Perspectives on preamps

[Bret L]

We often forget that except for the phono section, the real function
of a preamp is not amplification per se. Any correctly designed tuner,
tape deck, DAC, CD player, or what have you has plenty of signal to
directly drive a power amplifier. Instead it is to serve as a
switching nexus and a level control, plus those functions so necessary
but derided by purists like tone control.

This leads us to the "passive preamp". This is in basic concept a
great idea. It fails because it is in the middle of a bunch of cables
that otherwise need to be as short and direct as possible. Even so
under the right circumstances it works pretty well.

The real solution is a change in thinking. Each unit of signal (a
"component" is a resistor, a capacitor or something like that) should
possess its own volume control and perhaps some type of switch
architecture. Alternatively, there is the "integrated amplifier" which
is no more than a power amplifier with a volume control (which many
"power amplifiers" have anyway, cf.McIntosh ) and a selector switch
for multiple inputs.

This change in thinking is occurring at a nonexistent pace, i.e, not
at all.

[Shhhh!!!! I'm Listening to Reason!]

On Jun 16, 6:47*pm, Bret L > wrote:
> *We

You.

[Gary Eickmeier]

"Bret L" > wrote in message
...
> We often forget that except for the phono section, the real function
> of a preamp is not amplification per se. Any correctly designed tuner,
> tape deck, DAC, CD player, or what have you has plenty of signal to
> directly drive a power amplifier. Instead it is to serve as a
> switching nexus and a level control, plus those functions so necessary
> but derided by purists like tone control.
>
> This leads us to the "passive preamp". This is in basic concept a
> great idea. It fails because it is in the middle of a bunch of cables
> that otherwise need to be as short and direct as possible. Even so
> under the right circumstances it works pretty well.
>
> The real solution is a change in thinking. Each unit of signal (a
> "component" is a resistor, a capacitor or something like that) should
> possess its own volume control and perhaps some type of switch
> architecture. Alternatively, there is the "integrated amplifier" which
> is no more than a power amplifier with a volume control (which many
> "power amplifiers" have anyway, cf.McIntosh ) and a selector switch
> for multiple inputs.
>
> This change in thinking is occurring at a nonexistent pace, i.e, not
> at all.

Most of us do not use "preamps" any more, but either receivers or control
amps, which are for switching and processing signals to be sent to all
channels.

It was frustrating for me for a while when they dropped the Tape Head input
on preamps and receivers. Most of them still have Phono inputs, but that
will probably be dropped soon. Just get a USB turntable and convert your
record collection to digital. I've got hundreds of LPs, so that would be
ridiculous, but I don't listen to them any more anyway. After CD, it was
difficult to force myself to go thru the ritual again (clean the record,
clean the stylus, carefully set it down in the lead-in groove or between
tracks, try and ignore the whoosh, spitting, hiss, and pucketa pucketa at
the end. Screw it.

Gary Eickmeier

[Clyde Slick]

On Jun 16, 10:25*pm, "Gary Eickmeier" >
wrote:
> "Bret L" > wrote in message
>
> ...
>
>
>
> > We often forget that except for the phono section, the real function
> > of a preamp is not amplification per se. Any correctly designed tuner,
> > tape deck, DAC, CD player, or *what have you has plenty of signal to
> > directly drive a power amplifier. Instead it is to serve as a
> > switching nexus and a level control, plus those functions so necessary
> > but derided by purists like tone control.
>
> > This leads us to the "passive preamp". This is in basic concept a
> > great idea. It fails because it is in the middle of a bunch of cables
> > that otherwise need to be as short and direct as possible. Even so
> > under the right circumstances it works pretty well.
>
> > The real solution is a change in thinking. Each unit of signal (a
> > "component" is a resistor, a capacitor or something like that) should
> > possess its own volume control and perhaps some type of switch
> > architecture. Alternatively, there is the "integrated amplifier" which
> > is no more than a power amplifier with a volume control (which many
> > "power amplifiers" have anyway, cf.McIntosh ) and a selector switch
> > for multiple inputs.
>
> > This change in thinking is occurring at a nonexistent pace, i.e, not
> > at all.
>
> Most of us do not use "preamps" any more, but either receivers or control
> amps, which are for switching and processing signals to be sent to all
> channels.
>
> It was frustrating for me for a while when they dropped the Tape Head input
> on preamps and receivers. Most of them still have Phono inputs, but that
> will probably be dropped soon. Just get a USB turntable and convert your
> record collection to digital. I've got hundreds of LPs, so that would be
> ridiculous, but I don't listen to them any more anyway. After CD, it was
> difficult to force myself to go thru the ritual again (clean the record,
> clean the stylus, carefully set it down in the lead-in groove or between
> tracks, try and ignore the whoosh, spitting, hiss, and pucketa pucketa at
> the end. Screw it.
>
> Gary Eickmeier

Besides all that, the scratches upset the birds living in your speaker
boxes.