Sanders Sound System introducing new Hybrid ESL!

[Burke]

I have to admit, the 2 channel Sanders shure "sounds" promising . . . relatively compact, cool running AND from what I'm seeing on this thread, plenty of power, dynamics, and musical "truth".

Joe

The 2ch Sanders ESL Amplifier will drive the Summits way past any level you want to listen at, And it will be clean right up to the time you deaf. I would not worry about a thing. You are definitely making the right choice by buying the 2 ch Sanders and spending the other 4K upstream. You will get much more bang for buck this way.

 

[music again]

A Sanders amp is on the way . . .

Burke, I think you will be very impressed. Roger's amps are very transparent. They don't add a sound of their own, but they faithfully reproduce what is given them. Hope you have good upstream components.

I spoke with Roger Sanders today about his two channel amp. He's obviously very passionate about audio, extremely knowledgeable and of course a true salesman . . . but an honest one. Being is sales myself, I can say that.

Needles to say, as Rich warned me, he's building an amp for me to test run. He mentioned he can add a volume control if I wanted for added flexibility in integrating the panel and woofer. Would this be a benefit?

Any other comments on the Sanders amps or the "company"?

Thanks!

J. M.

 

[Rich]

He mentioned he can add a volume control if I wanted for added flexibility in integrating the panel and woofer. Would this be a benefit?

No need to get the volume control. The Summits themselves handle woofer integration seamlessly. They take the bass signal directly off of the speaker level input and as you turn volume up and down on your preamp, the panel and woofer respond in an integrated fashion.

Be sure to tell Roger I'll be expecting my referral fee. (just kidding, of course)

I'll be looking forward to hearing your thoughts on the combination of Roger's amps with the Summits.

 

[Rich]

How good is his preamp?

I can answer this question a little better now that I have had a chance to compare the Sanders Sound Preamp with my ARC Ref 3.

I took Roger's challenge and used an a/b switch he sent me to do a blind comparison between the ARC Ref 3 and the Sanders Preamp. Roger said I should not be able to tell a difference between them. I have to say that it was very difficult to tell any difference between them. Both are incredibly neutral to the source. I was amazed at how close they sounded. The only way I could tell a difference is that I could hear a slight edge to Roger's pre, whereas the ARC was slightly smoother in its presentation. That was pretty much the only difference that I could hear, and it was subtle. But I was generally able to pick out the ARC on that basis (about 75% of the time).

This pretty much follows on my general impressions of each pre after listening to them separately in my system, but they were a whole lot closer than I expected when I a/b'd them. In all fairness, I wasn't using the highest quality interconnects and I had to do pretty long runs, so I guess that could have affected the testing somewhat (but it should have affected each pre the same).

Ultimately what I learned is that Roger has a great preamp that is very quiet and neutral, and is very close to sounding as good as the best in the business (for a lot less money). His pre is not quite as versatile as the ARC though, in that it only has one set of balanced inputs (although he would probably custom build it any way you asked him to). All in all, I can highly recommend the Sanders Sound Preamp for anyone looking for a clean, neutral, and highly resolving solid state preamp for a good price.

I am going to match Roger's pre up with the Pass Labs X-350.5 in my downstairs system with the Ascents and see how that sounds. I'll keep you all posted on my impressions.

 

[nsgarch]

As I mentioned in an earlier post, at the moment anyway, Roger is making everything himself! No employees! He is a great guy, but prefers to characterize himself as an engineer rather than an audiophile. I didn't ask why, but my guess is it's for self-preservation!

If you check out the Summit specifications, power 'handling' is rated at 300W/ch. That means "up to". And they will reach ear-splitting SPL's with half that, unless of course you live in a barn or cathedral! As long as you keep the amp's power under 300W@4ohms, you can easily gain-match the external amp to the woofer amp by just using the Summit's 25 and 50 Hz level controls without needing an external attenuator.

For example, when I auditioned a pair of Summits driven by a pair of McIntosh MC275's (180W each in monoblock) I had both level controls up only about a third of the way. Otherwise the bass was out of proportion to the panel frequencies. I think people tend to use bigger amps than necessary with these speakers, which are much different in their requirements than the earlier hybrid models.

 

[David Matz]

Thanks for the reply. I'm not so much concerned about how loud the amp will play, but how "good" it will play. I kow there are a lot of Pass Labs, Plinius, BAT, ARC, CJ, etc., on the forum who swear by their amps.

I am sure the Sanders stuff is good, but has anyone done any direct comparisons with any of the above (or other) brands? I would hate to make decisions purely on faith or reputation.

 

[nsgarch]

I am sure the Sanders stuff is good, but has anyone done any direct comparisons with any of the above (or other) brands? I would hate to make decisions purely on faith or reputation.

I thought Rich gave a pretty good intro to Sanders' amp (the monoblocks) in post 15 and 36 of this thread, and J.M. will have the stereo version shortly.

 

[Burke]

I am sure the Sanders stuff is good, but has anyone done any direct comparisons with any of the above (or other) brands? I would hate to make decisions purely on faith or reputation.

Dave,

Joey has a Plinius, Cherian has the CJ, and I have the Sanders. If you would like to audition them, you might want to PM all of us and see if we can get the three amps in the same room for some serious A/B/C testing.

--burke

 

[Rich]

I am sure the Sanders stuff is good, but has anyone done any direct comparisons with any of the above (or other) brands? I would hate to make decisions purely on faith or reputation.

I own a Pass Labs X-350.5, a C.J. Premier 140, and a Sunfire TGA 5400, all of which are excellent amps. But the Sanders amp is the one that I have decided to place into my main system to drive the Summits, for many reasons. I think the Sanders amps do everything as well or better than those other amps, and are more neutral and revealing of the source than any of them. They have better bass and more extended highs than the C.J., and also handle complex material better at higher volume levels. They are probably closest in sound to the Pass, and it is honestly impossible to say which is "better." They both sound great, but I do believe that the Sanders is slightly more neutral and transparent. On top of that, they don't put off the broiling heat of the Pass or the C.J., aren't the size of a Hummer like the Pass, and don't have the tube maintenance hassles of the C.J.

But you don't have to go by faith or reputation. Roger will be happy to send you an amp for a risk-free in-home trial, so you can decide for yourself how good it is. Good luck getting Pass or C.J. or Plinius to do the same so that you can compare them.

 

[Rich]

I think people tend to use bigger amps than necessary with these speakers, which are much different in their requirements than the earlier hybrid models.

I know that this should be true, but I am still of the belief that more power is better even with the Summits, especially when using solid state amps. You still need a hefty power supply in the amp and a lot of lower-powered amps don't have that. It just isn't that hard to drive a lower-powered amp to clipping, even with the Summits. And if you are using solid state, that is not going to sound pleasant. Having extra power on hand also makes complex large-scale music and sharp dynamic transients much more realistic at higher SPLs, in my opinion. I would be hesitant to use anything less than 200 wpc of solid state power with the Summits unless it was a really high quality amp, but anything over 400 wpc probably is overkill. (Now granted, what I have is waaaay overkill, but that's just the way I am.)

Obviously, with tubes the need for higher power is less important because they don't sound harsh even if you do drive them to clipping occasionally. And although I do understand that lower-powered tube amps can sound beautiful with the Summits, I don't believe that they present a truly realistic recreation of the musical event. I have heard some of the lower-powered Jolida amps driving the Vantages, and it sounded wonderful. But it was absolutely not an accurate reproduction of the music.

It goes back to that age-old question: do you want something that sounds pretty, or something that sounds like a completely neutral and faithful reproduction of the recording? Both sides have their place in this hobby and it is really up to each individual to decide what they are looking for.

 

[David Matz]

I know that this should be true, but I am still of the belief that more power is better even with the Summits, especially when using solid state amps. You still need a hefty power supply in the amp and a lot of lower-powered amps don't have that. It just isn't that hard to drive a lower-powered amp to clipping, even with the Summits. And if you are using solid state, that is not going to sound pleasant. Having extra power on hand also makes complex large-scale music and sharp dynamic transients much more realistic at higher SPLs, in my opinion. I would be hesitant to use anything less than 200 wpc of solid state power with the Summits unless it was a really high quality amp, but anything over 400 wpc probably is overkill. (Now granted, what I have is waaaay overkill, but that's just the way I am.)

Obviously, with tubes the need for higher power is less important because they don't sound harsh even if you do drive them to clipping occasionally. And although I do understand that lower-powered tube amps can sound beautiful with the Summits, I don't believe that they present a truly realistic recreation of the musical event. I have heard some of the lower-powered Jolida amps driving the Vantages, and it sounded wonderful. But it was absolutely not an accurate reproduction of the music.

It goes back to that age-old question: do you want something that sounds pretty, or something that sounds like a completely neutral and faithful reproduction of the recording? Both sides have their place in this hobby and it is really up to each individual to decide what they are looking for.

Rich,

Thanks for the excellent comparisons in this and the above posts. My experiences with the Vantages generally are:
1. that the more power, the better, and
2. that at higher price points tubes and SS are hard to tell apart in a blind test.

I recently had the BAT VK 55 (55 wpc) in my system for a while, and while it sounded sublime, I kind of missed the accuracy of the Bryston. Also, my Vantages felt a little under-powered with the Vk 55. I also did an audition of the Mac 275 (75 wpc, maybe a bit more), and it had great great musicality due to the extra power and its excellent design. However, it was missing all of the richness and texture of BAT. It sounded SS compared to BAT.

I am curious now to try the Vk 75SE (75 wpc) and hear it against the Sanders amp and another high quality SS amp like the Ayre v1-xe. I would love to find something that has the speed and detail of the Bryston, the musicality of the Mac 275 and the texture of the BAT. Additionally it has to be balanced. I hope this is not just wishful thinking, but I am willing to haul various 100 pound amps around to try to find it.

 

[Angela]

Found this announcement on 6moons...

Roger was demo'ing his amps at RMAF with an older Innersound Eros ESL... entire setup sounded superb. Will be interesting to see what his new version offers (likely at a much higher price point than the ML Summits).

Here's the first "review" of the speakers

<a href="http://blog.stereophile.com/ces2008/010808sanders/">Stereophile Blog at THE Show</a>


Cheers,
Angela

 

[sleepysurf]

Wow... sounds impressive! Not a bad price point, definitely going to compete head-on with the Summit! I hope some ML Club members went to CES and can report back.

Addendum, this version is the 10A, and his website says there's another version, the 11, which is forthcoming. I wonder if it's a larger model, or perhaps the same model without the 600 W woofer amp. Here's the link... http://www.sanderssoundsystems.com/10a.htm

 

[Rich]

Here's the first "review" of the speakers

<a href="http://blog.stereophile.com/ces2008/010808sanders/">Stereophile Blog at THE Show</a>


Cheers,
Angela

Thanks for the heads up, Angela. I can't wait to hear them sometime. I already know first hand the amp and preamp are both awesome. I see Roger has been re-doing his web page lately. Looking good, but still needs some work.

I have been pairing Roger's preamp lately with the Pass Labs X-350.5 and the ML Ascents in my secondary system. The sound is phenomenal. Roger's pre is just so detailed and clear, and the Pass Labs amps sound so full and dynamic, and the combo just sounds wonderful. I am using my RAM modified Oppo universal player as a source. I highly recommend for anyone that enjoys clear, detailed sound to give Roger's Preamp a test drive. Are you listening, Gordon Gray? I think you might just sell your C.J. after you heard Roger's Pre with your Pass Labs Amp.

 

[Gordon Gray]

But,but, but, but Rich

Thanks for the heads up, Angela. I can't wait to hear them sometime. I already know first hand the amp and preamp are both awesome. I see Roger has been re-doing his web page lately. Looking good, but still needs some work.

I have been pairing Roger's preamp lately with the Pass Labs X-350.5 and the ML Ascents in my secondary system. The sound is phenomenal. Roger's pre is just so detailed and clear, and the Pass Labs amps sound so full and dynamic, and the combo just sounds wonderful. I am using my RAM modified Oppo universal player as a source. I highly recommend for anyone that enjoys clear, detailed sound to give Roger's Preamp a test drive. Are you listening, Gordon Gray? I think you might just sell your C.J. after you heard Roger's Pre with your Pass Labs Amp.

You Rascal,

Like I need encouragement to spend money on this silly hobby.

I do appreciate your input and have a very high regard for your observations. But, I just ordered a Magnum Dynalab 606T XM tuner. Damn audiophile nymphs!

A somewhat pricey piece, for me anyway. Having said that, I'll put your recommendation into the "audiophile pot" and see how it feels.

On a serious note, what's the price and do you think the Sanders preamp will make my CJ sound dated and vieled or are we talking nuances?

Trust you and the family are doing well.

Take care my friend.

Gordon

 

[Angela]

the 11's are going to be a smaller version of the 10A's - a little narrower and a little shorter, they will still have same components and an active crossover, so performance will be same as 10A's, just a little smaller footprint - don't know $


and PLEASE ..... offer any and ALL feedback on the site

Cheers,
Angela

 

[Rich]

On a serious note, what's the price and do you think the Sanders preamp will make my CJ sound dated and vieled or are we talking nuances?

I think you will find that there is a layer of clarity yet to be discovered. Clarity, definition, and absolute neutrality are the words I use most when describing this preamp. When my wife first heard it in my system, she said: "wow, that is so clear." When I compared the Sanders preamp to my C.J. 17 LS2, I found the CJ lacking in clarity and definition at both ends of the frequency spectrum. It still had a more magical midrange and a certain liquidity to vocals that the Sanders preamp doesn't have, but it just could not match the Sanders preamp in bringing out details and presenting a more natural reproduction of the source signal. It sounds more real and less contrived than the C.J., and not as romantic.

You can check this link to see Sanders' web page on the preamp. It lists the price. I got a deal on mine because I bought it with the monoblocs. Roger will be happy to give you a risk-free in-home trial. But don't do it unless you are ready to face the music. :devil:

Here is the link:

http://www.sanderssoundsystems.com/Preamp.htm

 

[Rich]

and PLEASE ..... offer any and ALL feedback on the site

I'll send you a PM with some comments.

 

[music again]

Sanders ESl amp specs

Neal,

What do you mean by . . . "As long as you keep the amp's power under 300W@4ohms . . . " Actually the ESL amp is rated at 600 watts RMS per channel into 4 ohms.

How can you control that? Does the amp draw the power as the volume increases and during loud passages/bursts of sound?

Roger's specs say the 2 channel amp will "deliver more than 2,000 volt-amps per channel into an ESL . . . "

With these specs seemingly way beyond the recommended Summit specs, is it possible to damage the Summits in some way?

By the way, I picked up an unused pair of Kimber Hero RCA ICs still in the original box off Audiogon for a decent price and added them last night between the power amp and pre amp. Unbelieveable increase in base quality and volume over my generic junk cables that are probably 15 years old and came with my CD player!

Tomorrow I take delivery of two new panels for my Summits. If you recall one of them was playing a full 2db lower than the other when tested with a SPL meter and test CDs. Should be interesting having me and my dealer install these panels.

JM

If you check out the Summit specifications, power 'handling' is rated at 300W/ch. That means "up to". And they will reach ear-splitting SPL's with half that, unless of course you live in a barn or cathedral! As long as you keep the amp's power under 300W@4ohms, you can easily gain-match the external amp to the woofer amp by just using the Summit's 25 and 50 Hz level controls without needing an external attenuator.

 

[nsgarch]

JM -- I wasn't trying to imply that a more powerful amp (more than 300W into the Summit's 4 ohms) would damage the speakers. If you crank the volume up high enough to damage the speakers, you will have damaged your hearing as well, so let your ears be your guide. Anyway, here's the long answer:

The point of my post was that IMO, it would be a good idea to keep the power of the external amp sort of close to that of the internal (bass) amp, which is 200W. The specifications for the Summit tell me that ML designed the speaker so that in an average sized domestic room, with average absorbtion, etc, etc, etc, and using a 150W SS amp (300W @ 4ohms) and the bass level/contour controls set at mid-point, that the output of the panel and woofers would be pretty well matched.

That said, I am aware that the bass amp circuit monitors the incoming [power amp] signal for both low frequency content and signal strength [volume], so theoretically, the power of the external amp (more or less than 300W @ 4 ohms) shouldn't matter. But it will to some degree. And so you will find that you are raising or lowering those bass controls to match the woofer output to the panels when using a more or less powerful external amp.

I assume you understand that even if you were using a 10,000W amp, you'd never need to send more than 300W (@ 4 ohms) average, into a pair of Summits. What this means in practical terms, is that with such a powerful amp, you wouldn't have to open the volume control on the preamp very far; which is generally not a desireable way to get the most out of a preamp. So in that case (big power amp) you should select a preamp with adjustable gain, so that its volume control is at approx. 1 o'clock for max volume out of your speakers.