Sanders Sound System introducing new Hybrid ESL!

[Rich]

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.

. . .

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.

Neil,

I haven't really found this to be the case with the Sanders Sound Monoblocs (1600 watts into 4 ohms). As much as I can turn it up, the bass seems to keep up with the panels beautifully. Granted, I have no idea how much actual wattage I am using of the amps capabilities and I have done no test tones at really high volumes to see if there is a limit to the ability of the woofers to keep up. But I would say in practical terms, this is a non-issue.

If it were an issue, wouldn't you really need to not exceed 400 watts to the panel, since each channel has two 200 watt woofer amps, for a total of 400 watts going to woofer output per channel?

Also, isn't it really more important to match the voltage gain specs of the woofer amp than the total wattage? I don't know how you would do this since they don't publish this spec that I am aware of. Also, it seems their electronics module takes this into account in compensating for the incoming signal. I guess it is once you have exceeded the maximum voltage gain of the woofer amp at the maximum wattage of those amps that the wattage of the panel amp would theoretically start to play a factor. Again, I think for all practical purposes, this is just a non-issue.

Finally, you reference using the 25 and 50 hz. level controls as some sort of woofer volume attenuator used to match the woofer response to the panels, but that seems very misleading. These controls attenuate the volume at subwoofer levels, but they don't really attenuate the entire woofer response (up to 250 hz.) and aren't designed to be used to match woofer response with the panels (isn't that what the crossover does?). These are really subwoofer equalization controls designed to finely tune the subwoofer response of these speakers to the room. If your room excites a particular mode under 100 hz. these controls can be used to attenuate the effect of that mode.

If the room is properly acoustically treated, these controls should not have to be manipulated as the preamp volume level changes. Volume level does not change the modal response of the room, does it? I can think of no reason to manipulate these controls depending on the power of the amp, as you suggest. If that was really necessary, wouldn't ML have just included a woofer level attenuator, like they do on their subwoofers? I think that is part of what you pay for with these speakers -- a fancy electronics module that, among other things, matches the woofer response to the panel response (pretty much no matter what amp you use to drive them).

 

[halo]

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?

I wondered the same thing when bi-amping a pair of speakers a while back. I was told not to worry. The speakers will take and use what they need from the amplifier. The problem would be underpowering the speakers and overdriving the amplifier.

I also own a Sanders ESL amp and I'm very happy with it.

Roger is a class act and a pleasure to deal with.

 

[nsgarch]

Neil, I haven't really found this to be the case with the Sanders Sound Monoblocs (1600 watts into 4 ohms). As much as I can turn it up, the bass seems to keep up with the panels beautifully. If it were an issue, wouldn't you really need to not exceed 400 watts to the panel, since each channel has two 200 watt woofer amps, for a total of 400 watts going to woofer output per channel?

Rich, I went back and checked the Summit specs. and you're quite right it's 2x 200W which actually makes the 300W handling power spec. more sensible. ML no longer provides a minimum power spec. I wonder why.

Also, isn't it really more important to match the voltage gain specs of the woofer amp than the total wattage? Also, it seems their electronics module takes this into account in compensating for the incoming signal.

Yes, and yes. It's still an issue however. But it's much less of an issue with an amp that is over 300W than it is with an amp that is under 300W. And I probably should have used the latter condition as my example. For instance, when I auditioned a pair of Summits driven by a pair of mono MC275 tube amps (~180W/ch@ 2/4/8 ohms) I needed to turn down the bass contour/level controls or the speakers' over all response was quite bass-heavy. Going the other way, the bass tracking circuit as you point out, probably has limiters. A similar thing happened to me when I exchanged my single MC275 (~90W/ch) for my Levinson 23.5 (400W@ 8ohms) driving my CLS's. First, I had to increase the preamp gain by 2dB to make sure the preamp was operating at (optimal) unity gain. Then (as with the Summits) I had to cut the level on my ML Depth sub down from +1/2 to +1/3 to better match it to the panels.

Finally, you reference using the 25 and 50 hz. level controls as some sort of woofer volume attenuator used to match the woofer response to the panels, but that seems very misleading. These controls attenuate the volume at subwoofer levels, but they don't really attenuate the entire woofer response (up to 250 hz.)

No they don't, as you say, and I still can't understand why ML didn't provide an overall gain control for the subwoofer section; because you can certainly drive the Summit (panels) very very loud with less than 300W, but in that case it is definitely necessary to attenuate the bass somewhat -- as I proved to myself and a couple of salesmen who happened to be present

 

[music again]

Mtching pieces sure is interesting

Thanks for all the responses guys. I'm finally begining to understand what some of these specs mean.

I had the Sanders ESL amp hooked up to my old Hafler DH-110 pre amp via a pair of Kimber Hero RCA cables for starters. My dealer dropped off the new ML stats (with a 13 page instruction manual with 42 steps). I am not looking forward to us changing these out, hopefully next week.

Any way he also dropped off a Cary SLP-03 pre amp. A more reasonable $2,500 list price piece, (and very baby brother to Joey's SLP-05) that I auditioned for a couple of weeks previously with my old Hafler DH-200 power amp. I was impressed with it and now I want to check out the Sanders Cary pair. I'm using an Oppo DV-981 HD as a CDP. Gotta start somewhere.

JM

 

[David Matz]

Sanders Amp is the Real Deal

Yesterday Burke and I spend almost 4.5 hours listening to the Sanders amp and the BAT Vk 75-SE. My system consisting of the Ayre universal player, BAt 51 SE preamp, and the Vantages sounds glorious as is. The 75 SE is one of the best amps in the world by anyone's measure. It clearly bested the highly revered Mac 275 by every criteria - speed, detail, texture, musicality, etc.

The Sanders smoked the BAT. The only thing the BAT did better than the Sanders was that the BAT had better texture, thanks to the tubes. The Sanders did everything else better. Most importantly, because of its power, the music sounded real. The bass was also more pronounced with the Sanders, probably due to the excellent control of the amp over the panel. Compared to the Sanders, the BAT bass sounded anemic.


The difference between the Sanders and my almost 300 wpc Bryston is that the Sanders was much more musical, but slightly less detailed. Now the next test would be to try the Sanders against some of the best SS out there, like the Ayre V1 Xe or the CJ 350.


My personal take away: Great SS amps sound better than great tube amps with the new generation of Logans. If someone likes the tubey sound, they are better off with the less expensive BAT VK 55 than the more neutral vk 75 SE due to the Vk 55's extra sweet midrange at the loss of sounding more alive.

 

[Rich]

Now the next test would be to try the Sanders against some of the best SS out there, like the . . . CJ 350.

I think that is the exact comparison we are going to get from Jeff (tonepub) in his upcoming review, since the CJ 350 is his reference amp.

I have to say that I agree completely with your findings. I found the Sanders Monoblocs more detailed at both ends of the spectrum than my CJ Premier 140 tube amp, and more neutral, realistic, and musical than my Sunfire TGA 5400. They are on par with my Pass Labs X-350.5 and I haven't really decided which I like better, but I just can't handle the heat of the Pass Labs in my dedicated room, so it has found a home in my secondary system powering my Ascents (along with Sanders excellent preamp).