| SSM2210 or LM394CH [message #200660] |
Thu, 23 November 2006 05:28  |
 |
resolectric
Messages: 249
Registered: May 2004
Location: Europe |
Active Member |
|
|
Question about "three legged devices", or, to be precise, six and eight legged.
Analog console, customized.
Some of the channels in this console have a LM394CH transistor in place of the SSM2210 that is placed in most other channels.
I see no other change in the circuitry.
The same caps, same resistor values, everything. No othger changes were made.
Just these 4 or 5 channels have this LM394CH inserted in the IC socket, where the 2210 "should be".
I see the LM394 is a direct replacement for the 2210 but not the CH version.
My question is wether or not the LM394CH is a correct replacement for the 2210 and if i should expect some kind of performance improvement with either.
The 394CH is a six legged transistor so, it's only occupying 6 of the 8 IC socket pins, not that i think that would be a problem, but, just as added info.
I'd appreciate your info and suggestions on this.
And, last but not least, a great welcome to Bruno Putzeys to the very international PSW Forums.
It's a real honour to have you here.
Paulo Miranda
|
|
|
|
| Re: SSM2210 or LM394CH [message #200727 is a reply to message #200660 ] |
Thu, 23 November 2006 11:54  |
|
resolectric
Messages: 249
Registered: May 2004
Location: Europe |
Active Member |
|
|
Great, thanks for the fast and clear reply.
In fact the console does have a long history of mods and repairs, some done by a previous owner. Has a lot of character and i look at it as a desk for experimentation, and, of course, end up by using it most of the time.
Will have to test and listen carefully for sound differences, if any, between the 2210 and the 394 channels.
Paulo Miranda
|
|
|
| Re: SSM2210 or LM394CH [message #201839 is a reply to message #200660 ] |
Tue, 28 November 2006 10:23 |
 Jim Williams
Messages: 462
Registered: May 2005
Location: beautiful carlsbad, CA |
Active Member |
|
|
Consider using the Analog Devices MAT-02. It's available in very tight matching, I used them in a Ashley SC-55 comp. They also sound better than the 394 in mic pre front ends and in the JH24/110C series of MCI decks. The 394 is a dark sounding device.
Jim Williams
Audio Upgrades
|
|
|
| Re: SSM2210 or LM394CH [message #201912 is a reply to message #201839 ] |
Tue, 28 November 2006 14:01 |
ssltech
Messages: 1877
Registered: May 2004
Location: Florida (previously UK) |
Platinum Member |
|
|
I have some LM394s in metal can, also some in 8-pin DIL/DIP. I also have a few MAT-02s if you need them.
In a few designs the MAT-02 hasn't worked well for me as a drop-in replacement for the LM394. Front end of SSL E-series transformerless mic pres being one example.
Keith
| MDM (maxdimario) wrote on Fri, 16 November 2007 21:36 |
I have the feeling that I have more experience in my little finger than you do in your whole body about audio electronics..
|
|
|
|
| Re: SSM2210 or LM394CH [message #202055 is a reply to message #200660 ] |
Wed, 29 November 2006 05:25 |
|
resolectric
Messages: 249
Registered: May 2004
Location: Europe |
Active Member |
|
|
Thank's all for the info.
I have recently seen some references on those MAT-02s suggesting just that; an improvement over either the 2210 or the 394.
I would very much like to give them a try, so, Keith, i will PM you regarding those.
Also, do you think the MAT-02s power consumption in the circuit, or heating, would be a problem? When compared to that of the 2210s or 394s, that is.
I'd consider fitting 8 channels with those, to start with.
The console here is definitely not an SSL and though Mic Pres are transformerless, the circuit had to come from somewhere. This being a nearly totally handmade console, small production company, i believe part of the circuit is familiar with some other consoles. Not sure though.
Paulo Miranda
|
|
|
|
| Re: SSM2210 or LM394CH [message #203417 is a reply to message #200660 ] |
Mon, 04 December 2006 07:55 |
|
resolectric
Messages: 249
Registered: May 2004
Location: Europe |
Active Member |
|
|
Monte: thankyou for the valuable info.
Now, with more thorough testing and carefully comparing performance between LM394 and SSM2210 equipped channels it seems to me that high frequency response is cleaner on the SSM2210 ones.
The LM394 channels seem to have a tendency for saturating the sibilants turning them harsher and requiring more of a frequency dependant compression, a de-esser maybe.
The SSM2210 channels sound cleaner and more evenly balanced.
On the other hand, the noise floor seems higher in every 2210 fitted channel. Maybe because of a frequency response that extends higher? Maybe that is also why the LM394 channels have poorer performance in the highs?
I have tested with a AT4033, AT4050, a couple of dynamic Beyer Dynamics and a B&K mic more than 20 years old.
All testing was done audibly and not with measurement gear, recording vocals or acoustic guitar, alternating through the 2210 and the 394 channels.
Still couldn't get any MAT-02s to compare.
Paulo Miranda
|
|
|
|
| Re: SSM2210 or LM394CH [message #203717 is a reply to message #200660 ] |
Tue, 05 December 2006 10:00 |
Jim Williams
Messages: 462
Registered: May 2005
Location: beautiful carlsbad, CA |
Active Member |
|
|
I don't have the data sheets in front of me, but listening tests demonstrate this easily. The previous poster has made the same claim. The 394 sounds choked off in the highs. MAT-02's are available from Digi-key, the tightest version is $15. They do make a difference in MCI tape machines, 636 console preamps, Ashley SC50/55 compressors, etc. Try them and hear it for yourself.
Jim Williams
Audio Upgrades
|
|
|
| Re: SSM2210 or LM394CH [message #203719 is a reply to message #200660 ] |
Tue, 05 December 2006 10:04 |
Jim Williams
Messages: 462
Registered: May 2005
Location: beautiful carlsbad, CA |
Active Member |
|
|
BTW, we can hear things we can't measure with today's test gear. I use Audio Precision rigs and they show no measurable differences but the ear tells us otherwise. It probably has something to do with the violent musical waveforms not being used as the test signal but steady state waveforms, much different than the dynamics of music.
Jim Williams
Audio Upgrades
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: SSM2210 or LM394CH [message #203953 is a reply to message #203719 ] |
Tue, 05 December 2006 23:55 |
 |
dcollins
Messages: 2294
Registered: April 2004
Location: Beautiful Hollywood, CA |
Platinum Member |
|
|
| Jim Williams wrote on Tue, 05 December 2006 08:04 |
BTW, we can hear things we can't measure with today's test gear. I use Audio Precision rigs and they show no measurable differences but the ear tells us otherwise.
|
I don't think people that have studied human hearing would agree with you, at least in terms of the specs of an AP2.
If you can consistently pick one implementation over the other, I betcha you can also measure something that you like.
| Quote: |
It probably has something to do with the violent musical waveforms not being used as the test signal but steady state waveforms, much different than the dynamics of music.
|
If there was a difference between the use of sinewaves and music as a stimulus, I think it would have been discovered by now.
In case anyone gets the wrong impression, I make my living with my ears, not the meters, and don't really care how it measures.
But still trying to understand it all!
That's why I'm curious why a transistor pair (that by normal analysis is better than most) "chokes off the highs."
DC
Dave Collins Mastering
|
|
|
|
|
Recording Engineering & Production: The nuts and bolts of making records better, not just louder and cheaper. Some of the brightest minds from the creative and scientific world of audio discuss the elements of audio production that interest you most.
Members
Search
FAQ
Register
Login
Home
