Preamp question

M

Mechnutt

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 18, 2013
Messages
1,432
Location
Minnesota
I am considering buying a used CJ tube preamp to go with my Pass X250 amp and Magnepan 1.6 speakers. I am considering these preamps- ET-3 or ET3se and the 17LS preamp. Any thoughts on how these compare? I am open to a BAT preamp as well. I want a slightly warmer sound and lush but transparent midrange with good bass. I don't want syrupy.
 
Mechnutt said:
I am considering buying a used CJ tube preamp to go with my Pass X250 amp and Magnepan 1.6 speakers. I am considering these preamps- ET-3 or ET3se and the 17LS preamp. Any thoughts on how these compare? I am open to a BAT preamp as well. I want a slightly warmer sound and lush but transparent midrange with good bass. I don't want syrupy.
Click to expand...

Definitely CJ. Classic tube sound.
 
Mechnutt said:
I am considering buying a used CJ tube preamp to go with my Pass X250 amp and Magnepan 1.6 speakers. I am considering these preamps- ET-3 or ET3se and the 17LS preamp. Any thoughts on how these compare? I am open to a BAT preamp as well. I want a slightly warmer sound and lush but transparent midrange with good bass. I don't want syrupy.
Click to expand...

My quick 2 cents...YMMV.
First off, I can't compare AR to CJ unfortunately. AR would be my 2nd choice in a heartbeat of I hadn't began with CJ a few years back...and when I mention AR as second choice, I don't in any way mean to imply that I consider AR "second" to CJ.

I owned several new-series CJ preamps starting the an old CJ Classic. Note that if you really prefer a real Classic sound tube sound, the newer CJ preamps are IMHO far less "classic tube" sounding... I attribute this to the move to a solid state (FET) output buffer stage....lower overall output impedance and fewer tubes in the signal path. The newer preamps retain at some of the tube lushness, along with speed and detail that might have been considered lacking in older CJ designs. I consider the "new" sound a perfect balance.

I moved from the Classic to the ET-3 SE. the short story is I'm sold on "CJ Teflon" wherever possible. I hate to admit it, but, especially in the preamps, these things do seem to make a substantial difference... ..(being a pure scientist at heart, I hate this idea of dialectic absorption affecting audio, but, in the end I'm taking it on faith, and my own UN-scientific experimentation)

I've owned ET3SE and ET5, for the $$, the ET3SE is I feel very close to the ET5.

I notice you don't want "syrupy" ... so... my simple recommendation would be... if CJ is a prime contender, stay away from the older CJ preamps, look to the ET series!
IMHO, YMMV, LSMFT. :D
 
Thanks Rayoo! But what are the differences between the ET-3 and the SE version?
 
Primarily the SE versions add additional Teflon Capacitors, Metal Foil resistors, (including within the stepped attenuator) improved RCAs and I believe a better power cord.

If within budget I'd definitely recommend the SE. But, to be clear, I've not specifically compared the SE and non-SE versions.
 
I've popped the hood on my ET-3SE and the differences are as what Rayooo has pointed out. Just like to point out also that the Teflon caps are bypass for the output coupling cap and the power supply caps.

I absolute love mine. Two things I don't like though. The first is the incredibly long burn in time for those Teflon caps (hey, same applies for any other gear using such caps), and a tendency for tubes to become noisy. I was advised by a well known tube vendor to stick to the stock EH6922. Sadly, I had gone through about 3 GL6922s that progressively turned noisy before that. A return to the EH fixed the problem in a jiffy.
 
Anyone have a chance to hear the ET-3se compared to a BAT VK-51se, Vk-32se or 52se? I am considering major changes to my system and ditching everything for an integrated or just keeping my Pass amp and going with a new preamp and speakers.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top