Sanders Preamplifier Review

Surprise! Better than no preamp at all?

I was taken aback by what the Sanders Preamplifier did for my CD and open-reel listening. My reel-to-reel player is a semi-professional unit, the TEAC 35-2B Tascam Series. It has the ability to play two track and four track tapes (7.5 and 15 IPS), and uses separate volume controls for left and right. I can, and often have, connected the tape player directly to the amp, using the tape deck’s volume controls in lieu of a preamp.

With every other preamp or integrated amp, I heard a definite improvement when running the tape deck directly into the power amp inputs. Well, not anymore. Somehow, the Sanders preamp was able to breathe life into the signal, with better dynamics, better imaging and better frequency response. If there was a loss of detail, it was totally swamped by other improvements. Is the Sanders preamp “a straight wire with gain”? No, it’s not quite that good, but it’s closer than other preamps I’ve heard.

The same improvements happened when listening to digital. I’ve never had better digital sound from my sources, regardless of setup. I think the explanation is this: The high input impedance of the preamp makes it a breeze for your source components to drive; the high current, low impedance outputs can “drive the shit” out of any amp you choose. Apparently, my CD player and tape deck couldn’t drive a tricycle down the driveway.

The problem is that most sources don’t have robust output stages. A few sources have what amounts to a preamp output stage built in, but most sources are inadequate. Exceptions include professional studio sources that use output transformers. Those suckers can drive tube amps to max output, and have headroom to spare. But, couple a tube professional open-reel tape deck with a transistor amp, and things might be different. The reason is simple: Tube electronics have higher output impedance, while transistor electronics have lower input impedance, sometimes leading to audible problems.

Closer!

The Sanders preamp is edging closer to the ideal “wire with gain”. In several ways it’s as good as I have heard in my system, and better than the majority of what I have heard in other systems. It does have a little sound of its own, but it’s very difficult to pin down what that sound is. It had fewer artifacts than all the passive preamps I’ve used, including a simple stepped attenuator and transformer volume control. The stepped attenuator caused losses in dynamics and soundstage depth. The transformer volume control had audible phase shift and limited bass.

The touchy-feely audiophile in me says that it has less color saturation than great tube preamps, but none of those units have the image width or the unmatched channel-to-channel tracking of the Sanders. And tube preamps have noticeably more noise and distortion, whether it’s “benign” distortion or not. Plus, the great tube preamps eat tubes like tic-tacs, so that you have to turn them off, so then you have to warm them back up to listen, and eventually the performance suffers when the tubes start to age significantly. With the Sanders, you can plug it in, turn it on, and leave it on forever.

Compared to my aural memory of other products, which is fickle (and fecal), it seems like the image depth isn’t as good as the image width. (Editing Phillip’s article does make me feel like a road-kill at times – the shock then I’m in pieces. -Pub.) On the other hand, could it be that the center image “lock” and image width are so good that it makes it seem like it isn’t as deep? I can’t say with confidence. It’s like saying a single driver speaker has great midrange. Well, it better have awesome midrange, because a 5” speaker is going to be challenged to do anything audible at 20Hz or 20 KHz. So when you listen to a world-class full-range system, you think “man those full range drivers had great midrange”, when in reality the full-range system didn’t have anything except for midrange. I wasn’t able to quickly swap in other preamps for comparison. Maybe it’s nothing; all in my imagination; my zeal to nitpick. Maybe there is a limitation. Do you follow? If not, don’t worry. Where else are you going to get expert reporting like this? (Again. -Pub.)

The Sanders’ large scale dynamics were fast and powerful, being the equal to anything I can think of. In fact, the dynamics overwhelmed the undersized power amps I used with the Sanders preamp. The little amps couldn’t handle the dynamic swings from my 45rpm jazz reissues, or dance records, or big orchestral scores. I doubt this preamp will find its way into systems with 3-watt triode amps, but if it does, you better have very efficient speakers or this preamp will wag the dog!

I have heard better micro-dynamics, in plucked strings, for example, from simple tube preamps and transformer volume controls, but at a cost. They couldn’t do the other things the Sanders can do.

The Sanders’ frequency response is adequate for music. I didn’t hear any problems with frequency response, whether steady state tones or dynamic ones. If someone ran into a microphone, it went “booooom”, if the cartridge mistracked on cymbals, I heard it clear as a bell (which might also mistrack). There is no excuse for limited bandwidth in a modern preamp or amp. After switching to really large speakers, bandwidth limitations are immediately evident with many recordings. This preamp was more capable than my speakers, which are plenty capable. The specs say 5Hz to 200KHz, and I can’t argue.

There are/were preamps that have more deep bass grunt, but generally coupled with a darkness that robs the music of life. I’m speaking of preamps from Krell, Spectral, Levinson, Boulder, etc, which might have changed significantly since I last heard them. But those older products were too dark and heavy, the main reason tubes became my reference. It would be interesting, though a pain in the ass, to have a preamp shoot-out: comparing the tonal balance, distortion, imaging and volume tracking of multiple high end transistor preamps. I’ll leave that up to someone with more time than sense.

I didn’t have balanced sources or amps to try with the preamp. I did use the balanced options when auditioning the Sanders 10b speaker system a while back. I didn’t hear a big difference between single ended and balanced options with the 10B system, and I doubt you’d hear a big difference with this preamp. There are some sources that sound worse when using the balanced outputs. The same can be said for amps with balanced inputs. It’s worth experimenting if you have the option to use both. Keep an open mind and use whatever sounds better.

So, does the Sanders technology serve the music? In my opinion, it does, because listening was thoroughly enjoyable, and I frequently was surprised by a new insight or detail, which is a good sign. This preamp might reveal faults in the rest of the system that need addressing, but that is a good thing if the result is better playback.

The Sanders Preamplifier is rather unassuming. It doesn’t have a separate power supply chassis or fancy knobs. The finish is good, but not flashy. The price is downright “cheap” compared to many competing products. When sitting next to one of Sanders’ big amps, it may look like an afterthought, but you would be wrong. Roger, the engineer, made the unit big enough to get the job done, but no bigger. Fancy enough to match the other electronics, but no fancier. This is a preamp, not a status symbol.

Considering the price and performance, I doubt you’ll find anything better without spending significantly more. Considering you can leave it on all the time, and it comes with a lifetime warranty, it’s an easy recommendation.