New Sanders MAGTECH amp - Pt. 2 resolving issues

[VideoVic]

I am back to complete part 2 of my post sooner than I expected due to a clarification I received from Frank at Sanders Sound yesterday regarding the loss of bass I perceived and the cables he fabricated for me.

It seems that when I was corresponding abut my system and my upgrade plans with Frank at Sanders Sound, I advised him that I would be using the MAGTECH strictly for the ESL-X panels and re-purposing my Rotel amp to drive the woofers in a passive bi-amp configuration. At that time, he suggested that while Sanders was not in the cable business they did mfg. a speaker cable designed to optimize the performance of the panel with the Magtech.

The price was reasonable, and not having any inkling that I would not ultimately be able to wire my system for a passive bi-amp configuration (see my explanation in part 1), I ordered a set of their speaker cables with the amp.

In his email yesterday Frank responded to my questioning where the bass / mid-bass audio had gone, he explained;

"When we talked about ESL cables the idea was that they would run the panels only in a bi-amp configuration. They are well suited for that task. When operating the full speaker with panels and woofers the ESL cables are not ideal."

So, I have installed my AUDIOQUEST ROCKET 88 BI-WIRE speaker cables (which are already well broken in and which give me my bass and mid-bass back and about 85% of the mids and highs of the Sanders speaker cables) and am going to live (happily) with the system bi-wired going forward and we'll see what the future brings.

Anyone interested in purchasing a 2 meter set of Sanders speaker cables for their panels?

Best regards and Holiday wishes to you all, and thank you for reading my "rant".

 

[upshift]

Thanks @VideoVic for your excellent treatise (I don't find it a rant at all, just a statement of facts and experience). I have been considering something similar for my system. I have a a pair of ESL-Xs, driven by a pair of refurbished Carver Silver 7t amps. I am currently considering two paths, one is to upgrade to a pair of Expression 13a speakers along with a Magtech amp. The alternative would be similar to your original plan, bi-amp the ESL-X with the Carver amps and the Magtech.

Regards,
JohnD

 

[amey01]

When operating the full speaker with panels and woofers the ESL cables are not ideal."

I don't understand. What's going on inside a cable that it is unable to drive a dynamic woofer at sub-midrange frequencies? AI cable seemingly ??

 

[VideoVic]

I don't understand. What's going on inside a cable that it is unable to drive a dynamic woofer at sub-midrange frequencies? AI cable seemingly ??

I'm not sure I can explain it, except to say what Frank at Sanders sound told me; it is a specific type of Mogami cable he has selected that has specific capacitance, inductance and very low resistance numbers that optimizes audio coming out of the panel section of the electrostatic speaker. And since the panel does not reproduce the lower frequencies, what I called mid and low bass (these are handled by the two woofers built into the ESL-X lower cabinet), he has figured out how to make a cable that does not have to reproduce them. And if you think about it, that is the ideal, right? A cable "targeted" to optimize the job of the panels IN A BIAMP CONFIGURATION. My wife and I noticed the improvement in the panel audio almost immediately, but then soon after the lack of bass became apparent as well.

Frank would not have even offered those cables to me if I had not told him I was going to bi-amp my speakers. He knew that they would not properly reproduce full-range audio . Frank even told me that he does make different cables that are designed for bass reproduction. There are "white papers" on the Sanders Sound website that have much more detail about cables and how they affect audio if you enjoy reading a technical explanation.

 

[VideoVic]

Thanks @VideoVic for your excellent treatise (I don't find it a rant at all, just a statement of facts and experience). I have been considering something similar for my system. I have a a pair of ESL-Xs, driven by a pair of refurbished Carver Silver 7t amps. I am currently considering two paths, one is to upgrade to a pair of Expression 13a speakers along with a Magtech amp. The alternative would be similar to your original plan, bi-amp the ESL-X with the Carver amps and the Magtech.

Regards,
JohnD

Hello John. If you have the room for the 13a's, I think you will really hear much more of a benefit than sticking with the ESL-X. I suggest you reach out to Frank at Sanders and discuss if his speaker cable would be appropriate, as I think the 13's have a powered sub, right? He is very knowledgeable and accommodating about discussing upgrades using his amps.

If you decide to stick with the ESL-X speakers and bi-amp them, you'll need to check the Carver specs to find out if the gain of the Carver amps exactly matches the gain of the Magtech, or you'll have a mismatch of levels between the woofers and the panels. I can tell you the gain of the Magtech through the RCA unbalanced inputs is 26dB, and through the XLR balanced inputs it is 32dB. It is probably a good idea to use the same interconnects between your preamp and the two amps as well.
Good luck with your decision and I hope you'll post about whichever you decide!
Best regards. Victor F

 

[upshift]

Hello John. If you have the room for the 13a's, I think you will really hear much more of a benefit than sticking with the ESL-X. I suggest you reach out to Frank at Sanders and discuss if his speaker cable would be appropriate, as I think the 13's have a powered sub, right? He is very knowledgeable and accommodating about discussing upgrades using his amps.

If you decide to stick with the ESL-X speakers and bi-amp them, you'll need to check the Carver specs to find out if the gain of the Carver amps exactly matches the gain of the Magtech, or you'll have a mismatch of levels between the woofers and the panels. I can tell you the gain of the Magtech through the RCA unbalanced inputs is 26dB, and through the XLR balanced inputs it is 32dB. It is probably a good idea to use the same interconnects between your preamp and the two amps as well.
Good luck with your decision and I hope you'll post about whichever you decide!
Best regards. Victor F

Thanks again Victor, the 13a does have an active woofer section using a Class D amp. I do have a that concern that they might be a bit much for my room. The Carvers have 29db of gain. I don't have balanced outputs on my preamp (Icon Audio LA4 Mk III Signature edition) so it looks like a 3db mismatch there. I'm thinking a stepwise approach, just upgrade to the Magtech and see if I still need to scratch that itch for the 13a later on.

Regards,
JohnD

 

[Robert D]

Thanks again Victor, the 13a does have an active woofer section using a Class D amp. I do have a that concern that they might be a bit much for my room. The Carvers have 29db of gain. I don't have balanced outputs on my preamp (Icon Audio LA4 Mk III Signature edition) so it looks like a 3db mismatch there. I'm thinking a stepwise approach, just upgrade to the Magtech and see if I still need to scratch that itch for the 13a later on.

Regards,
JohnD

If you run a DSP system on it, you should be able to somewhat control the output levels of low and high frequencies and balance it out on those speakers. The woofers should also have a control knob to adjust dB level. My Prodigy speakers have one.

 

[VideoVic]

Thanks again Victor, the 13a does have an active woofer section using a Class D amp. I do have a that concern that they might be a bit much for my room. The Carvers have 29db of gain. I don't have balanced outputs on my preamp (Icon Audio LA4 Mk III Signature edition) so it looks like a 3db mismatch there. I'm thinking a stepwise approach, just upgrade to the Magtech and see if I still need to scratch that itch for the 13a later on.

Regards,
JohnD

I understand John. It does state in the ESL-X manual that the amp can be of different makes but the gains should be identical for horizontal bi-amping. 3 dB might be an audible disparity. You wouldn't want the woofers to be louder than the panels.

I am running the Magtech bi-wired to my ESL-X using an AUDIOQUEST ROCKET 88 bi-wire cable with two sets of banana plugs at the speaker end and one set at the amp and it sounds wonderful. NOT quite as good at the panels as I heard using Frank's speaker cables, but overall a better presentation for me as the bi-wire hookup restored the lost bass / mid bass. I'd say I am getting 80 - 85% at the panels of what Frank's cable brought, and I'm content.

 

[upshift]

I'm currently running a bi-wire setup and I am pleased with the results. Though the cable is not on the level of the AudioQuests, they are 9 gauge.

To respond to Robert's post above, the ESL-X does not have any type of controls on it, they are strictly passive.

 

[Russr]

Thanks again Victor, the 13a does have an active woofer section using a Class D amp. I do have a that concern that they might be a bit much for my room. The Carvers have 29db of gain. I don't have balanced outputs on my preamp (Icon Audio LA4 Mk III Signature edition) so it looks like a 3db mismatch there. I'm thinking a stepwise approach, just upgrade to the Magtech and see if I still need to scratch that itch for the 13a later on.

Regards,
JohnD

The 13's have a built in Bass-centric ARC (Anthem Room Correction) system, which should ensure that so long as your room is not a broom closet, et'll work pretty well.

 

[upshift]

The 13's have a built in Bass-centric ARC (Anthem Room Correction) system, which should ensure that so long as your room is not a broom closet, et'll work pretty well.

That is something that draws me to the 13's.

 

[Robert D]

I'm currently running a bi-wire setup and I am pleased with the results. Though the cable is not on the level of the AudioQuests, they are 9 gauge.

To respond to Robert's post above, the ESL-X does not have any type of controls on it, they are strictly passive.

Well, I was thinking about the 13a.

 

[amey01]

There are "white papers" on the Sanders Sound website that have much more detail about cables and how they affect audio if you enjoy reading a technical explanation.

I'll certainly have a look. I don't have high confidence it will satisfy me though.

With what we all know about an ideal cable (straight pipe with zero ability to impinge on what goes through it) - I fail to see how something that fails so tangibly spectacularly for 3, (maybe 4) octaves of the audio spectrum can somehow be magically perfect / optimised for the rest of the spectrum. It defies all reasonable logic.

So I wouldn't touch it - but to each their own I guess.

 

[VideoVic]

I'll certainly have a look. I don't have high confidence it will satisfy me though.

With what we all know about an ideal cable (straight pipe with zero ability to impinge on what goes through it) - I fail to see how something that fails so tangibly spectacularly for 3, (maybe 4) octaves of the audio spectrum can somehow be magically perfect / optimised for the rest of the spectrum. It defies all reasonable logic.

So I wouldn't touch it - but to each their own I guess.

Absolutely man. But I know what both my wife (who always listens with me) and I heard and just cha

I'll certainly have a look. I don't have high confidence it will satisfy me though.

With what we all know about an ideal cable (straight pipe with zero ability to impinge on what goes through it) - I fail to see how something that fails so tangibly spectacularly for 3, (maybe 4) octaves of the audio spectrum can somehow be magically perfect / optimised for the rest of the spectrum. It defies all reasonable logic.

So I wouldn't touch it - but to each their own I guess.

I hear you. I couldn't believe my ears hearing what a simple cable change made in this instance. Well, a cable change and changing from full-range to bi-wire.

 

[VideoVic]

I'll certainly have a look. I don't have high confidence it will satisfy me though.

With what we all know about an ideal cable (straight pipe with zero ability to impinge on what goes through it) - I fail to see how something that fails so tangibly spectacularly for 3, (maybe 4) octaves of the audio spectrum can somehow be magically perfect / optimised for the rest of the spectrum. It defies all reasonable logic.

So I wouldn't touch it - but to each their own I guess.

One more thing to make this more interesting; I've sold these cables to a fellow MLO member. He will be using them in a biamp configuration, so it will not be the same scenario as mine but It will be interesting to hear his report about what, if any changes he perceives.

 

[upshift]

One thing I keep in mind about cables, especially speaker cables is there are some complex interactions going on. The music itself consists of multiple frequencies and varying amplitudes that interact with RLC characteristics of the wire and dielectric properties. Also at the output of the power amp and the input to the speaker system.

I wish I had the paper that a top engineer at Belkin wrote. He described his experience with two versions of speaker cable. The measurements were identical but when played through his test system there was a difference.

 

[upshift]

The original quote has been attributed to a couple of different sources but Albert Einstein once wrote on a blackboard:
“Not everything that counts can be counted,
and not everything that can be counted counts.”

 

[amey01]

I wish I had the paper that a top engineer at Belkin wrote. He described his experience with two versions of speaker cable. The measurements were identical but when played through his test system there was a difference.

No measurable difference on the cable
-- but --
A measurable difference in the room?

That would be completely bizzare.

But if the difference was just noticed in the ear > brain interface, I think that is much easier to explain. (just like a lot of things in audio).

 

[upshift]

The test environment was the same for each cable. But I'll grant you that big variable with the ear > brain interface.

 

[amey01]

The original quote has been attributed to a couple of different sources but Albert Einstein once wrote on a blackboard:
“Not everything that counts can be counted,
and not everything that can be counted counts.”

In an present day home audio system sense, I don't think this applies.

My reasoning is that - with our systems at least, we're not doing any research or trying to break new ground. I'm not talking about audio technology, new recording methods or anything. Just what we do with our systems.

The logic is very simple - we put in a sound signal. It's a constant. We know what that is. We can easily define it.

And we can measure what comes out. And we can compare the two.

There is nothing profound about that.

If there is ever a change in what we hear, then we really should be able to define that my a measurement. Isolate what it is.

The only things possible are: 1. we change what we put in. Or 2. we measure what we get out and it's closer to what we put in. It's that simple. Anything else is BS.

If we're hearing something that we can't define - then I struggle. Because we've already defined what went in. There can be no argument about "ooh, something is going on that we can't measure" because - even if there was something going on - we haven't been able record it, hence we have not put it into the system. So how can it affect what comes out?

I don't doubt that there are things in audio that we don't understand. For instance, nobody yet has been able to fully explain why live instruments are different. But whatever these things are - we're not putting them into our systems to begin with!!