaner, more modern code.  I'm basically envisioning a hardware version of this, but inverted - a "re-corruption layer".
> 
> On Thu, May 7, 2026 at 11:06 AM Matthew Skala via Synth-diy <synth-diy at synth-diy.org <mailto:synth-diy at synth-diy.org>> wrote:
> On Thu, 7 May 2026, Sean Ellis via Synth-diy wrote:
> 
> > Just saw this thread, not sure if it was shared here.https://groupdiy.com/threads/the-new-ti-5532-chips-are-not-5532s-weve-used- <https://groupdiy.com/threads/the-new-ti-5532-chips-are-not-5532s-weve-used->
> > for-decades.93707/
> 
> Sounds like the TL074H story over again.
> 
> It is a genuine problem that obsolete processes can't be kept running
> indefinitely.  They can't necessarily keep making a chip that they've been
> making for decades, and keep making it exactly the same way, especially
> not with the commercial reality of dwindling demand for old analog parts.
> 
> If only one tech knows how to run the machine, and the output of that
> machine already doesn't sell enough to pay his salary, then when that guy
> retires it's not reasonable to expect them to have another one trained,
> and keep doing so forever.  And there can be plenty of little gotchas like
> "Oh, that old analog process involved washing the die in X solvent, which
> we're no longer allowed to use for environmental reasons."  At some point
> they may really have to pull the plug.
> 
> But I don't understand why they can't admit that they're outright ending
> production of a given part, and assign a new part number (not just a
> suffix!) for the "better" replacement.  Make it clear that it's a new part
> and not just the evolution of the old one.  The supply of few-digit part
> numbers isn't infinite, but it's big enough; and keeping the reputation
> for dealing with customers honestly instead of jerking us around breaking
> our designs, ought to be worth something.
> 
> -- 
> Matthew Skala
> North Coast Synthesis Ltd.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://synth-diy.org/pipermail/synth-diy/attachments/20260507/7c0138dd/attachment.htm>