Talk:Preamplifier

Link
The following link: "WikiRecording's Guide to Choosing a Microphone Pre-Amp" yields an error for me. --77.7.28.5 (talk) 23:41, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Shielding claim
deleted: "To reduce noise the metal chassis are interconnected, and shielded cables are so connected at the source end only. The use of battery power is good both for audio preamps and amplifiers." The claim about shielding is totally bogus. No cable is sold like that. Yeah, some people do it, mostly people with know background in electrical engineering. Try reading tech notes on rane.com for a more informed perspective. I assume the suggestion to use batteries is motivated by similar rumors about grounding. 69.241.241.107 01:41, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
 * In pro use, with balanced connections, cable shield connected at only one end is fairly common, even sometimes in semi-mass-production cables. You can't feed a mic phantom power over a cable like that, which is why most have shield connected. It isn't necessarily gonna give you the best signal for interconnection of various fixed devices, though, since ground loops are very much real things. In non-pro audiophile-grade use, you often see cables with 2 conductors + shield (just like in a balanced cable), where the unbalanced signal and the return travel over the 2 conductors and the shield is *just* a shield, rather than the return, and in that case it's connected at only one end. Such a cable will still measure continuity between the centers and the outsides respectively of the rca plugs. i'm not sure if there's a measurable difference to ground loop performance. If there were I suspect more pro cables would be made as 3 conductor plus shield.194.109.254.26 01:33, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Gain in volts
"The preamplifier provides voltage gain (about: 10millivolts to 1volt)" -- since when is gain measured in V? I suspect the article is trying to say (about standard hifi preamps) "provides voltage gain/reduction (output level: between 10 mV and 1 V)", but it's slightly unclear to me.194.109.254.26 01:33, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

"The preamplifier provides voltage gain (i.e. from 10 millivolts to 1 volt) but no significant current gain. The power amplifier provides the higher current necessary to drive loudspeakers."


 * I'm not convinced of this statement. Preamps are for converting from high to low impedance.  High impedance is voltage-based and the less current taken into the input the better because the preamp device reads the voltage, suppressing as much as possible a degradation of the output voltage signal of the instrument.  An electric guitar for example produces very low currents, and the signal would be difficult to read by a low impedance device.  Low impedance means that there is less resistance and so the input is more a current reading device.  I'd say that the current gain from input to output from a preamp would be significant in terms of the current of the output divided by the current of the input.  Of course that is not to say that there is not further significant current gain upon dividing the power amp output current by its input current.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Palomaris (talk • contribs) 22:44, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Merge Proposal

 * The following is an archived discussion concerning a merge proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new talk entry. No further edits should be made to this section.

I don't believe there is enough difference between a Microphone preamp and any other to warrant the former having a separate article. I'd suggest this information by edited and merged into the Preamplifier article as it does contain some useful (although unreferenced) information. Nelbs (talk) 23:49, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I hear you, but I'm the kind of idiot that was looking to understand what a mic preamp was, tried to go to the article directly, it failed for some reason, then tried Preamp, read the article, had NO CLUE what the hell it was talking about, and thanked my lucky stars when I saw there was in fact an article called "Microphone preamp" which explained it a lot better. In other words, there seems to be a difference between these two terms - however subtle - and we should probably rely on an expert or somebody that really understands the subject matter to make this decision.


 * I won't lie to you, I'm on the "inclussionist" side of editors on wikipedia, which means I'm more inclined to say let's have 2 articles, but this is one I actually don't care about - I used to, before the scourge of the evil admins ... so go ahead, merge if you want, or don't. I will have to trust you. All I'm saying is make sure you're qualified to assess the subject matter to make the call, because if one day an expert comes along and says "hey, there should probably be two articles", he'll have a tough time fighting the deletionist admins because a decision was made NOW to merge them. *Steps off soapbox* Rfwoolf (talk) 14:51, 25 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Disapprove of merge proposal. I see sufficient differences to have separate articles. Mic preamps are designed with different goals in mind than hi-fi preamps or phono preamps, and they have different target markets. This article should stay where it is but be rearranged to point the way for the reader to find out which kind of preamp they were looking for. It should have brief descriptions of Microphone preamp, Phono preamp, Hi-fi preamp and High-impedance preamp (guitars and pickups), with notices under each heading saying click for the main page of this topic. The brief descriptions here should function as an overview so that a single page will tell you, for example, which preamps have balanced inputs or outputs, which have low-impedance inputs or outputs, which have tone control circuitry or intentional coloration, which have RF protection, which have professional line level vs. consumer line level outputs and which have no gain at all. Binksternet (talk) 22:44, 25 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Disapprove of merge proposal. As a musician I am not interested in the electrical aspects of a preamp as much as how it relates to recording. I think merging these topics will do a disservice to those wanting to learn about how to start their own recording studios. I don't see what is to be gained by merging these very different articles. Neovita (talk) 19:49, 8 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Disapprove of merge proposal. Just as there are different articles for sports cars and vintage cars etc, preamps are used for so different things so different articles would gain the quality of the Wikipedia encyclopedia. As a comparison, if someone searches for tube preamp and usually through Google, the preamp article is not showing up among the first results at all, although this is one of the most searched for preamp types. Likewise, when people look for other preamp types that also are among the most searched for, such as stereo *, phono * or guitar preamp, the preamp article is not showing up at all among the results either. According to search statistics, these are among the most searched types under the general preamp search. Besides, people use different words and ways to spell. When it comes to the mic preamp, following searches exist:

If a separate article is used, there is always better chance that any of the different searches would lead to the dedicated wikipedia article among the top results. I also agree to the other points put in the disapproving comments above. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Colorbow (talk • contribs) 12:15, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
 * mic preamp
 * mic preamps
 * mic preamplifier
 * mic preamplifiers
 * mic pre amp
 * mic pre amps
 * mic pre amplifier
 * mic pre amplifiers
 * microphone preamp
 * microphone preamps
 * microphone preamplifier
 * microphone preamplifiers
 * microphone pre-amp
 * microphone pre-amps
 * microphone pre-amplifier
 * microphone pre-amplifiers
 * mike preamp
 * mike preamps
 * mike preamplifier
 * mike preamplifiers
 * mike pre-amp
 * mike pre-amps
 * mike pre-amplifier
 * mike pre-amplifiers


 * Disapprove The article seems to contains much of the author's personal opinion. What constitutes a 'great' sound is a very personal matter.  See also the subject matter (above) that was deleted.  Because my specific interest was microphone usage, I was not especially concerned with the more general types of pre-amp.  The Microphone pre-amp article needs expansion to explain when and how such devices can be used and, perhaps, how to deal with problems that may arise.  Hence the two articles should stay decrete from each other.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.60.103.28 (talk) 09:34, 1 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Disapprove of merge proposal. As was said above, premaps are used in many more applications then just mics, in fact they are a vital part of most modern comparator based integrated circuit designs.  A great example is a flash analog to digital converter where without a preamp, the input signal to each comparator would suffer massive offsets limiting the effective number of bits the converter can achieve.  With a preamp it can effectively divide the comparator offset by the gain of the preamp.  Guerberj (talk) 03:54, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Merge proposal is removed. There was a clear consensus that separate articles are appropriate. I am removing the merge proposal. Binksternet (talk) 20:32, 5 May 2009 (UTC)


 * The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new talk entry. No further edits should be made to this section.

Also widely used at RF
This says nothing about radio frequency (RF) preamps, as it should.

= Absolutely agree, this article is heavily biased towards sound processing. 25.12.2023 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.10.148.192 (talk) 12:41, 25 December 2023 (UTC)