The more power the better

[Bernard]

The Sanders amp is the most neutral and true-to-the-source amp I have ever heard.

Interesting statement, Rich, but you have not really heard the source unless you were there at the recording session. :devil: We can only make an educated guess as to what the source sounded like, based upon hearing live, unamplified music.

 

[MiTT]

Wow, that certainly is a beast! I don't think I'd ever need that, but I sure won't go for low power on the Logan's again. I'm sure that Gamut would be amazing judging by their equipment, just a lot more $$$ than I'll invest.

I suspect that the Boulders would set you back more than the Gamut. I think the current list for the 2050 Monoblocks is ~$62K a pair.

 

[DTB300]

Wow, that certainly is a beast! I don't think I'd ever need that, but I sure won't go for low power on the Logan's again.

Define "Low Power"

 

[Rich]

Interesting statement, Rich, but you have not really heard the source unless you were there at the recording session. :devil: We can only make an educated guess as to what the source sounded like, based upon hearing live, unamplified music.

When I say "true to the source" I am not referring to the original performance. I am referring to the source component in my system: the signal coming from my CD player. The "source" is not the original performance, in my mind. The original performance is what recording technicians refer to as a "rough mix." Then the engineers do their thing and it gets mastered down to a final recording and pressed on a CD or record album or tape. I put that recording medium into a component in my system and as the musical information is transcribed from that medium into an electrical signal, that is the "source" of the audio signal that the amp will eventually amplify to my speakers. The integrity of that signal is what I am referring to when I say "true to the source."

Put another way, I am saying the Sanders amp imparts less of its own sonic signature onto the signal than any other amp I have listened to. It allows me to hear minute differences in preamps and CD players better than any other. It is neither warm nor cold; neither light and airy nor dark; neither mellow nor harsh. It just is . . . the music. It produces as accurate a reproduction of the signal coming from the CD as I have heard from any amp.

The only tools I have to judge this by are my own ears, by listening to my favorite CDs & SACDs on many different systems to get an understanding of how they sound, and then switching out various amplifiers in my own system and hearing the different sonic signatures added by each amplifier. My Sunfire, my Pass Labs, and my Conrad Johnson all have a distinctive sound of their own, which they impart on the signal. The Sanders does not. Its most obvious quality is its total lack of coloration of the signal, in my opinion.

 

[Bernard]

When I say "true to the source" I am not referring to the original performance. I am referring to the source component in my system: the signal coming from my CD player.

Okay, but you don't really know absolutely what a CD sounds like. Everything from the CDP downstream alters the sound.

 

[Rich]

Okay, but you don't really know absolutely what a CD sounds like.

Right. And I don't really know absolutely that the sky is blue . . . but that is what I call the color I see when I look up at it.

Everything from the CDP downstream alters the sound.

Correct. And all I am telling you is that in my experience and opinion, the Sanders amp alters the sound less than any other amplifier I have had in my system. To my humble untrained inadequate ears, it adds no perceptible coloration of its own.

 

[sjwjanssen]

Big amps, like mine ML383, are the best! :music:

 

[JonFo]

... The only tools I have to judge this by are my own ears, by listening to my favorite CDs & SACDs on many different systems to get an understanding of how they sound, and then switching out various amplifiers in my own system and hearing the different sonic signatures added by each amplifier. My Sunfire, my Pass Labs, and my Conrad Johnson all have a distinctive sound of their own, which they impart on the signal. The Sanders does not. Its most obvious quality is its total lack of coloration of the signal, in my opinion.

Rich, stop it, man please stop it. You're making me want to go buy a bevy of Sanders amps, and I already have other plans.

I need to quit reading this site, it's costing me waaay to much money

Seriously, that's great feedback on the Sanders amps, and exactly the kind of 'performance' and 'sound' I’m after, which is full transparency.

 

[Burke]

Rich, stop it, man please stop it. You're making me want to go buy a bevy of Sanders amps, and I already have other plans.

I need to quit reading this site, it's costing me waaay to much money

Rich,

Thank you:bowdown: You did cause me to go buy a bevy of Sanders amps and I love them. You are completely correct about the transparency, just big colorless power.

I can always take the wife on that trip next year.

 

[Audioquest]

Define "Low Power"

Not less than probably 200 watts. I know the number is somewhat abstract due to design, other component compatibility and synergy, manufacturers claims, testing methods etc., but a mid-fi quality product of around that rating.
I've tried less and the speakers just are not as alive without it. There is lots of detail, but the presence is lacking.
I also know that if you move up the quality chain sometimes huge sonic differences prevail, but also the realism of cost comes into play. As much as I lover the hobby, it's isn't a bar-none, end-all money pit for me as that game has no end.

 

[DTB300]

Not less than probably 200 watts. I know the number is somewhat abstract due to design,

Not jumping on you here so please do not take it that way.

The perfect word in your sentence is "NUMBER". It is JUST a NUMBER and it does not define, convey, or tell what the product is capable of doing in the way of sonic reproduction.

To base one's choices PURELY ON NUMBERS is back-arse-wards. The number game is just that, a marketing number game. If someone is looking for very high SPL reproduction along with maintaining sound quality and has the need to listen to music at 100-120 dB's, then the numbers game may become an issue. (The HT geeks are very staunch on their required SPL numbers for subs)

other component compatibility and synergy, manufacturers claims, testing methods etc., but a mid-fi quality product of around that rating.

So less than 200 is "mid-fi" quality? Maybe I did not interpret correctly what you were saying here. Or are you saying with Mid-Fi anything below 200 is not as good as something above 200???

I've tried less and the speakers just are not as alive without it.

Okay, I respect your subjective opinion on this. You need power to make the sound come alive. Do you prefer you music at a louder level?

There is lots of detail, but the presence is lacking. I also know that if you move up the quality chain sometimes huge sonic differences prevail, but also the realism of cost comes into play.

Don't follow you on this: Detail but lacking presence? Do you mean the music and all the details of the instruments are there, but you are not feeling it??

Quality Chain: "Sometimes" is the correct term, as cost comes into play with everything we purchase, not just our beloved audio toys. Cost does not always equate quality.

As much as I lover the hobby, it's isn't a bar-none, end-all money pit for me as that game has no end.

And I believe most of us here are in the same boat. Some have a larger boat and some have a dingy, but we each have what we own and love it. So to categorize or stereotype a component based on numbers is completely wrong in my opinion.

BTW, my lowly, POS amp I use falls way below the 200 number you have proposed for discussion here. Dave, Joey, Kevin, etc. looks like it is time to sell....

 

[David Matz]

Put another way, I am saying the Sanders amp imparts less of its own sonic signature onto the signal than any other amp I have listened to. It allows me to hear minute differences in preamps and CD players better than any other. It is neither warm nor cold; neither light and airy nor dark; neither mellow nor harsh. It just is . . . the music. It produces as accurate a reproduction of the signal coming from the CD as I have heard from any amp.

Rich, I too am a big fan of the Sanders amp. I would describe the sonic signature as "water flowing" neutrality. But how do you know that the neutrality you describe is the true sound? I have heard the big Ayre, and the microdynamics, the speed, and the overall midrange are amazing. The CJ 350 midrange is worth killing and serving jail time for. How do you really know which engineer actually got it right?

 

[Jeff Zaret]

I guess I will have to sell my CJ amp because it is not 200 watts? It powers my CLSiiZ effortlessly with power to spare and plenty of sound and it is 70 watts of beautiful tube power. I guess I must have missed something, huh?




Jeff

 

[Cherian]

I have a 55 watt CJ tube amp and it drives my Monoliths just fine. I would like a bit more punch in the bass but this just the sonic nature of the MV60 amp.

 

[DTB300]

How do you really know which engineer actually got it right?

There is no "RIGHT", just what each of us likes the best, and what the engineer was set out in their design

 

[Rich]

But how do you know that the neutrality you describe is the true sound?

You don't really "know" much of anything in this hobby. You simply listen to lots of music on lots of different systems and over many years you get a feel for the similarities/differences and unique qualities among various components. The more you play with them, the more you learn. Ultimately, it is all subjective. What you hear and what I hear are almost always two different things because they are filtered through two different complex computer networks (our brains). All I can hope to do is to share my opinions and experience so that others can learn from it, just as I have learned from the experience and opinions of others.

Remember, I never said that the Sanders amp gives you the "true sound" of the original live performance. What I said was that it was more neutral and true to the source (meaning the source signal) of any amplifier I had ever listened to in my system (specifically the Pass Labs, Conrad Johnson, and Sunfire amplifiers). Obviously, this is a subjective opinion based on my listening to music I know well in my system and changing out the amplifiers to see how each sounds. If you are looking for facts and absolute truths, go read the specs for each amplifier and see what you can learn. If you are looking for an educated opinion based on actual usage and comparison of these products in a high-end listening room, then that is what I am offering. Nothing more, nothing less.

I have heard the big Ayre, and the microdynamics, the speed, and the overall midrange are amazing. The CJ 350 midrange is worth killing and serving jail time for. How do you really know which engineer actually got it right?

I would submit to you that all three of them "actually got it right." There is no such thing as the one perfect amp that reproduces sound exactly as it is supposed to. All of them have areas where they excel and areas where they falter. One of the areas I believe that the Sanders amp excels is neutrality and lack of tonal coloration. I have not heard the Ayre so I can't comment on it.

It has been so long since I heard the CJ 350 that I don't think I can really make an honest comment on it except that I remember it was an incredible-sounding amplifier. Many of CJ's amps do tend to add their own tonal colorations to the music even though they still sound great, especially in the midrange.

 

[Rich]

I guess I will have to sell my CJ amp because it is not 200 watts? It powers my CLSiiZ effortlessly with power to spare and plenty of sound and it is 70 watts of beautiful tube power. I guess I must have missed something, huh?

I have a 55 watt CJ tube amp and it drives my Monoliths just fine. I would like a bit more punch in the bass but this just the sonic nature of the MV60 amp.

I don't think you guys are missing anything. I think you have made an educated decision that for your listening needs in your system, mid-powered quality tube amplification gives you the goods. Without hearing your systems I can't really say, but my guess is that you are trading off a certain amount of dynamics, tightness of bass, and extension of highs for an incredible liquid midrange that is to die for. That is not necessarily a bad tradeoff. I know I noticed these things with my CJ Premiere 140 and it has twice the power or more of the amps you guys are using.

Cherian, I do think you would be happier if you bi-amped with solid-state on your woofers and that CJ on your panels. You would be amazed how much better those monoliths will sound.

I would be curious to know what you guys would think about the CJ 350 in your systems compared to the amps you are using now. It still has that CJ sound, but with solid state and lots more power. Just curious.

 

[Rich]

Rich, stop it, man please stop it. You're making me want to go buy a bevy of Sanders amps, and I already have other plans.

You know, Jonathan. You could just get Sanders to send you three of his ESL monoblocs for a little test run. You wouldn't have to buy them. Just listen to them for a few weeks and see what you think. You could always send them back . . .

:devil: :devil: :devil:

 

[Jeff Zaret]

Rich,
I have the LP70 which is CJ's latest technology similar to the 350. The CJ 350 is out of my price range. The LP series, 70 monos 140 & 275 are their latest tube series. It has a different sound compared to the older one. Sorry Cherian. It has great high end and I have plenty of bass and of course mids to die for.

Jeff

 

[Bernard]

I would be curious to know what you guys would think about the CJ 350 in your systems compared to the amps you are using now. It still has that CJ sound, but with solid state and lots more power. Just curious.

Interesting that you suggest that as I used to have a 50 watt/channel tube amp from Copland driving my SL3s, and borrowed from my dealer a 100 watt/channel solid state amp, also made by Copland, just so I could compare the two. The tube amp won by a mile; it sounded so much more real - that liquid midrange again. The bass with the SS amp was tighter, but it was the tube midrange that captured me. The SS amp made me realize what I was missing, so I bought a couple of 110 watt ARC tube monoblocks - they deliver on the bass.