Talk:Audio power amplifier

The images shows amplifiers with toggles and dials, I think a better illustrations would be a or simmilar. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Elendal (talk • contribs) 05:15, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

Yes, some of these are integrated amplifiers and we have a separate article for those but they do include an audio power amplifier so they can be shown here as long as we're clear about it. ~Kvng (talk) 14:56, 15 October 2025 (UTC)

Practical transistor amplifiers were not only due to cheap solid state devices but early transistors also had issues with mid-band gain, alot of this issues were first cataloged by RCA (see specifically the work of Larry Giacoletto) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Mattpalmer84 (talk • contribs) 2006-04-18T07:27:24.

I'd like to edit the introduction of this article because it makes what I believe are two mistakes.

• (Refering to an amplifier's low power input levels) By "low power" it is meant that the signals are usually limited to those required to drive headphones (less than 500 mW).

The input stages to most audio amplifiers are designed to handle signals weaker then headphone levels. Most audio amplifiers require their inputs to satisfy line level signal levels.

• While the input signal may be only a few hundred millivolts, the power amplifier's output may have a power of many watts.

This sentence mixes incompatible units: volts and watts. I think "millivolts" should be changed to "milliwatts".

— Ke6jjj 18:47, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. An audio amplifier connected to a phonograph's magnetic cartridge receives mere microwatts. Using terms like "low" and "high" should probably be avoided altogether: look at what happened with the RF band names: very high, super high, etc. — EncMstr 20:25, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

So the issue of signal power discussed should be in two ranges related to the signal power P that is appropriate for driving speaker systems and headphones: Range1. Power that is equal to or greater than P, and Range2, signal power less than P. For this talk page, I put my recommended changes in bold. Ohgddfp (talk) 14:24, 17 October 2025 (UTC) Introduction

• In the 1st paragraph: "An audio power amplifier (or power amp) amplifies low-power electronic audio signals, such as the signal from a radio receiver or an electric guitar pickup, to a power level that is high enough for driving loudspeakers or headphones." Ohgddfp (talk) 14:24, 17 October 2025 (UTC)
  

The reason for the above change here is to keep the discussion about signal levels consistent in terms of signal strength, which should be signal power. Ohgddfp (talk) 14:24, 17 October 2025 (UTC)

• In the 2nd paragraph: "Most audio power amplifiers require these low-levelpower inputs, which are line level. Ohgddfp (talk) 14:24, 17 October 2025 (UTC) "
  

The reason for the above change here is that a turntable with magnetic cartridge and no internal pre-amp does not output line level signals. Ohgddfp (talk) 14:24, 17 October 2025 (UTC)

Yes, unless we've explained impedance, we should not be comparing voltage levels to power levels. ~Kvng (talk) 14:46, 24 October 2025 (UTC)

should this be the main page on audio amplifiers from which all other articles on audio amps fork off?--Light current 22:31, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

• I Agree! A lot of what is said applies to electronic amplifiers in general, or at least musical instrument amplifiers etc. Yet the Electronic amplifier page is pretty big and overloaded as it stands (see my discussion in Linear amplifier talk about merge/reorganise etc). There still should be a place for history of (significant) audio amplifier developments, including the Williamson and more. Perhaps it could morph into that?? Maitchy (talk) 05:44, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

• Agreed.Comment. There are at least buffer amplifiers, preamplifiers, power amplifiers, and some application-specific amplifiers. I'd like to see them indexed here as sub/sections, with separate articles when necessary. Now the lack of connection between those articles makes them quite a mixed bag. Olli Niemitalo (talk) 05:42, 29 September 2012 (UTC) Edit, Olli Niemitalo (talk) 21:27, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

• Disagree This page is currently about audio power amplifiers. If you want to create a main article for audio amplifiers, first rename this one. Alternatively, there seems to be ample room to make Amplifier the main article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kvng (talk • contribs) 00:07, 1 Oct 2012 (UTC)

Renaming this article to Audio power amplifier would probably be a good move in any case. I bet audio power amplifiers are called simply "amplifiers" more often than "audio amplifiers", anyway, so not much value would be lost on the name of the article. As to where to collect different kinds of audio amplifiers (preamps etc.), Electronic amplifier would do the best, I now think. Maitchy says Electronic amplifier is overloaded, but that may be remedied by sectioning the article to kinds of lists, "by technology" and "by application". Olli Niemitalo (talk) 21:27, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

I have renamed this article. I don't have a grand organization scheme in mind for this topic. I find that if you roll up your sleeves do work improving the individual articles, opportunities for organizational improvements begin to emerge naturally. -—Kvng 22:10, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

There are times when EQ might work: low SPL listening (fletcher-munson), bad mixing, achieving flat response to 20 hz. Many homes contain carpet and furniture which changes the power response. I would agree that an EQ, preamp, amp, should ideally be separate.

I agree as well, EQ should not be part of this article. Ohgddfp (talk) 14:41, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

EQ is almost mandatory in dense apartments; I used to get complaints from 6.5" B&W speakers.172.132.137.91 08:02, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Remember that there is also a direct arrival sound from the speakers. EQ in an attempt to fix room reverberation and acoustics unfortunately undoes the frequency balance for the direct arrival sounds. How to fix both? Yes, most "audio power amplifiers" are integrated with control preamplifiers that have tone controls. But I think EQ and tone controls should be part of a section on sound reproduction in general. So for the above reason, tone controls, EQ and room acoustics should not be part of this article. Ohgddfp (talk) 14:41, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

I noticed that some editors (see at History of this page) discriminates Latin American engineers and researchers. Frequently Oscar Bonello of Argentina is discriminated although he is a Fellow member of AES, New York. He is probably the most respected researcher in Audio Engineering and Acoustics in Latin America. He teaches at several universities with thousand of graduated engineers or doctorate students. If you are not convinced, please do a test. Go to the AES website (www.aes.org >> awards) and get a list of Fellow members. Take a few names, of well known researchers (all with the same FELLOW degree). Then go to Wikipedia using the “Google search option” and search for names between quotes; you will find:

• • Leo Beranek He has 265 entries in Wikipedia
  • James Moir He has 98 entries
  • Robert Moog He has 166 entries
  • Ray Dolby He has 45 entries
  • Oscar Bonello He only has 15 entries

Then when an editor erases any contribution of Bonello as “promotion” please note that he lies; it is a simple act of discrimination, that is unfair and privates the Wikipedia readers of knowing his important contributions. I ask to his many past students to edit articles to help that the Latin American Science and Engineering will be known at the level it deserves. RobertTanzi —Preceding unsigned comment added by RobertTanzi (talk • contribs) 04:39, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

The addition is hardly being removed for any kind of nationalism. It does seem overly promotional. It would be a much more appropriate addition to an article about amplifier design, not a general article like this. —EncMstr (talk) 05:55, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

What I want to see from any Bonello entry to the English-language Wikipedia is a basic appreciation of English grammar, a sense that the text hasn't been copied and pasted from somewhere else, a quantified and accurate description of technical achievements and an absence of overly optimistic and promotional peacock words and concepts. The Bonello text under discussion violates these minimal guidelines. In the text, there are bracketed numbers such as [7] and [8] which tell me that this text was used somewhere else with footnotes. Those footnotes weren't brought here. We have phrases like "far better distortion measurements than valve amplifiers, at low cost and with high power" that lack quantities: how much better? What low cost? What power level? Finally, the term "Distortion Multiplication Factor" was introduced without any explanation. These problems should be addressed before the text is worthy of inclusion. Binksternet (talk) 06:28, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Further to that, I would like to add that some indication of notability for this research/techniques should be present. Given that the material is continually being re-added by Bonello himself or by his co-workers/co-researchers (on a number of articles, not just here), there is a strong conflict of interest here. We currently have no indication that anyone else in the world knows or cares about his contributions (I'm not saying that no-one does, just that we don't know about it). Oli Filth^{(talk|contribs)} 09:22, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

I think I was the first to notice Bonnello's contentions and claims and with an open mind, I helped him re-write his submissions and gave him advise so as to avoid falling into these pitfalls. Unfortunately, it appears that more than a year later, he and his supporters continue to push for his name being mentioned and associated with digital audio technologies at Wikipedia English more, it seems, than any other engineer in our audio history. Therefore I have to disagree; the claim that he and others are being discriminated at WP is simply unsubstantiated. Jrod2 (talk) 14:26, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

I will speak for myself of course. Bonello has many editors beacuse he teaches in several universities, and many engineers or post doctorate people remember him and wishes to have it at Wikipedia (he is like a Latin American flag) Bonello do not write anymore for Wikipedia because the discrimination problem (very often discrimination is not only for him. Very often all the people (USA born including) he comments are banned, see History of FM Broadcasting, by example) Probably some explanations can be improved. But erasing it is not the way...

Some comments (like Oli: " We currently have no indication that anyone else in the world knows or cares about his contributions" are ofenssive... Oli, please you are speaking of an AES Fellow... You think that AES uses to deliver Fellowship award like candies? ) Other cooments like Jrod2 are real. If I revise the history I see that Jrod2 very often help to improve articles. Thank you for your help. Can you help us in the future ? Please note that during the last months Bonello (nikname OscarJuan) do not contribute to Wikipedia. All editors at this moment have the Spanish or Portuguese as native language. But since English is the international lenguage we must write in English (Wikipedia only is complete in Englisg with 2,7 million entries)

Some comments like the " bracketed numbers" appears as the resulta of continuous erasures and restorations. Of course we can improve it

In brief: since Wikipedia must be a collaboration area I personally ask you to improve the article redaction, not to erasure/restore for ever

Can you suggest me the best procedure to correct one by one the articles ?

Regards, Rodolfo Mita —Preceding unsigned comment added by RodolfoMita (talk • contribs) 21:17, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Given the number of single-purpose accounts that are involved in this, I've now started a case at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/RobertTanzi. Oli Filth^{(talk|contribs)} 00:57, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Dear Oli_Filth As result of your “ contributions” now two articles at Wikipedia are blocked for editing (for all editors) One is Audio Amplifier that need urgently a good editor… The statement that Lee De Forest invented the audio amplifier do not support analysis. Please read the Radiotron Designer Handbook in order to see that the triode valve invention is not the same as an amplifier device like you show at the photos. I only do this comment to show the necessity of good technical editors in Audio / Acoustics at Wiki.

Since I found about 50 wiki articles in this field that need editing, I ask me if you are planning to block all them. Probably to keep untouched the lack of references and amateur personal opinions that it contains. Sometimes you recognize a good editor because you keep the good edition done by OscarJuan (Oscar Bonello ) in April 2008 “ Further Developments …” with several references. But in order to be grateful with Oscar Bonello you erase him (only him) of his own edition ! leaving unmodified all the rest of the article… It is one of the best examples of discrimination I ever seen…

Of course you are right with the concept of “single purpose editors” But it is due that all member of ASA, AES and probably IEEE have received by mail information about the discrimination of one of our Fellows members and then we all are contributing to stop Wikipedia. Probably during the next months all audio / acoustics articles must be blocked discouraging new editors to improve it. Is it what you want ?

Please, let me know what is your idea about this matter Regards AlbertoReiss --AlbertoReiss (talk) 00:24, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Hello.

These two articles (Audio amplifier and Architectural acoustics) have been protected from edits by new users and anonymous IP users (see WP:SEMI). It was not me who did this (I am not an administrator), but it was me who reported the problem of excessive sockpuppeting, vandalism, and edits against consensus.

If there are problems with this article (or other articles), then let's discuss and fix them (on the appropriate talk pages)! I have no problem with that. What I do have a problem with, however, is a team of editors whose only purpose is to get Oscar Bonello mentioned all over Wikipedia (see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/RobertTanzi/Archive). If there is no more of that, then I think we can make progress.

When I was clearing up all the Bonello promotion, I didn't at first notice that the "further developments" section was by Bonello (as it was added via an anonymous IP ). At the time, my main concern was to eliminate the self-promotion. I'll read that section again, and see if anything needs to be changed. Regards, Oli Filth^{(talk|contribs)} 17:32, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Dear Oli: Ok but still remains the central point. My idea is to improve edition of some new audio articles. But prior to do that, I wish to now if you have a list of banned people. Can I mention Ray Dolby ? Can I mention Dr Nepomuceno ? (Brasil) Can I mention Prof Bonello (Argentina) ? You said: I was clearing up all the Bonello promotion But as RoberTanzi DEMONSTRATED (see above "People Discrimination" ), Bonello do not have promotion (he is the less mentioned of other AES Fellows) Then prior to use my time to improve Wikipedia articles I need to know if Bonello and other people must be censored or directly banned for Wiki. Of course when I cite a person always cite a peer review reference. Your reply will be important in taking my decision (and problably some other future audio editors have now similar questions) Regrads--AlbertoReiss (talk) 00:42, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

There is no "list of banned people"! But work should only be mentioned where it's relevant, notable, and isn't against consensus. By "consensus", I refer to a broad range of editors who have all agreed on a decision on an article talk page (see, for example, the long discussions about Bonello at Talk:MP3). Bonello was promoting himself - he added himself to a whole range of different articles. This coincided with a set of single-purpose editors who continued to restore the material when it was removed, and then began vandalising and other performing inappropriate actions.

Because of this history of problems, I would suggest that Bonello should not be added to an article unless it has been thoroughly discussed on the appropriate talk page beforehand. Oli Filth^{(talk|contribs)} 00:52, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

About: "TIM did not appear at steady state sine tone measurements, helping to hide it from design engineers prior to 1972." There is an "elephant in the room" here that some readers may wonder about, and therefore should be included in this article. It's true that harmonic distortion tests would not likely reveal all problems. But testing for Intermodulation Distortion on the other hand reveals the same deficiences that a TIM test reaveals, PROVIDED that the heavy dose of ULTRASOUND in a regular TIM test signal is REMOVED. This is why using the preamp to get rid of this ULTRASOUND by way of a reduced bandwidth, as your article already mentions, is part of the solution to get rid of transient intermodulation distortion, AS CAUSED BY THE TIM TEST SIGNAL. But the elephant in the room is that in part, TIM tests use ULTRA SOUND to test a SOUND reproduction device. Readers may wonder why this is VALID. And they ask a really good question. Especially since the ultra sound accidently leaking from even cheap CD players and any kind of phonograph cartidges playing vinyl phonograph records is VERY VERY WEAK. FAR too weak to push an amplifier into NON-LINEAR disortion like a TIM test does. In other words, using a limited bandwidth preamp stage only helps solve the problem with TIM tests, NOT problems using real audio signal sources. So no, what fooled many engineers before 1972 is that too often, harmonic distortion tests were most frequently used, AND ADVERTISED, while in most cases testing for INTERMODULATION DISTORTION, a valid IN BAND test, was IGNORED. Yes, the ways in the referenced articles do indeed identify TIM and show valid ways to solve it, but because ultra sound in audio sources is so weak, and TIM tests are so strong in ultra sound, TIM tests therefore uncover a problem that doesn't exist in the real world. Ghidoekjf (talk) 03:58, 8 December 2010 (UTC) Ghidoekjf (talk) 04:22, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Ah, the shouting! Your rant fails to recognize that TIM test signals are often tailored to the frequency range of the device under test, so that out-of-band audio signals are not introduced. You are getting angry about a problem that is rarely seen at reputable companies. Binksternet (talk) 05:10, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Oops! (I'm also User Ghidoekjf) I apologize for the upper case. I should have used the bold button. Please consider all the previous upper case to be bold instead. I want it to mean emphasis, not shouting. Actually, I'm not angry. I'm exploring some of the apparently contradictory information from several sources. I would like to see somewhere a TIM test, with tailored frequency content, where the test signal is played off a good CD machine or analog tape recorder, and the spectrum of amplifier input and output is different from each other. Then I'd like to see the intermodulation test of the same amplifier. In any case I think the TIM filter should be flat +/- 1 dB to 22 kHz, and down at least 20 dB at 25 kHz. That's were I'd like to compare intermodulation tests with that kind of TIM test. I'm still looking for one that shows a meaningful difference. Know of one?

Ohgddfp (talk) 14:59, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

About your response to my unfortunate shouting where you say: "Your rant fails to recognize that TIM test signals are often tailored to the frequency range of the device under test." If the frequency range of the DUT (device under test) is greater than that of studio microphones, vinyl master record cutting equipment, and even perfect compact disc players, then failure of the TIM test might not correlate at all with the accuracy of reproducing the signal from the aformentioned signal sources. That's because the TIM signal has ultrasound (greater than a frequency range of 24 kHz). More over, the standard does not seem to indicate that such "tailoring" is ever done accurately with only two "tailorings" available--30 kHz and 100 kHz--both containing significant ultrasonic frequencies. Case in point, from Audio Precision, a popular audio test equipment manufacturer, "DIM 30 and DIM 100 Measurements per IEC 60268-3 with AP2700"; " ... a square wave at a frequency of 3.15 kHz is low-pass filtered and then linearly combined with a sine wave at a frequency of 15 kHz. DIM 30 and DIM 100 use single-pole low-pass filters with cutoff frequencies of [30 kHz] (my emphasis) and 100 kHz, respectively". So my position is that TIM testing (used interchangably with "DIM") according to IEC 60268-3 is only useful if ultrasound is a consideration, since 30 kHz is more than 24 kHz. (And compact disc players can only go to 22 kHz at best.) It should also be mentioned that "TIM" is controversial and considered to be a red herring by many. So do we want this article, named "Audio power amplifier" to deal with ultrasound? If not, then I vote that this TIM section should be removed. Ohgddfp (talk) 23:48, 8 October 2025 (UTC)

Ohgddfp (talk) 23:49, 8 October 2025 (UTC)

This was added to Amplifier article. I think it is more appropriate here but I didn't want to try and jam it in. --Kvng (talk) 15:06, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

It's not a great photo, with so much busy background and a too-great emphasis on the rolling rack which supports the amplifier. Also, it is obviously an amplifier opened up for display rather than one which is ready to work, or one that is working. If an image of a display amplifier is indicated, the photo should focus more clearly on the subject matter, so that the reader can see what's inside. This image fails in its task. Binksternet (talk) 16:07, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Audio power amplifier. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110424050529/http://www.cyrusaudio.com:80/product-archive/amps/1-integrated-amplifier-all-versions to http://CyrusAudio.com/product-archive/amps/1-integrated-amplifier-all-versions

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:04, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

Early in this page, it talks about the "warmth" of the sound of electric instrument amps and, about transistors vs. tubes.

Electric instrument amps are designed to distort the signal. And, when musicians talk about the "warm" character of tube amps, they are talking about the difference between the distortion caused by over-driving a tube stage vs. the distortion caused by over-driving a transistor stage. Such talk should be well segregated from talk about amplifiers that are designed to faithfully reproduce an input signal. 173.75.55.14 (talk) 21:05, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

But electric instrument amps also have audio power amplifiers. But I do agree that the ideas between electronic musical instruments and a system that reproduces sound should be in completely different sections. Case in point, the "key design parameters" section should be completely different for devices that, on the one hand, reproduce original sound waves, and on the other hand, the sonic output of electronic musical instruments which are the original sound waves. Ohgddfp (talk) 22:54, 25 October 2025 (UTC)

The beginning of the article states power amps are intended to take a guitar pickup signal, among others. Then in the next paragraph it mentions pre-amplification occurs before power amplification of such signals as guitar pickup signals. The example of guitar pickup output should be removed from the list of example signals that may be fed (it is implied directly) into a power amplifier — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.38.218.65 (talk) 00:33, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

Sound reproduction equipment on the one hand, and musical electronic musical instruments on the other hand, have completely different purposes and goals from each other. Therefore, the design parameters are also completely different. So recommendations for restructuring this section are given for the purpose of removing the existing conflation of the two opposing goals. Ohgddfp (talk) 14:34, 17 October 2025 (UTC)

Illustrations for the intro to show readers visually what all this is talking about Ohgddfp (talk) 15:38, 18 October 2025 (UTC)

• Loudspeaker System
• 
  With grille
• 
  Grille removed
• 
  Block Diagram

Ohgddfp (talk) 16:02, 18 October 2025 (UTC)

The scope of the article is the power amplifier. These images go far beyond that. I appreciated the context is useful but all of this is potentially confusing for readers. ~Kvng (talk) 14:42, 24 October 2025 (UTC)

The reason for my extensive context was an attempt to use images to clarify existing text that I believe is already confusing to the reader. One issue is that much of the existing text is appplicable not just to audio power amplifiers, but to all audio amplifiers. Perhaps the article should concentrate only on audio power amplifiers as the title suggests. That means describing how an audio power amplifier is different from other audio amplifiers. And that in turn means there should be some context.

Some of that context is already in the first two paragraphs of the lede, but the existing text does not explicitely show to a lay person how the ideas already in the article, "analog signal" and "chain", are related to each other. Relating these two ideas in a "hookup" diagram automatically contrasts and compares the key differences between audio power amplifiers and other audio amplifiers. These key differences should be the focus of the article. Ohgddfp (talk) 22:41, 25 October 2025 (UTC)

@Ohgddfp, you may have noticed that Power amplifier redirects to this article. When you say power amplifier here, I assume you are referring to Preamplifier. Audio power amplifiers are used in many other types of audio and video systems beyond what you're showing, see Sound system. I think the lead is giving good context. Maybe we could add some of this material to an Applications subsection. We'd want to be careful of creating an WP:UNDUE issue. There are probably more audio power amplifiers in mobile phones than in all other applications combined. ~Kvng (talk) 15:31, 8 February 2026 (UTC)

Everywhere I said "power amplifier", I meant "audio power amplifier". So I am comparing "audio power amplifiers" to other kinds of "audio amplifiers". So "preamplifier" would have been classified as an example of "other amplifiers", more precisely I should have stated other audio amplfiers. Ohgddfp (talk) 14:48, 9 February 2026 (UTC)

Also, as I mentioned above in this "More Images for the Intro" section, I said "Some of that context is already in the first two paragraphs of the lede, ...". I would say that any reader not able to hookup playback system components in a "chain", would only understand what was said in the lede, that there are low powered signals not able to practically drive transducers, and high power signals that can drive transducers. Although this information already in the lede is crucial and needed, it does not map out in a visual way how all the terms like "pre-amplifier", "integrated amplifier", "power amplifier", and typical names of audio sources all relate to one-another in a "chain". Conceptually, the idea of a signal in a wire is central to the reason why any audio amplifier, power or not, exists in the first place. A visual illustration of a "chain", where the wires (cables) links elements (components with common names) together makes a more holistic kind of understanding of where the audio power amplifier (tranducer driving capability) fits in compared to where a low-power audio amplifier (not able to practically drive a transducer) fits in. This illustration of a "chain" would complete the comparing and constrasting of "audio power amplifier" compared to other kinds of "audio amplifiers" by focusing on the reason for amplifiers to exist in the first place. Ohgddfp (talk) 15:57, 9 February 2026 (UTC)

So I think several slightly less busy diagrams, one showing a typical musical instrument amplifier, another a mobile phone, another a component system, another a laptop (with internal speakers), and another an audio power amplifier driving a cutting head for making a master phonograph disk (to eventually stamp out vinyl records), would be ideal. The diagrams should be presented as a multi-image single frame that is off to the side of the page, and can be made full-screen by the reader. In each diagram, each signal containing audio information would be labeled as a digital signal, an analog audio signal not capable of driving a transducer, and an analog audio signal that is capable of driving a transducer, together making a more complete picture of how an audio power amplifier is different from other audio amplifiers. I think that would be the best compromise. Ohgddfp (talk) 15:57, 9 February 2026 (UTC)

The article needs to be more coherent, which requires a revamp. Here is a basic review of what I think needs to be fixed.
Ohgddfp (talk) 13:36, 1 November 2025 (UTC)

The Design parameters section discusses key design parameters that are the same for all audio amplifiers, while leaving out key design parameters specfic to audio power amplifiers. Of course, power output is one. Another is manufacturer-recommended speaker impedance. A separate parameter, output impedance versus frequency, can profoundly effect the effective amplifier frequency response, up to 10 dB or more, due to the voltage divider effect between the speaker and some power amplifiers. This parameter is actually a graph, like a frequency response graph, but manufactures universally report only one point on that graph, translating it into "damping factor at 1 kHz". I am planning to rewrite the first paragraph.

The paragraph beginning with "Until the 1970s ..." discusses the technique of overdriving tube amplifiers for artistic musical effect. Overdriving a preamplifier is not overdriving a power amplifier, and is therefore not a comparison of an audio amplifier to an audio power amplifier. That needs to be fixed. This paragraph also gives the impression that tube amplifiers cannot have very low distortion. This is not always true. This paragraph belongs in the history section anyway.

The whole Design parameters section is unsourced and needs improvement. However, I don't see any factual errors in the middle paragraph you're referring to. Tube distortion is used for musical effect in used in preamplifiers and power amplifiers and in both home and professional applications. I'm not opposed to going through and trimming out discussion of preamplifier applications because the intended scope of this article is power amplifiers. ~Kvng (talk) 12:46, 31 October 2025 (UTC)

Well, I agree that there are no factual errors in that paragraph. My issue is that the reader may not understand that "over-driven" or "pushed hard" actually means trying to play louder than what the power amplifier was designed to do. So I would change the last sentence of that middle paragraph to something like: "While hi-fi enthusiasts and audio engineers doing live sound or monitoring tracks in the studio typically seek out amplifiers with the lowest distortion, electric instrument players in genres such as blues, rock music and heavy metal music, among others, use use a tube amplifier because when an audio power amplifier is producing sound louder than what is was designed to do, in other words, when an audio power amplifier is overdriven, the resulting distortion produced by most tube audio power amplifiers is a deliberate artistic musical element that is artistically in tune with the desired artistic intent, where the distorted sound of a solid state audio power amplifier under the same overdriven conditions is harsher and less musical that what the artist is trying to achieve." Ohgddfp (talk) 16:44, 9 February 2026 (UTC)

In the Filters and preamplifiers section, the inference is that tone controls, which pre-amps usually supply, are not needed. Indeed, some high end preamplifiers have only volume control and switching of audio sources, while some power amplifiers offer the same, which, as the article already explains, precludes the need for a preamplifier. Such a device with only switching and a passive volume control, in spite of the description "preamplifier", doesn't really amplifiy anything. Because "Filters" (meaning mostly tone controls) is in the section title, a reader may wonder why some preamplifiers don't have tone controls. Since the only answer ever given in the literature is pure pseudoscience--"tone control circuits damage the purity of the signal"--such anti-science answers should be avoided in a Wikipedia article that is by nature in the rhelm of science and engineering. To avoid such a fake news answer, the question itself ("why some preamplifiers don't have tone controls?") can be avoided by not even discussing such "high-end" preamplifiers in the first place. A traditional preamplifier (with tone controls, or parametric equalizer) is part of a connection diagram I talked about for the lede section (see the talk section: More Images for the Intro) that shows the minimal context of how an audio power amplifier is different from other audio amplifiers. Someone should delete the "Filters and preamplifiers" section completely.

The claim that tone controls are unnecessary if the source is flat is incorrect and I have tagged it. You might need to compensate for your speakers or acoustic space, and many listeners find a smiley face curve to be euphonic. I'm not opposed to going through and trimming out discussion of preamplifier applications because the intended scope of this article is power amplifiers. ~Kvng (talk) 12:46, 31 October 2025 (UTC)

In the Further developments section, the first two paragraphs discuss TIM. But in the last paragraph, I am asking, which Peter Baxandall theory is being talked about? The closest one I could find involving "distortion processes within an amplifier" is circa 1978, hardly "the next step in advanced design". I read that paper, and found that it ironically partially contradicts the first two paragraphs about TIM. This needs fixing somehow. Ohgddfp (talk) 23:08, 25 October 2025 (UTC)

Some referenced papers and articles were updated years later, so I included the latest information revealed by those papers and articles. This shows the reader the evolution of how the industry updated and corrected the technical understanding. Some text was changed to more coherently accommodate the updated information. Ohgddfp (talk) 22:21, 23 March 2026 (UTC)