Premier 18 Vs ET3

[pjm]

Hello all, new to all this so be gentle.
I currently own a Premier 18 (solid state) and although happy, well as happy as someone with terminal "upgradeitis" ever can be, I find myself yearning for another Valve(tube) amp. Previously owned a PV14LS and loved the sound. The Premier 18 although better in many ways sometimes seems to lack "something" so I was wondering if anyone has ever compared the Premier 18 with the ET3?
Many thanks in advance.
PJM

[Ray]

I've personally NOT compared directly the Prem 18 wiht ET3. I have owned an ET3 and other "modern era" CJ preamps.
Hopefully others can chime in with better information.

In general though, the modern CJ Preamps, with FET output drivers, and a single 6922 (ET3, ET5 and I think now the Classic2 also) are a nice bridge between the older style tube amps that had a very lush, warm, soft, tube sound and the typical SS preamp with detail, extension, brighter sound.
It's been my experience that the newer CJ sound has roots in the lush/warm world, but, can hold their own in the accuracy and detail arena.

A system that tends to be very bright and somewhat overly detailed, might benefit from going to an old-style tube preamp, whereas a system that in general is more neutral, will benefit more from the newer CJ sound from ET-3. JMHO on the matter, others as mentioned can hopefully provide more.

[admin]

pjm,
Nice to hear from you. I agree with the things Ray said as well. I will also add that it is sometimes helpful to take your listening room (and other equipment) into consideration as well. I personally find that in "bright rooms" that have a lot of hard surfaces such as hardwood floors, etc... I find the tube based/sounding gear makes it more musical and removes some harshness from the sound. Likewise, if you have a room with few reflection points, thick carpeting, sometimes a more harsh but detailed solid state sound is preferable. Of course this is all subjective and speakers, amps, preamps, source components are all going to factor into this equation. Then personal preference is a big factor as well. Do you prefer more of a "tube sound", or more "solid state"? What kind of speakers are you using. I use electrostatic speakers so they are super detailed. I find that tube based equipment give music a nice "warm sound" that I personally really enjoy. But granted, everybody is different. Either way you go, let us know what you choose!

[jahatl513]

No experience with P-18, but if the CA200 (based on P350 power and P-18 pre) is any indicator when used as a Pre-(yes it has a pre out only), the result was to me terrible, livable, but compared to P-16 or P-12 or PV12, not something I wanted long term. It is not surprise you feel something lacking after owning a Pv14. Ray is correct in his statements. I wonder what you thought or feel is superior in the P18? If older and used, then In my world, a Pre17LS2 would solve the issue you mention, a step up from pV14, a bridge from old to new'ish and unlike P18, has that tube sound that w/ the 6922's can be somewhat played with w/ out breaking the bank. P17LS2 - not LS was the first CJ to receive Teflon, an experiment perhaps, that they ran with.
To get to your question ET3 vs... can't wait to hear from someone who has experienced both. My jump to new was right out of 16ls2 to ET7 which was for me at the time, a good leap to make with my older tubes or P350sa, MF-2500A.