TI NE5532 Audio Opamp Changes

[David Aurora]

I know you're just using this as a single example, but I think it sums up a bit of the flawed logic going on here. You (as in TI) can't assume that everyone using these at voltages higher than +/-15V is doing that in a new design. 99% of my work is repair work. And I'd say the amount of circuits I see using 5532s at or below +/-15V is maybe 30%.

They are using it beyond the stated, very clearly I may add, limits which did not change. This is universal and should be known by any engineer. This limit is vendor agnostic. The answer to "Can I use this above the maximum operating specficiation as long as I am below ABS MAX?" is yes, but the ECT is not gauranteed to hold. It's your judgement, and the condquences are yours and yours alone. I have had this conversation too many times with fellow engineers who should know better.

This is very much balancing the engineering, business, and legal waranties of the datasheet. Part of me empathizes from an engineering side, the other part of me says, "You didn't RTFM, and you want to complain?" That's some hillbilly, junior engineer bullshit. I watched part of Dave's video and he made an off hand comment that it is used to be +/- 22V part. Unequivocally wrong. It has always been a +/- 15V part.
Edit: You can even use the part beyond ABS MAX by a couple of volts because its still below transistor breakdown, but that's on the engineer who can't read.

As I said, if you all are so passionate about it ring up your local TI signal chain FAE or vent on thier support forum. Just remember you all didn't read or understand the instructions.

Are you serious?

TYPICAL OPERATING CONDITIONS ARE NOT THE SAME AS ABSOLUTE MAXIMUM RATINGS.

You are correct, but that is not what I am stating. I have no idea why the Lord is testing me with your nonsenscial argument.  You are aruging 2+2=5.

1. Breakdown (not listed in the datasheet - exists only in the designer's process guide.
2. ABS MAX conditions - based on device characterization from the designer's process guide
3. Maximium operating conditions often based on the intial product specification and covered by the ATE production test program. This is what you see in the boiler plate

Typical is not the same as Maximum Operating limits nor Absolute Maximum Ratings. These are 3 separate limits.

A typical/recommended rating is picked as a balance point for reliability/performance/power consumption/etc and used for measurements because the data sheet would be the size of a bible if you listed performance under every possibly condition.

The maximum supply voltage in the recommended operating conditions table on pg. 2 of the datasheet is +/-15V and has been at least for 2 decades.

If you were to submit a device to TI's failure analysis lab using +/-18V supply in your design TI would have every right to deny your claim for performance issues if you asked for compensation. Why? The maximum supply rating is +/-15V. Once again: Can you use it beyond +/- 15V? Yes. But TI has no legal obligation to honor it's waranty. That's the fundamental understanding when reading a datasheet from any vendor.

That's why I tell all junior engineers on how to interpret datasheets and communicating to customers. The guaranteed limit has always been, and will always be the maximum operating voltage. Not ABS MAX. Not device breakdown. This has always been the case for decades from any semiconductor manucafture. The ECT will have other conditions that bound MIN/MAX.

Using +/- 15V as typical or recommended does NOT mean it's bad practice to use it on different supplies. Like I said earlier, are you now going to say op amps can't be used at +/- 12V, or on single supply, or any of the other million configs people use because that isn't what's listed in the typical/recommended spec table?

No where did I say that other supply voltages at or +/-15V could not be used. Will conditions change if used for +/- 12V? Possibly. Read your ECT conditions to understand further boundaries for each spec.

If you, on your own accord due to ignorance on how to interpret a semiconductor datasheet, used +/-18V supply as an example, you are on your own. Period. End of. TI did the right thing removing this from the marketing puff page of the datasheet. Further more you act like the current team would poll every customer over the last 50 years when the boundaries are known and understood.. Yeah it sucks, but you all made the incorrect decision.

First, neither of you seem to understand that parts CAN be used in different supply configurations, typical/recommended is not a firm usage rule. This is nothing new, it's been done like this going back to vacuum tube data sheet days, it's well understood by anyone with an ounce of practical electronics experience.

My brother in Christ, I understand it very well. The recommended maximum is a firm rule when regarding device waranty, and device specifications. It always has been and it bares repeating with a clarification: The NE5532A can be used anywhere at or below the maximum operating votlage limit as clearly stated on pg. 2 to maintain the ECT and TI's waranty. Consult the ECT for futher boundary conditions. This is very basic stuff for any vendor.

You are just confused by the fundamentals. ABS MAX is not the same as Max Operating. One can certainly operate in the grey zone between Maximum Operating and ABS MAX, but will have zero recourse for support. This is what this thread hinges on. TI makes a die shrink or fab transfer yet the maximum operating supply didn't change, but the ABS MAX did. People who follow rules and instructions are ok, but yet here you are complaining because you chose to operate in the grey zone since day 1. You ran the risk and now you pay the price. Not sorry, you bent the rules. Accept the consequences.

Second, you're arguing about a part where literally millions of them have been safely and reliably used like this for DECADES. This is not fringe, experimental use, the part has always been well understood to be capable of working like this.

I will agree that it sucks there will be a lot of customers who now have to go rework their designs because they didn't follow instructions. That's their fault. Someone from 20 years ago started using it at +/18V and it proliferates across designs. That still does not change the very clear maximum operating limits of the datasheet for 2 decades. Besides, since you all didn't read the instructions let me provide you all an out. The ABS MAX is now +/-18V. If you are still using it at +/18V then you can continue to do so at your own risk. You will not receive any support from TI since you are operating outside of the +/-15V maximum operating supply voltage. You would not receive any support for monetary claims from before either.

If you or anyone who agrees with your silly argument would have designed this on my team every single one of you would be on a very short list. Raise? Minimal at best. Promotion? No. Fired? Possibly. This conversation irritates me to no end. This was hammered into me since the day I started in engineering over 20 years ago. Teams come and go; die shrinks, fab transfers, test facilities can change and that is one component why a customer is required to stay within the Maixmum operating conditions to maintain their performance and waranty. Every single one of you should know better.

I have had this exact conversation with a customer over a PCN back in the day. They went line down becaues of a new die revision. There was a fault in their design that violated ABS MAX. The old die was more robust while the new die from the fab transfer was not. They were livid; yet, both devices were transparent to one another if operated within the recommended maximum ratings and up to the abs max ratings - just not beyond that limit. They quitely acquiesced, and unfortunately their responsible design engineer was in hot water.

If you were my customer I would fire you. I do not want your business. Go to ON Semi. I'll call up the director of that group and we will have a laugh at your expense.

Good lord, I got like 2 and a half paragraphs into this moronic novel and gave up reading. You're just absolutely cooked.

[Someone]

If you or anyone who agrees with your silly argument would have designed this on my team every single one of you would be on a very short list. Raise? Minimal at best. Promotion? No. Fired? Possibly. This conversation irritates me to no end. This was hammered into me since the day I started in engineering over 20 years ago. Teams come and go; die shrinks, fab transfers, test facilities can change and that is one component why a customer is required to stay within the Maixmum operating conditions to maintain their performance and waranty. Every single one of you should know better.

Sadly most "engineering" teams are headed this way, lots of wild optimism and overpromising gets the attention of (inexperienced) management who then turn to the conservative/realistic/experienced people/team and say you're the problem as you say you cant do these things which this other person/team say is easy....

then months/years later as promises fail to materialise, somehow its all forgiven/forgotten to avoid shining a light on why the project was a disaster.

That's been my career over the past 5 years after stupidly moving out of large well established and successful businesses into the small-medium and startup space (which does have the majority of people/employees/population). Many times I was told by incompetent management pretty much exactly what you hit on: "use this chip beyond its maximum values because it doesn't explicitly say we cant" followed relatively quickly by "why is this design so unreliable?" "why aren't 100% of units within the typical range?" (despite 3 or 4 different parameters now being away from where that typical was specified).

This forum (despite its name) is actually far away from engineering. The (personality cult) "leader" Dave isn't a taught engineer and rails against formalism, instead leans into sensationalism and generating conflict rather than accuracy or honesty, or horror.... engineering. As I brought up in the thread this MASSIVE OVERNIGHT ISSSUE has actually been there in plain sight for at least 17 years.

Anyway, don't bother with this site, it's a dumpster fire. I sure hope to find people like you in management in future roles!

A final laugh for you in another data sheet misinterpretation: "engineer" wants to operate a power semiconductor with the top of the plastic case at or above the absolute maximum junction temperature, could not understand why I refused to allow that to proceed.

[Alex Nikitin]

As I brought up in the thread this MASSIVE OVERNIGHT ISSSUE has actually been there in plain sight for at least 17 years.

You mean that TI management are complete jerks - sure, that was clear for a while. Lately (after about 2022/23) they are reaching for the new depths though, with outright criminal lies and a willful misinformation in datasheets and parts marking. That part you (apparently) missed completely in your mighty rant essay  .

Cheers

Alex

[VK3DRB]

TI was selling a BQ charger/battery management chip with the wrong variant part number stamped on it a few years ago. I bought some from Mouser for R & D purposes. I spent days trying to work out why my circuit didn't work, and then I realized the BQ chip was acting just like a different part number. I alerted TI, who immediately removed the remaining 1K of chips from Mouser, and sent me 20 replacements at no charge, via DHL.

The root cause was wrong part number etched onto the chip at TI.

[floobydust]

TI's move is out of the MBA playbook - maximum profit is paramount, increase value to shareholders.
All the while, destroying the company in the long run, reputation and product quality deteriorating.
TXN stock to the moon! OK bubble aside, it's surely due to some lowly op-amp lol.
1-Year Return 64%
5-Year Return 50%

Engineering is no longer a decent profession. I recommend it to no one, even my friend's kid.
Because it's the dumb, greedy people in charge of the smart, ethical people. And engineers carry all of the responsibility yet have none of the authority.
So we just get more work and grief over the corporate shenanigans to create max profit in the short term.

[Someone]

As I brought up in the thread this MASSIVE OVERNIGHT ISSSUE has actually been there in plain sight for at least 17 years.

You mean that TI management are complete jerks - sure, that was clear for a while. Lately (after about 2022/23) they are reaching for the new depths though, with outright criminal lies and a willful misinformation in datasheets and parts marking. That part you (apparently) missed completely in your mighty rant essay

Mighty essay? Where? Also, I don't mean TI management are jerks. You're just fuelling the OUTRAGE and putting words in my mouth despite the ability to quote anything I have written.

Do I think TI could have handled this (and the TL07x and others) better by adding a new part number (and/or suffix) ? yes. Did they communicate these changes well? Not particularly.

Is this some recent major change which is unfair and out of the blue? Nope. Most of the changes are incremental and have been moving along for a long time. Yet the narrative which this thread and outrage is perpetuating is mostly around the lack of notice, which I am pointing out is not true or fair to the manufacturer.

You choose to quote that specific bit, but bring nothing to refute it.

+/-18V operation has been dropped by TI on their NE5532 part for a long time, at least 17 years ago. Criminal? which criminal offence has been committed here?

Seems you're here for the pile-on but actually have nothing to contribute other than more emotive misinformation.

[Alex Nikitin]

Criminal? which criminal offence has been committed here?

Seems you're here for the pile-on but actually have nothing to contribute other than more emotive misinformation.

A concurrent supply of two very different parts with the same marking (and no reasonable way to determine which is which) is a criminal offense in my books. The information about "changes" to NE5532 (a replacement by a re-marked RC4580) has started a wider discussion about TI misinformation and I quickly discovered much worse examples, such as the INA133 "changes" and others, so many that the only sensible way of treating that TIBS is to get rid of TI parts as much as possible and where it is not possible handle their parts with a great suspicion (as it is clear now that in many cases the "changes" were implemented well before corrections in datasheets) and additional control and tests.

Cheers

Alex

[Someone]

Criminal? which criminal offence has been committed here?

Seems you're here for the pile-on but actually have nothing to contribute other than more emotive misinformation.

A concurrent supply of two very different parts with the same marking (and no reasonable way to determine which is which) is a criminal offense in my books.

Luckily the corporate entity TI and no-one else lives in your imaginary world with its imaginary criminal laws. So nothing to see here.

Stick to factual/provable content.

[Alex Nikitin]

Stick to factual/provable content.

Just read the current data sheet for INA133 and tell me in which circumstances you will be happy to use that part. And what would you do if the "updated" part is already in your supply chain and you might not know where which variant is installed. And the INA133 is not unique in this respect, the list of change notes from TI after 2022 makes for an entertaining reading... .

Cheers

Alex

[temperance]

Lots of bla bla here. Who cares about those old components? Nobody.

NE55xx, LM317's, 2N3055,... and many other components are just a thing of the past. There are much better components available.

[Zero999]

Lots of bla bla here. Who cares about those old components? Nobody.

NE55xx, LM317's, 2N3055,... and many other components are just a thing of the past. There are much better components available.

Because they're still widely used in new designs. The good thing was being able to get the same part from multiple sources. Unfortunately TI have messed up.

[pope]

Lots of bla bla here. Who cares about those old components? Nobody.

NE55xx, LM317's, 2N3055,... and many other components are just a thing of the past. There are much better components available.

This must be the most off-topic comment in the thread. A bit like joining a thread about restoring a classic radio just to announce that spotify exists.

[squadchannel]

The biggest issue is that TI stated in the PCN that a major change to the IC had no impact, and that this change was announced two years after the die was changed via a data sheet update.

If this kind of thing keeps happening, trust in TI will hit rock bottom (or has it already?).
After all, if they arbitrarily change the die without our knowledge, we’ll inevitably end up incorporating defective ICs into our products without realizing it, leading to failures and problems with our customers.


if this ridiculous change is just about cutting costs(definitely it), everyone involved deserves to be fired.

If the datasheet had been updated before the die change and there had been a half-year grace period, we wouldn’t have had to engage in this ridiculous debate, and TI wouldn’t have lost our trust.
TI is just a idiots.
I guess this decision was made because sales were low. I don't think it'll have much of an impact, though.

[temperance]

This must be the most out off-topic comment on the thread. A bit like joining a thread about restoring a classic radio just to announce that spotify exists.

This must be the most foolish comment in this thread.

Because they're still widely used in new designs.

Consumer audio rarely used NE55xx op amps anywhere. JRC op amp everywhere. But according to some they sound bad.
Pro audio, until the late nineties you saw a lot of NE55xx op amps. After that, NJM4580, NJM2114 (an improved NE55xx) found in he most expensive equipment, NJM2115, BA4560, OPA275, OPAxyz,... Pro audio mixing consoles are fitted with those low cost NJM, BA type op amps. Hundreds of them. You know, those regarded as bad sounding by some clueless self declared audio guru whose opinions are copied by those who want to blend in.

I guess this decision was made because sales were low. I don't think it'll have much of an impact, though.

Exactly.

The NE5532 is dead. Move on.

In any case, as also noted by Someone, just have a look at page three of this 2009 data sheet:
https://www.jameco.com/Jameco/Products/ProdDS/27385.pdf?srsltid=AfmBOopxSUj7MPkzyDFXFob0GEk0w7rvHOxUseg0L-03VmYyYf7MW2os

But if you can't read and you stuffed some TI NE5532 in equipment powered by in total 36 V, you are the problem.

The most of topic comment in this thread: spotify sucks.

[Zero999]

I guess this decision was made because sales were low. I don't think it'll have much of an impact, though.

Exactly.

The NE5532 is dead. Move on.

In any case, as also noted by Someone, just have a look at page three of this 2009 data sheet:
https://www.jameco.com/Jameco/Products/ProdDS/27385.pdf?srsltid=AfmBOopxSUj7MPkzyDFXFob0GEk0w7rvHOxUseg0L-03VmYyYf7MW2os

But if you can't read and you stuffed some TI NE5532 in equipment powered by in total 36 V, you are the problem.

The most of topic comment in this thread: spotify sucks.

You're missing the point.

TI should have been honest. Fair enough. Discontinue the NE5532 and make a replacement with a DIFFERENT PART NUMBER. Don't LIE ABOUT it, by changing the design and continuing to use the same part number.

[temperance]

You're missing the point.

No I don't. I haven't seen any evidence where the changes in parameters will make a huge difference.

-The supply voltage limitation: debunked.
-If you want to rely on the build in ESD protection, good luck.
-The slew rate: this is an audio op amp. Maybe bats care about it and clueless audio nutters.
-The input stage changed and the wild claim it will damage polarized capacitors: nonsense. We are talking about 10 mV in 10 K over the full temperature range. Not enough to damage the oxide layer of polarized coupling capacitor. For that you need > 1.5 V.

Who in this thread is a high volume customer for NE5532's working under strict supplier requirements. Let me guess: nobody. High volume customer probably received PCN's and samples much earlier. Just like they receive information about new products you can't even find on their website.

TI should have been honest. Fair enough. Discontinue the NE5532 and make a replacement with a DIFFERENT PART NUMBER. Don't LIE ABOUT it, by changing the design and continuing to use the same part number.

And who will buy this "new" creature? Nobody.

[BrianHG]

None of this is anything new.  In the mid 90's TI changed their LM393D die on me without notice.  It used to match all the third party LM393Ds out there, then, all of a sudden, it responded twice as fast  throwing off a PO of 100k units which I had to patch...

[squadchannel]

buy or not? popular or not? alternatives? That’s not the point.

No matter what the specifications are, We’re saying to issue a PCN at least a half-year before changing the die, clearly state the impact, update the datasheet at the same time, and, if necessary, assign a new part number.
You probably don’t use the NE5532. Neither do I. But the jerrybean NE5532 is still one of the popular op-amps in use around the world. There are likely more people who will be affected. TI must not ignore these people. TI not only ignored the necessary procedures but also delayed the announcement of the specifications by two years. we’re saying TI is simply idiots.

I don’t understand why you can’t grasp that.

[temperance]

Given the impact you all claim, it can't be difficult to find 1, just one, schematic of some audio gear where the new NE5532 will fail or compromise the specification of the product.

Here is the spec you have to comply with:
https://www.jameco.com/Jameco/Products/ProdDS/27385.pdf?srsltid=AfmBOopxSUj7MPkzyDFXFob0GEk0w7rvHOxUseg0L-03VmYyYf7MW2os

But the jerrybean NE5532 is still one of the popular op-amps in use around the world.

That must be the joke of the day. Maybe in guitar pedal world. Open some pro audio gear made after 2000 and you will find very different parts.

None of this is anything new.  In the mid 90's TI changed their LM393D die on me without notice.  It used to match all the third party LM393Ds out there, then, all of a sudden, it responded twice as fast  throwing off a PO of 100k units which I had to patch...

Large signal response: typ. 300 ns
5.0 mV of overdrive response time: typ 1.5 µs

Because no minimum is given, you should not exclude it from your design.

[tom66]

Here are two people found in a quick search on TI E2E forum that are having problems with the new part.

https://e2e.ti.com/support/audio-group/audio/f/audio-forum/1511438/ne5532a-high-failure-rates-with-new-die-design
https://e2e.ti.com/support/audio-group/audio/f/audio-forum/1484771/ne5532a-ne5532a-parts-from-malaysia-different-from-mexico-production

It is "interesting" in both cases TI support want to keep the conversation out of the public record. 

For me, the biggest crime: not labelling this part as NE5532A.  No point saying "they wouldn't sell any".  The new part is adequate for some applications.  But it is not the same as the old part.  Let it stand on its own merits.

[Alex Nikitin]

I’ve posted a short summary on the INA133 chip from TI for a separate discussion.

Cheers

Alex

[floobydust]

"Meet or exceed" is the rule for "drop-in" substitutions.
Here we are 50 years later and semiconductor technology can't deliver that?
Ahem, it can but TI wants more profit from a jelly bean IC, without endangering the cash cow portfolio parts that are 3-20x the price.
Imagine all the fat and overhead associated with ISO 9001 yet is also failed here.

Part number suffix is usually the package designation.
"new chip" is totally different than the "legacy chip" so why even allow the root p/n to tag along?
It's not a 5532 by any means other than possibly meeting a few of the old IC's specs.
I'm still betting on phase-inversion being the death knell between them.

[edavid]

For me, the biggest crime: not labelling this part as NE5532A.  No point saying "they wouldn't sell any".  The new part is adequate for some applications.  But it is not the same as the old part.  Let it stand on its own merits.

Just to clarify, there is already an NE5532A, dating back to Signetics.  The only difference from the plain NE5532 is that it has maximum noise specs, instead of just typical.  (Long ago it might have saved tester time not to test for noise, but I doubt they still bother having 2 separate programs.  Interestingly, the RC4580 has no maximum noise spec on the datasheet.  I wonder if they had to upgrade the RC4580 test program, or screen the "RC4580 marked as NE5532A" separately.)

Anyway, there was no need for a new part number, since the new parts are RC4580s.  They should have just issued an EOL notice with a suggestion that people use the RC4580 instead, instead of pretending there was a new version of the NE5532.

[floobydust]

For me, the biggest crime: not labelling this part as NE5532A.  No point saying "they wouldn't sell any".  The new part is adequate for some applications.  But it is not the same as the old part.  Let it stand on its own merits.

Just to clarify, there is already an NE5532A, dating back to Signetics.  The only difference from the plain NE5532 is that it has maximum noise specs, instead of just typical.  (Long ago it might have saved tester time not to test for noise, but I doubt they still bother having 2 separate programs.  Interestingly, the RC4580 has no maximum noise spec on the datasheet.  I wonder if they had to upgrade the RC4580 test program, or screen the "RC4580 marked as NE5532A" separately.)

Anyway, there was no need for a new part number, since the new parts are RC4580s.  They should have just issued an EOL notice with a suggestion that people use the RC4580 instead, instead of pretending there was a new version of the NE5532.

But the RC4580 exhibits phase-inversion... see Reply #172

[edavid]

But the RC4580 exhibits phase-inversion... see Reply #172

I don't understand your point.  We know that the new production TI NE5532/A are TI RC4580 die.  So TI decided that was the closest substitute, phase inversion or no phase inversion.