Audio Engineering Society

Convention Paper 8503

Presented at the 131st Convention
2011 October 20–23 New York, NY, USA

This Convention paper was selected based on a submitted abstract and 750-word precis that have been peer reviewed by at least
two qualified anonymous reviewers. The complete manuscript was not peer reviewed. This convention paper has been
reproduced from the author's advance manuscript without editing, corrections, or consideration by the Review Board. The AES
takes no responsibility for the contents. Additional papers may be obtained by sending request and remittance to Audio
Engineering Society, 60 East 42nd Street, New York, New York 10165-2520, USA; also see www.aes.org. All rights reserved.
Reproduction of this paper, or any portion thereof, is not permitted without direct permission from the Journal of the Audio
Engineering Society.

Distortions in Audio Op-Amps and Their

Effect on Listener Perception of Character
and Quality
1 2 3
Robert-Eric Gaskell , Peter E. Gaskell , and George Massenburg
1
McGill University, Schulich School of Music, Montreal, QC H3A 1E3, Canada
robert.gaskell@mail.mcgill.ca
2
McGill University Dept. of Electrical and Computer Engineering, Montreal, QC, H3A 2A7, Canada
peter.gaskell@mail.mcgill.ca
3
McGill University, Schulich School of Music, Montreal, QC H3A 1E3, Canada
george.massenburg@mcgill.ca

ABSTRACT

Different operational amplifier topologies are frequently thought to play a significant role in the sonic character of
analog audio equipment. This paper explores whether common audio operational amplifiers are capable of
producing distortion characteristics within their normal operational range that can be detected by listeners and alter
listener perception of character and quality. Differences in frequency response and noise are carefully controlled
while the distortion characteristics of the op-amps are amplified. Listening tests are performed in order to determine
what differences listeners perceive. Listening tests also examine listener preference for different op-amps for the
purpose of exploring what physical measurements best predict differences in perceived audio character and quality.

depending on the design trade-offs such as required

1. INTRODUCTION
Most contemporary operational amplifiers feature
incredibly low distortion and noise specifications, as
well as fast slew rates, and exceedingly high common
mode rejection. In typical applications, some of these
op-amps will perform slightly better than others
gain, source impedance, and load. However, the
datasheet metrics are so good for many op-amps across
the board that it would seem unlikely there would be
any perceivable differences. Still, There is an ongoing
discussion amongst design engineers as well as audio
engineers about the different sonic character of various
op-amps. Certainly there are several factors that
Gaskell et. al.
contribute to the perceived sonic signature of an op-
amp. For example, if the Gain-Bandwidth Product is
insufficient for an applied gain there will be roll-off
within the audio frequency band that will certainly
produce a perceptual effect. Noise can be a very salient
feature as well, particularly in high-gain situations.
Most modern operational amplifiers intended for audio
circuits have noise figures low enough to be of very
little significance (at least at lower gains) and GBPs
high enough that their frequency response remains flat
well above 20kHz - even at high gains. Barring
perceivable alterations in the audible frequency
response and the contributions of noise, the next most
obvious physical characteristic that could account for
perceivable differences is distortion.
There is a common association of distortion with the
extreme and highly recognizable case of clipping
distortion. However, all amplifier circuits create low
levels of distortion which have the potential to slightly
alter the sonic character of signals being amplified.
Publications by Walter Jung [1], Douglas Self [2], and
Samuel Groner [3] have provided designers with
valuable information on the low-level distortion
performance of many common audio op-amps in
various circuit implementations. These authors give
detailed measurements of distortion versus frequency
and amplitude for different circuit implementations and
load conditions. While this information is useful when
selecting an appropriate op-amp for a particular function
and price point, it does not provide designers with much
insight into the impact of these low-level distortions on
the perceived sonic quality and character of different
op-amps in different configurations.
2. OP-AMP DISTORTION
Op-amp distortion in voltage feedback op-amps breaks
down into four different mechanisms: slew rate
distortion, transfer non-linearity, input non-linearity,
and output non-linearity [1, 4]. Slew rate distortion
arises at high frequencies and at steep transients. The
differential voltage change with respect to time is
typically limited to a few volts per microsecond to
ensure stability of the amplifier. Almost all modern op-
amps for audio applications have sufficient slew rate
such that this distortion is not relevant within the audio
band. This is particularly true when reproducing digital
audio formats where a full-scale swing requires
approximately 3 V/µs at a sample rate of 192 kHz.
Transfer non-linearity arises from the inherent non-
linearity of active elements inside the amplifier, this
AES 131st Convention, New York, NY, USA, 2011 October 20–23
Page 2 of 8
Op-Amp Distortion
distortion is mediated by the open-loop gain which
typically suppresses the distortion to extremely low
levels. Any amplitude and frequency dependence of the
transfer non-linearity arises because of frequency and
amplitude dependence of the open loop gain. Input non-
linearity arises from common-mode signals on the
inputs to the op-amp. This distortion is mediated by the
common mode rejection ratio which, like the open-loop
gain, suppresses the distortion to extremely low levels.
The output non-linearity includes distortion caused by
driving difficult loads with an op-amp’s finite output
current, and the crossover distortion inherent in class
AB output stages. Both of these distortions are
suppressed by the open-loop gain of the op-amp [5].
40dB Distortion Gain
40dB Distortion Gain
10k
10k
Cc
Cc
+9dB - 10k -9dB
Inverting
100 OPAMP1 -
OPAMP2 Pad
+ 100
Buffer
Vin +
RL V THD
Figure 1. Schematic of the test circuit used for both
physical measurements and listening tests. The
inverting buffer maintains the correct polarity of the
signal through the circuit and gains up the signal from
the D/A converter. The level is brought back down by
an inline pad. The buffer and in-line pad were used in
the processing of the audio examples but bypassed for
the physical measurements.
2.1. Op-Amp Measurements
A representative sample of twenty operational
amplifiers from seven different manufacturers was
selected. All of the op-amps selected were intended for
professional audio use or commonly recommended for
use in professional audio equipment. In this set there
were seven discrete designs and thirteen integrated-
circuit type op-amps. Measurements of input non-
linearity, transfer non-linearity, noise, frequency
response, and output non-linearity were performed on
the op amps in the distortion selective configurations as
outlined by Jung in his 1975 publication “Audio IC Op-
amp Applications” [1]. The measurements taken in
each configuration were of THD+N vs. Amplitude,
THD+N vs. Frequency, FFT spectrums for noise, and
Gaskell et. al.
FFT spectrums for 1 kHz at 19dBu using an Audio
Precision System Two analyzer.
The test setup used for the listening tests is shown in
Fig. 1. This configuration combines the input non-
linearity and output non-linearity tests from Jung in a
manner that cancels most of the transfer non-linearity
associated with the high gain configuration, but keeps
the output non-linearity at a typical level and gains up
the input non-linearity by 40dB. The fact that the
transfer nonlinearity can be cancelled is noteworthy.
The op-amps were either set to drive a 2.2kΩ load or a
600Ω load depending on the resultant level of distortion.
Op-amps clearly not capable of driving 600Ω without
severe distortion were given the larger load. The signal
gain through the test circuit was at unity and the
absolute polarity was maintained through the use of an
ultra low-distortion inverting buffer. The distortion and
noise contribution of this buffer was measured and
deemed negligible.
The distortion gain for each stage was set at 40dB,
lower than the 60dB used in Jung’s original tests. This
was done in order to eliminate the effect of differences
in gain-bandwidth product between op-amps that would
create clearly noticeable differences in frequency
response. The frequency response was kept within .6dB
at 20kHz 2dB at 48kHz by the careful selection of
compensation capacitors. The DC blocking capacitors
used in Jung’s original tests were removed in order to
eliminate any possible distortion contribution from the
electrolytic capacitors [6]. The op-amps were operated
with +/- 16V rails from a low-noise, bench-top power
supply. This produced a clipping point of +22dBu for
most of the op-amps in the set.
The decision to use the distortion selective amplifier
configurations rather than a more conventional circuit
implementation was made in order to maximize the
listener’s ability to hear a shift in character for the op-
amps. The test configuration increases the level of the
op-amps’ inherent characteristic distortion, allowing
listeners greater differences to assist with the
discrimination tests. Although somewhat exaggerated,
these are the same types of differences that might be
heard with more conventional circuit implementations.
AES 131st Convention, New York, NY, USA, 2011 October 20–23
Page 3 of 8
Op-Amp Distortion
20
19
dBu
18
17
16
10 100 1000 10k
Freq Hz
Figure 2. Frequency response range for the test set of
op-amps. Curves show the minimum (bottom curve: 1)
and maximum (top curve: 4) high-frequency roll off
characteristics of the op-amps under test. The middle
curves are numbered 2 & 3. These ratings correspond
to the “hf” number in columns 8 & 9 of the chart in
appendix 1.
2.2. THD+N vs. Amplitude
The test measurements were taken with the output of the
Audio Precision at 7V RMS (+19dBu) and the input
buffer and output pad of the test circuit bypassed. The
distortion measured was not related to hard clipping. In
the listening tests, the signal levels were kept below
clipping at all times.
For the listening test, all of the audio examples were
normalized to 0dBFS peak which was set to correspond
to a peak level of +22dBu (approximately 10 VRMS)
after the gain provided by the inverting input buffer.
The average RMS level of the examples was +5dBu
(approximately 1.4 VRMS) giving them a crest-factor of
around 7. The THD+N vs. Amplitude curves indicate
most of the op-amps in the set did not begin producing
distortion higher than their self-noise until around
+8dBu or +9dBu, with some op-amps the distortion
onset was even higher. While the op-amps were never
clipping in the listening tests, most of the distortion was
present only on the more transient elements of the audio
examples.
Gaskell et. al. Op-Amp Distortion

10
10

1
1
THD N

0.1 0.1

THD N
0.01
0.01

0.001
0.001
50 40 30 20 10 0 10 20
0.0001
Ampl dB 200 500 1000 2000 5000 10k 20k
Freq Hz
10

Figure 4. THD+N vs. frequency plots for four op-amps

1 in this study showing a range of frequency onsets.
THD N

0.1

0.01 3. LISTENING TESTS

0.001 3.1. Source Materials

50 40 30 20 10 0 10 20
Ampl dB
Figure 3. THD+N vs. Amplitude plots, typical of op-
amps in this study. The top plot shows the varying
levels of overall distortion while the bottom shows the
range of distortion onset amplitude.
2.3. THD+N vs. Frequency
Measurements of THD+N vs. Frequency were taken
with a 7V RMS sine wave into the op-amps shown in
fig. 1. For this test, the input buffer and output pad were
bypassed. The measurements reveal the highly
frequency dependent nature of op-amp distortion,
indicating a constant level of distortion and noise until
some frequency where the distortion begins to rise.
THD+N vs. Frequency graphs for the listening test
condition generally show distortion beginning to
increase significantly between 2kHz-5kHz. A general
range of behavior is shown in fig. 4. The chart in
appendix 1 also includes an estimate of where in the
frequency range distortion begins to increase for each
amplifier.
The op-amp comparisons were selected based on the
characteristics seen in the physical data collection
process. The pairs were matched based on their
particular THD+N vs. amplitude, THD+N vs.
frequency, and harmonic spectrum. The pairings were
also based, to some extent, on professional curiosity
particularly in instances where differences are
commonly discussed in engineering circles. The
comparisons were designed to provide insight into a
range of differences in measureable-distortion from very
different to almost indistinguishable.
The source materials used for the listening tests were all
96kHz sample-rate, un-mastered mixes of music from
different genres. There were two jazz examples, two
folk-rock examples, two rock examples, and two
classical music examples. The musical examples were
all 10-20 seconds in length and programmed to loop in a
musical fashion so participants could listen as long as
necessary to discriminate differences. For each op-amp
model, the source material was processed by sending it
twice through the test circuit shown in fig. 1. After two
passes through the test circuit for each op-amp model,
the musical examples were randomly assigned to the
chosen op-amp comparisons. The test contained 24
different pairings of the 20 op-amp models.

AES 131st Convention, New York, NY, USA, 2011 October 20–23
Page 4 of 8
Gaskell et. al.
3.2. Listening Test Design
Three versions of the test were created, each containing
the same op-amp comparisons but with randomized
audio examples and randomized presentation order.
Some of the participants were asked to take the tests in
reverse order to further minimize any dependence on
presentation order, attention, or listener fatigue.
Participants 1-6 took test one, participants 7-13 took test
two, and participants 14-17 took test three. Two
participants took test one in reverse order, three
participants took test two in reverse order and two
participants took test three in reverse order.
Each question on the test had two parts. In the first part,
listeners were asked to compare between A and B and
select which of the two they preferred. This represents
a two-alternative, forced–choice test (2AFC).
Preference data from part one was only considered in
the case of a correct answer in part two of the question.
Part two of each question was a three-alternative,
forced-choice test (3AFC) requiring participants to
select which one of 3 files was different from the other
two. Two versions of op-amp A and one version of op-
amp B were presented. Part one of each comparison
was intended to not only collect preference data but to
train the listeners on the differences between the op-
amps. Part two was designed to confirm whether the
differences the listeners heard in part one were
significant enough to be consistently discriminated. The
comparisons were presented over headphones and the
test interface was a digital-audio workstation that all of
the participants were familiar with.
3.3. Test Group
The test group consisted of thirteen participants with
four participants taking the test twice. Participants
taking the test more than once received a different
version of the test the second time and had at least one
day between versions of the test. This allowed for
seventeen data sets all together. All of the participants
were graduate students in sound recording from McGill
University whose experience in sound recording ranged
between 2-10 years.
AES 131st Convention, New York, NY, USA, 2011 October 20–23
Page 5 of 8
Op-Amp Distortion
4. ANALYSIS
4.1. Statistical Analysis
A binominal distribution analysis was performed on the
data from each pairing of op-amps. An error criterion
of p<0.05 was selected requiring detection in at least
nine of the seventeen data sets to be considered
significant based on a probability of 33.3% of selecting
the correct answer by chance alone. For seventeen
trials, random chance would produce between five and
six correct answers. Nine of the twenty-four
comparisons proved to be statistically significant. The
measured data for these nine were compared with the
measured data from the other fifteen comparisons to
come to an understanding of what in the physical data
would suggest listener ability to discriminate between
op-amps. All of the results of the listening tests can be
seen in appendix 1.
4.2. Detection
It was found that there is a complex interdependence of
characteristics that contribute to a listener’s ability to
detect a shift in the audible quality of an op-amp. The
overall level of the distortion was one factor, op-amp
comparisons where both amplifiers had relatively low
distortion were not detected by listeners. In the case of
two relatively high-distortion op-amps, it was also
necessary to consider the differences in the spectrum of
the harmonic distortion. Fig. 5 shows the difference in
the spectrum for two high distortion op-amp pairings.
In the figure, set A was discriminated and set B was not,
even though both sets produced overall distortion levels
that might indicate listeners would be able discriminate.
Listeners required a substantial difference in one or
more of the first five partials in order to discern
differences. Differences in odd harmonics appeared to
be slightly more salient than those in the even
harmonics.
Gaskell et. al. Op-Amp Distortion

�40 40
��
�60 ��� 20

Diff dB
�����
dBu

0
�80
�� � ���� ������ �
0
even
�100 � � � � � � � ���� 20
� � � � � �� 40
odd
�120
5 10 15 20 5 10 15 20
50

dBu
Harmonic Harmonic

�40 40 even
�60 ��
� 20 odd 100

Diff dB
�
dBu

�80
�� � � �
0
�100 �� � � � � � � 20
��� ���������������� 40
�120 1000 1500 2000 3000 5000 7000 10 000 15k 20k
5 10 15 20 5 10 15 20
Freq Hz
Harmonic Harmonic

Figure 5. Top:A, Bottom: B.

Left: overlaid spectral plots of distortion residuals for a 0
1kHz sine wave at 19dBu. These plots allow direct
comparison between the distortion spectrums of pairs of
amplifiers, showing the overall level of distortion at
50
even and odd harmonics.
Right: difference plots for the plots on the left provide dBu
an easy comparison of the relative levels of the
individual distortion partials. The top pair (A) allowed 100
listeners to detect differences while the bottom pair (B)
did not.
1000 1500 2000 3000 5000 7000 10 000 15k 20k
Distortion perception models designed to predict
Freq Hz
listeners’ ability to detect distortion often weight higher-
order harmonics more than lower-order harmonics. [7,
8, 9, 10]. For the op-amp comparisons in this
experiment, differences in spectral content of the Figure 6 Top: A, Bottom: B. FFTs of 1kHz 19dBu sine
distortion were important in detection but it would seem tone for two different op-amps under test. Despite large
that, due to the frequency-dependence of the op-amp differences in high-order harmonics, these amplifiers
distortion, the high-order partials become less were not distinguished by listeners likely due to the
significant. In THD+N vs. Frequency measurements, similarities at the first four to five harmonics and the
many op-amps did not show significant levels of frequency dependent nature of the op-amps’ distortion.
distortion until above 2kHz-5kHz putting their higher-
order harmonics out of the range of human hearing.
Fig. 6 shows two op-amps that were not discriminated The average %THD+N vs. Frequency over the
by listeners. Although op-amp B has more high-order bandwidth of 100Hz to 24kHz found in columns 2 and 3
distortion, they are very similar for the first 5 distortion of the chart in appendix 1 provide a single-number
partials. specification to compare between the op-amp distortion
characteristics. While this single-number reduction is
From the data presented in appendix 1, general trends perhaps more useful than a simple THD+N
can be found that help to illuminate what factors measurement at 1kHz, it is still necessary to refer to the
contributed to listener’s ability to discriminate between onset amplitude of the distortion as well as the level of
op-amps. Some comparisons would suggest detection the individual distortion components to clarify some of
based on their FFTs alone but when the THD+N vs. the comparisons.
Frequency and THD+N vs. Amplitude curves, were
considered, the FFT differences became less significant.

AES 131st Convention, New York, NY, USA, 2011 October 20–23
Page 6 of 8
Gaskell et. al.
4.3. Preference
Preference data was included only where listeners were
correct in the 3AFC discrimination task. Only two of
the detected comparisons produced statistically
significant preference data (p<0.05). This is to some
extent due to the difficulty in achieving significance in a
2AFC test with a small sample set. As a result, very
little can be said with confidence about listener
preference for the subtle differences in distortion
characteristics. Surprisingly, higher levels of distortion
did not generally reduce preference for the amplifiers.
In the two cases that showed significance, the op-amp
that produced higher levels of distortion was preferred.
Although not always statistically significant in the
2AFC preference tests, there appears to be a trend
towards preference of the higher distortion op-amps.
These listening tests used short 10-20 second loops of
material. It is possible that listener preference would
change over extended listening periods or when not
listening analytically. It is also likely that in quick AB
comparisons, the samples with more distortion are
perceived as slightly louder and thus preferred. There
was some apparent dependence on program material but
there were not enough trials to compare across genre or
audio example.
Figure 7. Preference data for the op-amp comparisons
where differences were detected. The number of the
pairs corresponds to the numbered pairs in appendix 1.
Only comparisons 10 and 16 were significant (p<0.05)
for listener preference.
5. CONCLUSIONS
While the differences were slight, the op-amps in this
test were capable of producing levels of distortion
within their normal, unclipped operational range that
were detectable by listeners. It is possible for listeners
to differentiate between op-amps based on distortion
characteristics alone. The ability to distinguish between
the distortion characteristics of op-amps appears to be
dependent on a complex interaction of the THD vs.
AES 131st Convention, New York, NY, USA, 2011 October 20–23
Page 7 of 8
Op-Amp Distortion
Frequency, THD vs. Amplitude, and the harmonic
spectrum of the distortion. This low-level distortion is
enough to alter the character of the sound but does not
necessarily reduce listener preference.
5.1. Discussion
The test set-up in this experiment forced the op-amps
under test to produce higher-than-average levels of
distortion than those found in typical circuit
implementations. Still, all of the distortions in this
experiment were produced by the op-amps within their
normal, unclipped operational range. The assumption is
made that these distortions still have some effect on
listener perception of character and quality even when
they are below the detection threshold of a 3AFC
listening test with a small sample size. For the
purposes of this research, only the amplifier
comparisons that achieved statistical significance are
considered, but in real-world situations it is possible that
listener preference is affected at levels below those
required for significance in this type of experiment.
One must also consider the possibility that a real-world
audio signal may pass through many op-amp stages in
the process of production, each effecting the level and
spectral complexity of the distortion [11].
5.2. Future Research
There are a number of factors in op-amp performance
that may contribute to listener perception of character
and quality that were not considered in this experiment.
The distortion produced by transfer non-linearity and
intermodulation distortion performance both in and out
of band should be considered. The noise behavior in
non-ideal environmental conditions such as un-proper
shielding or with poorly designed power supplies is
often cited as being a contributing factor in listener
perception of op-amp performance. Additional listening
experiments focused on these physical characteristics
would provide more insight into listener perception of
op-amp performance.
6. REFERENCES
[1] W. G. Jung, “Audio IC Op-Amp Applications”,
H.W.Sams. (1986).
[2] D. Self, “Small Signal Audio Design”, Focal Press.
(2010).
[3] S. Groner, “Operational Amplifier Distortion”,
Self-Published. (2009).
 1988).

1012-1031.
Gaskell et. al.

Preprint (2003).
McGraw-Hill. (1997).

Convention, Preprint. (2011).

Academic Publishers. (2003).

Sound Quality”, JAES (2007) pp. 1-15

preprint (2003) vol. 5891 pp. 1226–1227
8th International Conference (1990) pp. 35–46.

Amplifier”, JAES (1980) vol. 28 (1-2) pp. 26-34.

[12] Tan, Moore, and Zacharov, “The Effect of

and Speech Signals”, JAES (2003) vol. 51 (11) pp.

Nonlinear Distortion on Perceived Quality of Music
Nonlinear Distortion – Comparing Numbers and
[6] R. E. Gaskell, “Capacitor ‘Sound’ in Microphone

Recording Engineer/Producer Magazine. (Nov.

[8] E. Geddes and L. Lee, “Auditory perception of
[5] B. Hernes, T. Saether, “Design Criteria for Low

[13] D. Jensen, “JE-990 Discrete Operational

nonlinear distortion”, 115th AES Convention,
Comparing Measurements to Listening Tests”, AES

[9] E. Geddes and L. Lee, “Auditory perception of

Measurements in the Electrical Signal Path”, AES
[7] R. Cabot, “Audible Effects vs. Objective

[11] J. Hardy, “Mic Pre-Amp Evaluation Methodology”,

Distortion in Feedback Op-Amp Circuits”, Kluwer

[10] A. Voishvillo, “Measurements and Perception of

[4] J. Graeme, “Optimizing Op-Amp Performance”,

Preamplifier DC Blocking and HPF Applications:

nonlinear distortion - theory”, AES Convention,

Page 8 of 8
7.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
A B r- s* P S A % Adj B%adj A 2nd/3rd/4th/5th B 2nd/3rd/4th/5th A DvA B DvA hfA hfB IMD A IMD B
1 OA07 OA17 14 0.00004 0.0563 0.02607 -64/-50/-85/-68 -52/-58/-62/-70 9dBu 19dBu 3 1 -46dB -66dB
2 OA18 OA11 6 0.196 0.00449 0.02246 -76/-84/-98/-96 -59/-70/-80/-82 20dBu 9dBu 4 3 -72dB -70dB
3 OA01 OA18 7 0.154 0.00456 0.00449 -90/-79/-112/-103 -76/-84/-98/-96 22dBu 20dBu 3 4 -90dB -72dB
4 OA08 OA01 5 0.196 0.00335 0.00456 -81/-91/-114/-100 -90/-79/-112/-103 18dBu 22dBu 4 3 -92dB -90dB
5 OA02 OA06 5 0.196 0.02421 0.02759 -57/-54/-97/-77 -60/-52/89/-78 1dBu 10dBu 3 2 -90dB -68dB

each at +13dBu.
6 OA15 OA16 12 0.002 0.00513 0.05248 -75/-86/-102/-99 -47/-58/-62/-66 16dBu 8dBu 3 4 -86dB -40dB
7 OA17 OA18 8 0.096 0.02607 0.00449 -52/-58/-62/-70 -76/-84/-98/-96 19dBu 20dBu 1 4 -66dB -72dB
8 OA01 OA05 12 0.002 0.00456 0.86918 -90/-79/-112/-103 -35/-40/-45/-57 22dBu -1dBu 3 2 -90dB -46dB
APPENDIX 1

9 OA10 OA11 7 0.154 0.0147 0.02246 -59/-65/-76/-73 -58/-70/-80/-83 8dBu 9dBu 3 3 -63dB -70dB
10 OA03 OA08 10 0.019 0.01855 0.00335 -72/-91/-92/-112 -81/-91/-114/-100 9dBu 18dBu 3 4 -70dB -92dB
11 OA09 OA08 5 0.196 0.02332 0.00335 -66/-70/-80/-67 -81/-91/-114/-100 -3dBu 18dBu 1 4 -80dB -92dB
12 OA19 OA15 7 0.154 0.01566 0.00513 -65/-73/-83/-95 -75/-86/-102/-99 17dBu 16dBu 1 3 -66dB -86dB
13 OA07 OA06 5 0.196 0.0563 0.02759 -64/-50/-85/-68 -60/-52/89/-78 9dBu 10dBu 3 2 -46dB -68dB
14 OA20 OA10 8 0.096 0.06114 0.0147 -54/-57/-90/-75 -59/-65/-76/-73 0dBu 8dBu 2 3 -48dB -63dB
15 OA13 OA14 4 0.151 0.00517 0.00631 -76/-83/-94/-101 -75/-82/-93/-104 12dBu 12dBu 4 4 na na
16 OA04 OA06 13 0.0003 0.06778 0.02759 -46/-64/-66/-90 -60/-52/89/-78 4dBu 10dBu 1 2 -65dB -68dB

AES 131st Convention, New York, NY, USA, 2011 October 20–23
17 OA13 OA08 7 0.154 0.00517 0.00335 -76/-83/-94/-101 -81/-91/-114/-100 12dBu 18dBu 4 4 na -92dB
18 OA06 OA12 7 0.154 0.02759 0.0328 -60/-52/89/-78 -56/-85/-106/-107 10dBu 3dBu 2 3 -68dB na
19 OA11 OA12 9 0.048 0.02246 0.0328 -59/-70/-80/-82 -56/-85/-106/-107 9dBu 3dBu 3 3 -70dB na
20 OA03 OA01 6 0.196 0.01855 0.00456 -72/-91/-92/-112 -90/-79/-112/-103 9dBu 22dBu 3 3 -70dB -90dB
21 OA04 OA07 14 0.00004 0.06778 0.0563 -46/-64/-66/-90 -64/-50/-85/-68 4dBu 9dBu 1 3 -65dB -46dB

Columns 2 & 3 show the averaged THD+N vs.

+19dBu test tone. Columns 6 & 7 compare the

22 OA07 OA12 10 0.019 0.0563 0.0328 -64/-50/-85/-68 -56/-85/-106/-107 9dBu 3dBu 3 3 -46dB na

whether the results of the 3AFC were significant.

23 OA07 OA13 8 0.096 0.0563 0.00517 -64/-50/-85/-68 -76/-83/-94/-101 9dBu 12dBu 3 4 -46dB na
Appendix 1: Chart showing the results of the 3AFC 24 OA20 OA09 10 0.019 0.06114 0.02332 -54/-57/-90/-75 -66/-70/-80/-67 0dBu -3dBu 2 1 -48dB -80dB

show the levels of the first 5 harmonics relative to the

amplitude at which the distortion begins to rise for the

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17

Frequency between 100Hz and 24kHz, Columns 4 & 5

discrimination test as well as the results of the physical

of a 1kHz IMD residual of 16kHz and 17kHz sine tones

to the curves in fig. 2. Columns 10 & 11 show the level
op-amps in their THD+N vs. Amplitude plots. Columns
Op-Amp Distortion

8 & 9 show the frequency response rating corresponding

measurements. For each op-amp set, column 1 indicates