Talk:Microphone preamplifier

Wikify project tracker:

Microphone preamplifier needs to be Wikified! So here's what needs to be done:
Check if the article is a copyright violation or meets deletion criteria.	(in progress)
Suggestion: Do a quick Google or Yahoo! search with a sentence from the article.
Check if another article already exists on this subject.	(pending)
Suggestion: Use the Wikipedia search to see what comes up.
Add Wikipedia markup.	(pending)
Suggestion: Read up on m:Help:Editing.
Format the article.	(pending)
Suggestion: Read up on Guide to Layout and Manual of Style.
Remove the {{wikify}} tag (if there is one).	(pending)
Join the Wikification effort! • How to use this template

Nelbs (talk) 23:11, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Class A and micpres.com

I deleted an addition that pushed the point of view that Class A electronics are the best for mic pres. The reference was a link to www.micpres.com which is a blog-style page connected to sales of Class A mic pres on eBay. While it would be useful to have some discussion of various classes and various designs relative to what users perceive, we shouldn't settle for such a skewed viewpoint. Binksternet (talk) 20:31, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Tried to make it Simple

I just added alot to this article and I tried to make it sound as simple as possible. Some of it doesn't sound encyclopedic, though, and I'm not sure what to do with it. Some help would be appreciated. (MatthieuV (talk) 19:58, 3 May 2009 (UTC))

Nearly all of your addition has problems with wording. The various names for the device are too many to be included in the first sentence. I broke up that sentence. What is "a large set of headphones"? I can imagine a set large enough to be placed comfortably on the head which will respond to 600 ohm nominal line level signal... "Wire with gain" is an idiomatic expression, not an encyclopedic description. The phrase "an antennae" is not correct. The designation 'D/A' was used when 'A/D' was meant. There are, however, A/D converters which can pick up the weak microphone signal directly. The phrase "as soon as possible" was used when "as short as possible" was meant. The plural form of the word does not need an apostrophe. The reader is being given faulty information: "Because pre's are not intelligent" and Mic pre's add "color" to the signal" are examples. "A high quality mic pre can significantly improve the sound of any microphone" is completely unproven. The phrase "the signal is high enough above it" was used when "the signal is so much stronger" was meant. How did preamplifier become "nothing else in common with a mic pre"? What is the wikirecording link doing at External links? I'm reverting your changes and modifying the article somewhat, adding some of your casual usage terms and adding a reference. Binksternet (talk) 16:36, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Mike preamp is a typo

It really is a misspelling. A google search on it mostly returns postings. When I saw what looked like a review for an ART tube mic preamp and I googled 'art tube "mike preamp"', The answer asked if I meant 'art tube "mic preamp"'.

Robert.Harker (talk) 06:50, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Robert, "mike" and "mic" are both commonly acceptable abbreviations for "microphone." Looking back through audio history, you'll find both spellings in technical papers and commercial literature. I remember a long debate about this in an engineering/technical forum some years ago. It really comes down to personal preference, much like using a Harvard comma, or not. My personal preference is "mic." 2601:204:4002:9A00:F859:E192:3916:9CDE (talk) 15:57, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

"must" in the second line is a subjective statement and not a fact.

As many mic preamps are used to add distortion to a signal and colour it the word "must' in the second paragraph should probably be changed to "should". "A microphone preamplifier must provide stable gain for small signals without being sensitive to induced noise from cabling and without distorting large amplitude signals." Also many mic preamps have a low slew rate and or low dynamic ranges that may only provide stable gain at certain input levels. Many users of mic preamps deliberately run the preamps "hot" in order to distort large amplitude signals for ascetic purposes. By doing this does this make the mic preamp not a mic preamp? Obviously not. Also what about a very badly made mic preamp that does not pick up low level signals and has a high THD? Is this kind of equipment not a mic preamp? As this is a direct quotation from another source I am only noting this on the discussion page. Maybe that line should be removed altogether as it is a subjective statement and a directly cited quotation. Not sure what to do but if you have more experience with wiki and want to change that I think my point is valid. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Geovitray (talk • contribs) 23:24, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Weak signals

Yes, microphone signals are weak but it is common for there to be hundreds of feet of mic cable between microphone and microphone preamplifier. Also preamps are included in most consoles and some recording equipment is it is confusing to imply that a separate pre amp is always needed.

I would be WP:BOLD revise the article but these dubious statements occur in a cited portion of the article and I do not have access to that reference. --Kvng (talk) 17:41, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

If it's wrong, by all means WP:BOLD. I don't mind so long as it's not this, e.g. a "how to write with 0 empathy for your readers".--Atlantictire (talk) 09:33, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Yikes, this needs a LOT of work

Sorry folks, but this article needs a TON of work.

 Dear Comcast customer, so why don't you do the work?  Rewrite the sections, one at a time.  Search the web and find the citations to back up what you write.  It is easy to criticize a wikipedia article.  Many of them would benefit from some serious *referenced* rewriting.  But that takes work.  I find half an hour to an hour per paragraph of *referenced* rewriting.  Looks like a relaxing half day, full day's work.  If you are not helping wash the dishes, please do not criticize the cook.Robert.Harker (talk) 20:33, 30 December 2015 (UTC) Thanks, yes I may get around to it. 2601:204:4002:9A00:F859:E192:3916:9CDE (talk) 15:20, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

1)"The term microphone preamplifier can either refer to the electronic circuitry within a microphone, or to a separate device or circuit that the microphone is connected to. In either instance, the purpose of the microphone preamplifier is the same."
Um, no. Gross misconception. The "head amplifier" inside of condenser microphones is, primarily, an impedance transducer, converting the very low-current, high-impedance of the actual capsule (capacitor, etc.) to a lower-impedance, higher-current output source. While a mic's internal head amp might be called a "mic preamp" -- in practice it rarely is. It's called a head amp, mic amplifier, impedance buffer, capsule amp, etc.. A mic preamp is, primarily, a voltage amplifier, and secondarily a current buffer, along with other functions.

2.) "A microphone preamplifier increases that level by up to 70 dB, to anywhere up to 10 volts."
Um, no. There are production-level micamps with over 70dB of gain (some custom Foley and specialty micamps can do >90dB.) Some solid-state micamps can output over 80 volts (Millennia HV-3C and HV-3D output is 87 volts pk-pk, or +32dBu balanced), and some tube units can do hundreds of volts.

3.) "This stronger signal is used to drive equalization circuitry within an audio mixer, to drive external audio effects, and to sum with other signals to create an audio mix for audio recording or for live sound."
This is grossly myopic. As an encyclopedic entry, a statement of purpose must be broadly encompassing and top-level. Suggest removing the entire statement and replacing with a broad claim.

4.) "A microphone is a transducer and as such is the source of much of the coloration of an audio mix."
Some mics are "colored" (not a proper term for an encyclopedic entry) and some are extremely accurate, both objectively and subjectively. Suggest removing statement.

5.) "Most audio engineers would assert that a microphone preamplifier also affects the sound quality of an audio mix."
Certainly, this is a true statement, but without a scientific source to reference, it's not suitable for an encyclopedic entry. Cite authoritative sources, or remove the statement.

6.) "A preamplifier might load the microphone with low impedance, forcing the microphone to work harder and so change its tone quality."
The microphone has a low impedance output or the micamp has a low impedance input? While I know what you're trying to say, it's written ambiguously. Moreover, if you can't cite an actual micamp that has a sufficiently low input impedance to "load down" a microphone to the point where it becomes audible, along with an authoritative source (ABX testing, etc.), then the sentence needs to be removed.

7.) "A preamplifier might add coloration by adding a different characteristic than the audio mixer's built-in preamplifiers."
What does even mean? Vague and confusing. Remove it.

8.) "Some microphones must be used in conjunction with a preamplifier to function properly (e.g., condenser microphones)."
The example given of "condenser microphone" is wrong. Some condenser microphones require no external preamplification (e.g., DPA4003 on high dynamic source, etc.). Remove sentence, or re-write in a way that is accurate and actually explains WHY some microphones require a micamp to "function properly." 2601:204:4002:9A00:E4B2:EF27:111D:8CDD (talk) 20:18, 30 December 2015 (UTC) JL