• Welcome to our site! Electro Tech is an online community (with over 170,000 members) who enjoy talking about and building electronic circuits, projects and gadgets. To participate you need to register. Registration is free. Click here to register now.

Replacement for NJM5532 (Australia)

Status
Not open for further replies.

LeneLJ

New Member
Hello

I am currently build GreatScott's diy microphone and he uses an NJM5532 op amp but those are not readily available here in Australia. I have looked into buying them online however, shipping cost around $20 and that's very expensive compared to the price of the op amp.

Does anyone know a replacement that I can use? preferably available in Australian electronic stores :)

I have also attach the GreatScott's schematic for the diy microphone.
 

Attachments

rjenkinsgb

Well-Known Member
Most Helpful Member
The 5532 is made by many companies, it does not need to be that exact make - eg. NE5532, SA5532 are the same thing.

Alternatively the OPA2604 or OPA2134 will work pretty much as well as the 5532
 

audioguru

Well-Known Member
Most Helpful Member
The NJM5532 is a New Japan Radio's copy of an American NE5532.

The circuit has a fairly low gain of only 21.3 times which is probably not enough unless you scream into the mic that is touching your lips.
The fairly high values for R2 and R5 produce resistor noise (hiss).
The +5V feeding R1 and the junction of R3 and R4 feed any noise (hum) on the +5V power supply directly into the opamp's inputs.
 

LeneLJ

New Member
The 5532 is made by many companies, it does not need to be that exact make - eg. NE5532, SA5532 are the same thing.

Alternatively the OPA2604 or OPA2134 will work pretty much as well as the 5532
Would it be ok for me to just replace the NJM5532 chip with an LM833N chip?
 

LeneLJ

New Member
The NJM5532 is a New Japan Radio's copy of an American NE5532.

The circuit has a fairly low gain of only 21.3 times which is probably not enough unless you scream into the mic that is touching your lips.
The fairly high values for R2 and R5 produce resistor noise (hiss).
The +5V feeding R1 and the junction of R3 and R4 feed any noise (hum) on the +5V power supply directly into the opamp's inputs.
Would it be ok for me to just replace the NJM5532 chip with an LM833N chip?
 

rjenkinsgb

Well-Known Member
Most Helpful Member
Possibly, possibly not...
The LM833 does not appear to be specified for operation below 10V supply - but neither is the 5532 (or TL072, another common opamp used for audio).

With too low a supply voltage there will be distortion, if it works at all.

The overall design is not that good.. What are you planning to connect it to?
 

gophert

Well-Known Member
Most Helpful Member
Life will be much easier if you use a 9v or more power supply.

Then you will be very happy with an OPA2134. The OPA2134 can be used at 5v power supply but if the load on the output is 600ohms or less, your voltage swing will be limited to a fraction of a volt. Use a higher voltage than 5 and you'll be fairly happy.
 

Nigel Goodwin

Super Moderator
Most Helpful Member
Presumably the idea of this is to connect to an Arduino (or similar), hence the 5V restriction.

So there are countless 5V capable opamps available, it's not as if it's a very demanding application - and certainly no need for topend quality ones.

However, if you want to use a higher voltage device?, then add a 7660 to generate a -ve rail, it's dead simple - details in my PIC tutorial series:

 

audioguru

Well-Known Member
Most Helpful Member
The schematic in the first post shows an electret mic as the input. It has a 1k resistor feeding it noise from the 5V supply.
The gain of the opamp is low so that the power supply noise is not amplified too much.
The output level from the mic is low since the 1k resistor value is too low.
 

gophert

Well-Known Member
Most Helpful Member
Presumably the idea of this is to connect to an Arduino (or similar), hence the 5V restriction.

So there are countless 5V capable opamps available, it's not as if it's a very demanding application - and certainly no need for topend quality ones.

However, if you want to use a higher voltage device?, then add a 7660 to generate a -ve rail, it's dead simple - details in my PIC tutorial series:


If it's for an arduino, then he can used for up to 12VDC into the arduino and the on-board regulator will take care. The voltage divider to +input can be split to level-shift to 2.5vdc and gain can be set to achieve full dynamic range of the ADC.

Using a reasonably "high end" op amp ($4.00 oh, my!) will make it seem like the $6 postage is less shocking than paying $6.00 for a $0.80 chip.

Remember, he is not making a million of these, using a high end chip will set him back $3 more than a crappy chip and he won't have to wonder where the noise is coming from.
 

Nigel Goodwin

Super Moderator
Most Helpful Member
If it's for an arduino, then he can used for up to 12VDC into the arduino and the on-board regulator will take care. The voltage divider to +input can be split to level-shift to 2.5vdc and gain can be set to achieve full dynamic range of the ADC.

Using a reasonably "high end" op amp ($4.00 oh, my!) will make it seem like the $6 postage is less shocking than paying $6.00 for a $0.80 chip.

Remember, he is not making a million of these, using a high end chip will set him back $3 more than a crappy chip and he won't have to wonder where the noise is coming from.
Even a 'crappy' chip is higher quality than the circuit requires.

I don't really see the relevence of feeding 12V in to the Arduino and using that?, if you're going to add a higher power supply there's no issue with most opamps, but that wasn't the question. And of course I'm only guessing at Arduino, due to the 5V supply.
 

Nigel Goodwin

Super Moderator
Most Helpful Member
The schematic in the first post shows an electret mic as the input. It has a 1k resistor feeding it noise from the 5V supply.
The gain of the opamp is low so that the power supply noise is not amplified too much.
The output level from the mic is low since the 1k resistor value is too low.
I'm surprised you've not commented on the pointless paralleled coupling capacitors? :D
 

rjenkinsgb

Well-Known Member
Most Helpful Member
The actual performance will depend very heavily on the type and quality of the electret capsule used.

They vary tremendously in both output level and noise level; saying there is not enough gain is specious, as some capsules have high enough output to directly feed a general PA system with no extra gain; I have a couple of early electret mics [very expensive ones, back in the 70s, around £60 each] that have nothing but a cardioid electret capsule with a resistor, capacitor and AA cell. They worked very well.

A normal PC microphone socket is intended to connect directly to an electret mic capsule; no extra electronics or components involved, beyond a cable and plug.


Re. the caps, presumably the guy decided it must have 1uF coupling and only has 0.47's in his parts box...
 

Nigel Goodwin

Super Moderator
Most Helpful Member
Re. the caps, presumably the guy decided it must have 1uF coupling and only has 0.47's in his parts box...
Except there's no reason whatsoever for it to have 1uF, a single 0.47uF is already too large.

In my experience the early electret mikes (with AA battery) gavce similar levels to a normal dynamic mike, which of course they were intended to be used alongside, with the standard 600 or 50K inputs. I too used a couple of them, alongside Shure dynamic mikes.
 

audioguru

Well-Known Member
Most Helpful Member
The two paralleled 0.47uF coupling capacitors will pass earthquake frequencies that you can feel but cannot hear.
 

rjenkinsgb

Well-Known Member
Most Helpful Member
Who know what the guy was thinking...

My guess is that he'd decided to aim for near flat response down to around 20Hz, which is roughly what 1uF and 47K gives.
(Though I've not had my first coffee yet, so it's possible my brain is misfiring still & that's way off...)

I doubt the capsule has flat response anywhere near that low, but it's the only reason I can think of.
 
Last edited:

Nigel Goodwin

Super Moderator
Most Helpful Member
Who know what the guy was thinking...

My guess is that he'd decided to aim for near flat response down to around 20Hz, which is roughly what 1uF and 47K gives.
(Though I've not had my first coffee yet, so it's possible my brain is misfiring still & that's way off...)

I doubt the capsule has flat response anywhere near that low, but it's the only reason I can think of.
You're missing the blindingly obvious, the 'designer' didn't have the slightest clue what he was doing :D

And response would be about 3.5Hz for 1uF.
 

rjenkinsgb

Well-Known Member
Most Helpful Member
You're missing the blindingly obvious, the 'designer' didn't have the slightest clue what he was doing :D

And response would be about 3.5Hz for 1uF.
Absolutely, I'm just guessing!

And as you say, I was miles off on the frequency response..
 

Nigel Goodwin

Super Moderator
Most Helpful Member
Absolutely, I'm just guessing!

And as you say, I was miles off on the frequency response..
Admittedly, if I'd got a 0.47uF in stock, I'd probably have used one - sod the silly frequency response - but putting two in parallel is just showing you don't have a clue what you're doing :D

In fact, I might well have stuck a 1uF in there, as it's my 'small capacitor' of choice, and I have a bandolier of 2000 of them :D - but I wouldn't have stuck two in parallel!
 

gophert

Well-Known Member
Most Helpful Member
Admittedly, if I'd got a 0.47uF in stock, I'd probably have used one - sod the silly frequency response - but putting two in parallel is just showing you don't have a clue what you're doing :D

In fact, I might well have stuck a 1uF in there, as it's my 'small capacitor' of choice, and I have a bandolier of 2000 of them :D - but I wouldn't have stuck two in parallel!
A non-polarized 0.47uF is not commonly found in a junk box and 0.1uF is a more common value for that application. I am guessing some confusion and/or typo is involved and the circuit "designer" (circuit drawer?) "meant" to write 47nF, instead of 470nF. I see nF / uF conversion errors all the time in the two robotics & electronics clubs that I mentor.

It is also interesting to me how students insist on drawing schematics based on C and R parts that are in the parts drawers instead of putting the desired value in the schematic and correcting on the fly as they assemble the breadboard. In other words, I would have put 0.1uF on the schematic and used two 47nF parts on the breadboard if I was out of 0.1uF parts.

That is just the "autopsy hypothesis" I would start with if I was investigating the root cause of the part selection error.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

EE World Online Articles

Loading
Top