Premier 16 II vs. ET 5

The PV-1 to now...
Post Reply
joemarsh
Frequent User
Frequent User
Posts: 18
Joined: Sun Jun 21, 2015 10:35 pm

Premier 16 II vs. ET 5

Post by joemarsh »

I own a PV 14ls and am looking to go to the next level. I do love the PV 14 though. I've considered a ACT 2 but, the odd tube puts me off. The Premier 16 takes (6)6922's and the ET 5 takes only one. However, you get the teflon capacitors with the ET 5 and 15 years of design advancement. Wondering if there is enough tube influence with one tube. Can anyone speak to these preamps?
andonis
Regular
Regular
Posts: 9
Joined: Mon Mar 02, 2015 1:03 pm

Re: Premier 16 II vs. ET 5

Post by andonis »

i have the ET-5... I start to listen after 700 hours (break-in time) take the 5 it's amazing pre and it will NOT disappoint you!
joemarsh
Frequent User
Frequent User
Posts: 18
Joined: Sun Jun 21, 2015 10:35 pm

Re: Premier 16 II vs. ET 5

Post by joemarsh »

@andonis Have you tried different tubes in the ET-5? Have any impressions?
andonis
Regular
Regular
Posts: 9
Joined: Mon Mar 02, 2015 1:03 pm

Re: Premier 16 II vs. ET 5

Post by andonis »

Even with the stock tube sounds fine (EH-6922) I try the EAT, tesla, amperex, and genealex gold lion ! The last one was the best...
petertg
Frequent User
Frequent User
Posts: 17
Joined: Wed Dec 24, 2014 1:48 pm

Re: Premier 16 II vs. ET 5

Post by petertg »

I once asked CJ this question, and their answer was the ET5 is better unless the 16 received the ridiculously expensive Teflon cap upgrade, then it would be comparable. I have a 16 and it is more than adequate. Some might even prefer it (I do) for its less modern sound.
andonis
Regular
Regular
Posts: 9
Joined: Mon Mar 02, 2015 1:03 pm

Re: Premier 16 II vs. ET 5

Post by andonis »

Try to hear the ET-5, this will be the best for you!
Big Dog RJ
Ultimate
Ultimate
Posts: 2339
Joined: Sun Sep 07, 2014 6:30 am
Location: Melbourne, Australia

Re: Premier 16 II vs. ET 5

Post by Big Dog RJ »

G'day mate,

Just thought I'd share; nearly went for an ET5 when my Act2 was being looked at for a full service upgrade to a series2. The ET5 is a fine preamp indeed but is not an Act2. The Act2 was cj's top of the line reference for many years and it succeeded the Art preamp, which is still a legend. The ET5 comes close with its modern sound and simpler circuitry but it will never surpass an Act2 or a series2 for that matter. From the first note, you will hear the difference. The Act2 can only be surpassed by the Gat nothing else.

If you are keen on the ET5 go for it but don't expect it to be of Act2 quality. It is at a different level that was introduced to be the affordable Gat. Having said that even the more affordable ET3se is equally good and to me the Classic SE is simply superb! For the money the classic se beats all except the Gat, only downside it doesn't have remote nor balance control, so what...

The ET5 is not very affordable to many and what it does is not quite Gat or Act2 quality, therefore I would save the extra dollars and perhaps even a pv15 is fine. Once the extra bucks are in hand, straight to the top which is a Gat or whatever model cj decides to introduce later, would be my choice. I used a pv15 for a while, until I got my Act2 shipped back. The pv15 was very nice sounding preamp partnered with the mv60se. The ET3SE took this to a slightly higher level in terms of overall refinement and soundstage but then the Classic SE was just simply marvelous! One preamp I should have kept just for classic simplicity. Superb value for money.
Cheers mate,
RJ
joemarsh
Frequent User
Frequent User
Posts: 18
Joined: Sun Jun 21, 2015 10:35 pm

Re: Premier 16 II vs. ET 5

Post by joemarsh »

Big Dog RJ, Oddly since I started this topic, the left channel went out in my PV 14. I retubed it and then the attenuator blew. I sent it back to CJ and they have offered me various options - one of which is a very attractive price for a ET3se in return for my preamp. I think I'm going to do it....
Big Dog RJ
Ultimate
Ultimate
Posts: 2339
Joined: Sun Sep 07, 2014 6:30 am
Location: Melbourne, Australia

Re: Premier 16 II vs. ET 5

Post by Big Dog RJ »

Hey mate, Sorry for the late reply. That's no good what happened to your pv14. Yes, the ET3SE would be a fantastic option. Since your last post, have you already gotten hold of one? If so, how's it going in your current setup, should be a pretty significant jump in overall sonics and soundstage refinement. Let us know your thoughts. Cheers, RJ
joemarsh
Frequent User
Frequent User
Posts: 18
Joined: Sun Jun 21, 2015 10:35 pm

Re: Premier 16 II vs. ET 5

Post by joemarsh »

Big Dog RJ
No, not yet. It's "in the mail" as they say. I will report later. I'm using my MFA Magus right now - which sounds better than l remember.
joemarsh
Frequent User
Frequent User
Posts: 18
Joined: Sun Jun 21, 2015 10:35 pm

Re: Premier 16 II vs. ET 5

Post by joemarsh »

The ET3 SE definitely crushes the PV14. Huge soundstage floating in front of the speakers with the speakers disappearing. Great increase in detail with better bass. My wife said it sounded more real from ANOTHER room.
Big Dog RJ
Ultimate
Ultimate
Posts: 2339
Joined: Sun Sep 07, 2014 6:30 am
Location: Melbourne, Australia

Re: Premier 16 II vs. ET 5

Post by Big Dog RJ »

Good one mate! The ET3SE should be a nice fit for your system. Remember it doesn't have balance control, therefore make sure that your system is in "absolute phase" in order to get the most from your ET3SE. It inverts the phase at the main outputs, therefore keep your number of phase inversions to either zero or an even number. Very easily achievable by reversing the polarity of the speaker terminals (both channels!) for absolute phase.

Once this is done, you will never require balance control. Give it some time to settle in, 100 to 200hrs would be sufficient.
Cheers and enjoy, RJ
joemarsh
Frequent User
Frequent User
Posts: 18
Joined: Sun Jun 21, 2015 10:35 pm

Re: Premier 16 II vs. ET 5

Post by joemarsh »

I burned it in for 300 hours before doing any serious listening. Will have to try a CCA tube at some point.
golfnutintib
Regular
Regular
Posts: 6
Joined: Sun Jan 15, 2017 1:54 pm

Re: Premier 16 II vs. ET 5

Post by golfnutintib »

I have an ET5. I also have a Prem 16LS2 ... ET5 definitely less romantic and better bass. Prem 16 more 'golden' and rolled off in treble. Which is better is a matter of taste and associated equipment.

I do have a question for those here...

The ET3 SE is well known to be very high gain and very hard on tubes, creating hiss and burned out tubes very quickly... is the ET5 similar in this regard? Or is it a lower gain design with better tube life? Just curious.

Thanks
Big Dog RJ
Ultimate
Ultimate
Posts: 2339
Joined: Sun Sep 07, 2014 6:30 am
Location: Melbourne, Australia

Re: Premier 16 II vs. ET 5

Post by Big Dog RJ »

G'day mate,

Judging from the specs, the gain on both preamps are the same.

Nearly all of CJ's new preamps are now designed with higher gain. Several reasons for this design, and one is that it lets more of the music through rather than more of that "golden glow" that CJ was known for. The syrup/caramel affect added to the sound was very addictive and with transparent speakers such as electro-stats or panel types, this was quite captivating in terms of soundstage and depth.

Their newer versions now add more "oomph factor" along with better dynamics (less romantic as you have identified). This is also another reason to compete with others such as ARC/VTL/Ayon/Manley and others who mainly focus on push-pull circuitry, delivering better dynamics and stronger presence. These amplifiers sort of open up the soundstage and the drive factor is higher, enabling it to easily drive dynamic driver type speakers.

The overall sound presentation is more forward, rather than laid back/relaxing that CJ was known for in the past. Therefore, CJ has designed the majority of their new line up with higher gain stages enabling their amplifiers to do this.

The "hiss factor" will always be there, sometimes it is not so apparent with some preamps and more on others. My previous ACT2 used to have a hissy fit! Sometimes very annoying but this was constant, and once music played it was tolerable. Other pre's I've owned and tried were extremely quiet, such as the PV12, Prem 16LS, PV14, PV15, ET3SE, Classic SE, and CAV45. The GAT and ACT2 were probably the most noisiest of all!

In terms of burning tube life, yes it probably would more so compared to older versions but this is just a factor of their design (also good for long term business when tubes need replacing more frequently...) Whether or not you're going to achieve more tube life in the long run, all depends on how often you listen, length of listening sessions and volume levels. Then again, even when hardly used, tubes can deteriorate without any obvious run-time (ah! that's one of the major points solid state designers harp on).

In summary, all I can say is that if you REALLY enjoy your music through tubes, regardless of whether they fail quickly or not, you will always find a way to maintain that failure and replace them within a certain time. After all, with CJ tube designs "it just sounds right."

I have come across many systems where the main configs have tubes for the front end (preamp & source equipment) and solid state for primary back-end (all power amplification). This sort of gives you that solid state presence, with absolute superb dynamics and full control of the bass, solid bottom end no doubt. However, with tubes- that presence or punch is somewhat softer but allows you to relax more giving you endless hours of musical bliss (in my opinion). And to top that up, the frequencies from highs to mid range to mid bass is just superb, tubes are in a class of their own in this regard.

Most of the newer designs coming out from VTL & ARC are capable of this fine tube finesse, plus delivering stronger dynamics, with greater force and frequency extension when partnered with higher efficiency speaker systems. Whether this is good or bad all depends on one's personal preferences.
CJ does try to maintain simpler circuitry, providing more of the music but this will force tubes to work harder, especially when they now just have one tube in most of their preamp line up.

I would confidently say, not to worry and just enjoy your music but keep a check on tube run-time, just to ensure that the sound is rich and lush. If you lose those factors in the sound, that's about time to change them in my experience.
Cheers, RJ
golfnutintib
Regular
Regular
Posts: 6
Joined: Sun Jan 15, 2017 1:54 pm

Re: Premier 16 II vs. ET 5

Post by golfnutintib »

thx for input

i suppose with a 5:1 ratio vs the Prem 16LS2 even if the single tube in the ET5 is used up faster it is still economical. Also there is no added expense and hassle dealing with matched pairs/quads/quints...
User avatar
Joe Appierto
Pro Master
Pro Master
Posts: 647
Joined: Fri Aug 24, 2012 5:04 pm
Location: NJ

Re: Premier 16 II vs. ET 5

Post by Joe Appierto »

Just as a point of information the Premier 16LS and 16LS2 use six tubes, not five.
Oppo BDP-105D and PSA DS DAC
C-J CA200
Polk T50
In-Akustik Exzellenz Cat 6, Kimber IC, Q-Audio SC, Blue Circle and Acrolink power cords; PSA Juice Bar and Duet PLC
ronenash
Pro
Pro
Posts: 86
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2012 2:19 pm

Re: Premier 16 II vs. ET 5

Post by ronenash »

The modern CJ preamps ET3, ET5 run the filament voltage a but high which can be a but hard on some of the current production 6922 tubes. You can use the 7DJ8/PCC88 tube which is a 7 volt version of the 6DJ8/6922 tube and it will work perfectly for years. This is what I used in the ET3SE when I had it and never had a problem. Its a fantastic preamp BTW.
ronenash
----
Power:CJ ART150, Beard P100, McCormack DNA500, Krell FPB300
Pre:CJ ACT2.1, Pr14, Pr15
Analog:VPI Classic/Falcon/SoundSmith Denon 103R, Lenco L75 rebuild
Digital:J.River-->Chord 2Qude
Speakers:SF Amati Futura
plurn
Super Advanced
Super Advanced
Posts: 50
Joined: Thu Jun 19, 2014 9:38 am
Location: Australia

Re: Premier 16 II vs. ET 5

Post by plurn »

golfnutintib wrote: Sun Jan 15, 2017 1:59 pm I have an ET5. I also have a Prem 16LS2 ... ET5 definitely less romantic and better bass. Prem 16 more 'golden' and rolled off in treble. Which is better is a matter of taste and associated equipment.

I do have a question for those here...

The ET3 SE is well known to be very high gain and very hard on tubes, creating hiss and burned out tubes very quickly... is the ET5 similar in this regard? Or is it a lower gain design with better tube life? Just curious.

Thanks
Just adding to the already good responses. The ET5 is similar in that regard - for some people. Other people have had no issues. As I am sure many people have had no issues with the ET3.

I am one of the people that have had lots of issues with an ET5.

From your comments it sounds like you have not had any issues so far - and you may not. I suggest that you just enjoy it and ignore potential issues as you may never have them (aside from the normal expected tube lifetime - tubes do not last forever).

My ET5 has burnt though lots of tubes with most getting overly noisy/hissy within about 250 hours of use - some more some less. My ET5 has a heater/filament voltage of 6.57V which is at the very upper end of what is acceptable for 6DJ8/6922 tubes - really pushing it. I think this, combined with the high amplification factor of the ET5, is what causes the short tube life.

I'd be very interested in hearing what the heater voltage is on other peoples ET5s, ET3s, GATs, especially those that have no issues. No one else has posted measurements though.

Anyway I have had much better success with 7DJ8/PCC88 tubes. Particularly the Philips PCC88 which I think is the same one CJ now supplies for GAT 2 owners - though mine are not from CJ. The current Philips PCC88 I am using has about 2300 hours on it and is still sounding good.

So anyway - even if you have issues - there is probably a workaround so not to worry.

One thing I would advise though. Unless you have money to burn, I wouldn't bother spending hundreds of dollars a piece on rare tubes for your ET5. It is quite painful having a US$160 tube go noisy in less than 100 hours.

If you want to spend hours reading about this stuff - check out the "Is the GAT / ET5 hard on tubes?" thread at audioaficionado.

Anthony
Big Dog RJ
Ultimate
Ultimate
Posts: 2339
Joined: Sun Sep 07, 2014 6:30 am
Location: Melbourne, Australia

Re: Premier 16 II vs. ET 5

Post by Big Dog RJ »

Spot on Anthony!

This is exactly the point I was trying to make with a member last year, similar discussion based on rare NOS tubes or something, (sadly he got rubbed the wrong way, had a biff and bowed out!) well I guess some people never learn, and others like us are always learning, after all this is what it's all about!

I clearly remember, even when I had the ACT2, so called "upgrading" to exquisite & rare tubes, actually made things worse! I had many problems with my ACT2, it went back & forth to the head distributor in Australia on more than 3 occasions. Finally when I got it working, I sold it! Similar incident with my Quads, got rid of those too.

The wifey always says "me and my high-end disasters," and she'd look at the system and laugh when it can't play tunes due to a bad tube, paralysis in the digital circuitry or some panel failure... I agree, what a disaster indeed, and the amounts of unnecessary spending trying to repair the dam thing.

CJ runs long hours of tests, and they know their tubes. They've been doing this for decades, hence why does they gear sound so good... Even if they were other tubes out there (and I'm sure there are) what major, if any, improvements are you going to really achieve?

Wasting money on such items isn't advisable in my books, I'd rather spend those extra dollars (if I was that "well heeled") on cables and interconnects. I also noticed some power cords are pretty dam good. I just changed my Nordost mains power cords to Voodoo Mojo, and this really makes a difference with the Martin Logan's.

"Money to burn" can certainly get you a lot of things but it can only improve to a certain point, after which you must have "inner satisfaction" to really understand and fully appreciate what you've got! In whatever form as long as it reproduces your favourite music.
Cheers, RJ
Post Reply