Sanders Preamplifier Review

The sound of what?

The Sanders Preamplifier is a piece that many reviewers will hate, because it doesn’t have much sound of its own. Cartridges and speakers are easy to review. All mechanical transducers have ridiculous failings, though we are accustomed to those artifacts. Electronics, though, can be difficult to describe, and the Sanders Preamp (and the rest of Sanders electronics) is near the top of the list. It’s hard to describe any peculiar sounds or character produced by the Sanders Preamplifier.

So, what does it sound like? As a preamp, it has zero noise, and zero audible distortion. Whatever distortion is there, is so low that it’s impossible to point to it and say “A-Ha”! Take, for example, the fine tube preamp from Melody that I just finished reviewing. While I loved the looks and sunny disposition, it wasn’t as quick as the Sanders, plus it had audible 2nd harmonic distortion, audible noise and phase shift. Many listeners might not notice these but if you switch between the Sanders and Melody preamps, and if your speakers have good frequency extension, you can hear the difference. Plus, the Melody doesn’t have the perfect channel-to-channel match and volume tracking of the Sanders.

When I say perfect channel match and volume tracking, I mean it. This isn’t reviewer hyperbole. The volume tracking offered by the precision chipset gives .1dB accuracy, something a traditional volume control or unconventional transformer volume control can’t match. The frequency response of the two channels sounded indistinguishable: a nearly impossible feat by a tube preamp. Regardless of volume setting, the two channels were exactly the same. What that gives you is a world class center image “lock” and stereo spread better than anything I’ve used. In that regard, there might be products that are as good as the Sanders Preamplifier, but I doubt you’ll find anything audibly better. There might be other preamps with better imaging outside the speakers due to an even lower level of distortion or better transparency, but I don’t know of one; and it wouldn’t be because they had better volume tracking. It would be interesting to hear the Sanders compared to other transistor preamps using a similar volume control setup. I’ve always heard similar strengths when comparing transistor with tube pieces, but this preamp takes it to a new level.

Wax on…

The phono stage is as accurate, tonally, as any I’ve heard. There are hundreds of phono stages that have enough RIAA accuracy that I expect all phono stages to be similar. If they aren’t, it’s because the designer goofed. I’ll argue that perfect RIAA deemphasis is a waste of time, for a number of reasons that will make up a separate article of the subject. But, it’s not a bad thing to be accurate to less than a dB. What is more audible and more important is matching the EQ of the two channels. It’s the Achilles heel of tube phono stages. The Sanders LP playback channel-balance is as good as other transistor units.

When compared to tube phono stages, mono records don’t sound as smeared, left-to-right. Playing back mono records with tubes can give you a misshapen center image, with the highs stretched to one channel, the mids to the other channel, and the bass back to the other channel, making them sound like they were recorded in a house of mirrors. With the Sanders, mono records were locked in the center. I recommend using the mono switch if you are using a stereo cartridge to play mono recordings. Stereo cartridges will smear mono images for a number of reasons: skating forces, unequal coil windings, cartridge misalignment, warps and off-center pressings. Also, if it’s a mono recording cut with a stereo cutter head driven by stereo electronics, the two channels will be slightly different because cutting heads aren’t perfect; the cutting electronics and tape machines aren’t perfect either. Roger should be thanked for including the mono button. Thanks Roger.

There is enough flexibility in cartridge loading and gain to make a good match for the majority of cartridges. Is it my favorite? Not quite, but it is more linear, with less noise, than my favorite phono stages. This comes down to personal preference because LP playback will never be as “perfect” as playing back a CD. There are too many variables with vinyl play that can affect the sound. The added noise and distortion of my favorite tube LCR phono stages might be covering up mastering deficiencies, cartridge mistracking and/or misadjustment, along with the possibility of complex interactions of cartridge, tonearm, tonearm cable and phono loading which serves to “enhance” the music.

Compared to my favorite LCR phono stages, the Sanders didn’t have as much image depth (see my caveat below), and large scale dynamics seemed to be slightly suppressed. There are records that sound better on the Sanders. There are records that sound better on a tube LCR. The odd thing is that there are records that sound better on the budget Rek-O-Kut Professional Moving Magnet Preamp and, on a few rare occasions, there are records that sound better on a Dynaco PAS, although the PAS is not accurate). What does it mean? Vinyl mastering and playback is as much art as science, so it cannot be “perfected.” I suppose a company could master and press the vinyl, then put together a package of cartridge, tonearm, tonearm cable, and phono preamp, comparing and tweaking things to sound as close to the master tape as possible, but I don’t know of any such setup.