Welcome! Need support, you got it. Or share your ideas and experiences.
Return to Planar Speaker Asylum
70.164.119.40
Just curious. There's a solid consensus of positive testimonial evidence that the Sanders Magtech is a great combination with Maggies (I'm very happy with my Magtech/3.7i combination). I also like my Audible Illusions tubed line stage, but can't help wondering about the full function Sanders full function preamp if I ever decided to get into phono again.
I'm not currently in the market for a new preamp and have other tubed source components in the chain, but this seems like a good option if I ever considered an alternative to a tubed pre. Sanders warranties can't be beat and Roger's gear seems to have well laid out, rock solid design.
What I'm looking for is opinions. Anyone tried the Sanders preamp or compared it to other preamps (solid state and tubed)?
Cheers,
AuPh
Follow Ups:
I came across this old thread which interests me; there was not much by way of substantive response on the preamp at the time, but perhaps now, 5 years later, there are some people with opinions about the Sanders preamp?
The reason I am asking is that I am in the market for a new preamp; I got a new pair of MG20.7 last month, and that re-awakened the upgrade virus which I thought I had conquered for good years ago ... However, I live in New Zealand and the options for home auditioning any kind of high end quipment are severely limited, so the Sanders worldwide 30 day home trial sounds appealing. What do you think, is this worth trialling? Any opinions welcome!
Well, g'day from across the ditch, 'redwoodsrp'.
Is 'Redwood' your surname ... or are you just a fan of Sequoias?
If it is your surname then that's an interesting coincidence - as my surname is also Redwood ... and I've owned big Maggies for 25 years. :-)) (Not 20.X, though.)
Re. the Sanders preamp - a mate of mine had one (he had a Magtech and Roger's stats, too). I thought it sounded great - in particular, the jfet-based phono stage (if vinyl is important to you).
Regards,
Andy
G'day mate, nice to meet another asylum inmate from downunder! :-)
Alas, the "Redwood" is not my name; it's a reference to the area I live in - but that WAS named after a Captain Redwood, one of the original settlers here. Could be one of your rellies? :-) Also, I do have a few lovely Sequoias on my property.
Vinyl has been getting important again for me; for quite a while, my analog rig was mainly dormant but these things go in cycles; been buying a few boxes of interesting second-hand vinyl lately. :-) A good phonostage would be a very welcome addition as my current external phono stage (Dynavector P75 mkII) is okay but nothing particularly fancy.
I didn't attend AXPONA so can't comment on that demo. But every demo I have heard with a Sanders system was very rewarding musically. The only downside for me is the narrow projection from his speakers which really limits the "sweet spot". At the same time that means they should be less likely to be impacted by room reflections and that is a plus.
Concerning the preamp, if you do decide to get into phono again that should be on your short list. Two friends have the stand alone Sanders phono stage and they both auditioned several competitors before choosing. Listening to the Sanders phono stage I really couldn't find fault with it.
"You can't know what the "best" is unless you have heard everything, and keep in mind that given individual tastes, there really isn't any such thing." HP
Having also attended this years AXPONA, I would have to back up Swamis Cat impressions of the Sanders room. I would blame the asymetrical room placement it might help in reducing room nodes in the bass. However the the imaging/soundstage gets really messed up.In comparison the Kingsound rooms conventional setup was better in the soundstage/imaging dept. However I thought it still sounded a little diffuse, and the bass was weak and they couldn't play very loud. Imaging wise though I am comparing it to my Magnepan 3.6s with QRD diffusors behind them. I was talking to the reviewer from Dagogo who thought the Kingsound's were awesome, and then Johnathan Valin came into the room.
The Sanders Transmission Line Bass, sounded excellent to me, so that did impress me. I wish I could have met Swamiscat, maybe next year. I live only 90 miles east of Chicago in South Bend.
Edits: 07/12/15 07/12/15
Troy,
Let's meet up there next year.
How do you like the QRD diffusers? How do they affect the sound?
Hi SwamisCat, the QRD's bring the sound more into focus. Just like with a glass lens, its the same view but the everything is defined better. Looking to put about 4 QRD panels on my ceiling, to focus the back wave bouncing of the front wall QRD's and then hitting my sloped ceiling.
Years ago I used some Auralex Q-Fusor's on the ceiling of my small apt, they really helped in clarifying the sound of my then MGIIIA's. Speakers were very close to the wall so diffusion did
not help so I used absorption instead.
Now most of my absorption is in corner bass traps, behind wood QRD's upfront. I took the diffusion off my rear bass traps, which brought back that Maggie 3D effect sound. I like Seifried Linkwitz's theory that you have diffusion up front and absorb the rear wall. To let the sound just flow past you. I have panel absorbers their.
I do have wood Skyline type diffusors behind my rear channel MG10.1's too.
Audiophilander, please forgive my Thread Hijack : (
Thanks!
If memory serves me right the only time I hear preamps mentioned on this forum, is when vertical bi-amping is used and then a tube pre-amp is mentioned most of the time.
Trying to get back on topic, my bad.
My only experience with them was at the AXPONA show this year. The Sanders room was -- for me -- a complete fail. No imaging, no soundstage. No illusion of real instruments being played in a real location. I assume blame on the speakers and set up, but who knows?
I am not sure what to make of such disappointments. In the world of thousands of audio companies and outrageous prices, I just have to assume that if that room sounded good to the manufacturers, that they have entirely different standards and goals in what they are trying to achieve. So I look elsewhere. The Maggie room sounded much better, even though the speakers were crammed in a tight corner two feet ahead of a heavily curtained full wall window.
One guy's admittedly biased opinion on one listening session in one room. For the record I thought the King sound speakers were breathtaking last year and (though a cheaper model) an unmitigated disaster this year.
Maybe next year's exhibit will change my mind...
| The Sanders room was -- for me -- a complete fail. No imaging, no soundstage. No illusion of real instruments being played in a real location. I assume blame on the speakers and set up, but who knows?
Hmm. I heard the Sanders 10d at the Irvine show a couple of months ago.
It was the best out of everything I heard {which was certainly not everything!}, as long as you sat directly in the middle.
Post a Followup:
FAQ |
Post a Message! |
Forgot Password? |
|
||||||||||||||
|
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors: