ET3SE or Premier 17LS

[Marcopirlo]

Hi Everyone,
I am deciding between the ET3SE or the 17LS to match my quicksilver mid mono amps. Both preamps are around the same price but I'm undecided between the two. I have a wide music preference though soundstage and mids are most important to me. Appreciate any help from the gurus to point me in the right direction.

Thanks,
Mark

[Big Dog RJ]

That's a tough one Mark.

Both very fine preamps and both well capable of reproducing fine recordings. My experience directly with both of these:

ET3SE: it's a much newer design, offering higher quality parts, shortest signal paths delivers purer sound, and incorporates only 1 tube. Does not have the balance function, not on the front plate nor the remote. Very simple layout no frills.

Prem 17LS: a fine linestsge to have in any highend system. It is not as refined as the ET3SE, simply because it's a much older design. Uses more tubes in the main circuit, warmer /coloured sound, not as neutral sounding as the ET3SE. Has all the necessary features you require from a preamp plus has balance control, which the ET3SE doesn't have.

Preference: well that depends on your personal preference!
What sort of sound you prefer, whether you want some extra level of finer detail and inner detail. A more neutral sound, where the preamp gets out of the way and allows more of the music to flow... ET3SE.

All of the above, except a neutral sound, added LF drive, stronger presentation with great depth and detail in soundstage but more coloured, more of that golden glow in musicality that CJ was known for... Prem17LS

It's upto you! Can't go wrong with either one but remember one doesn't have the balance function, unless this is not important to you.

All the best,
RJ

[AnotherJohnson]

I agree, but would take it a step further to suggest the ET5 or the ET7s1 as other modestly priced paths into the current CJ sound.

I've owned the ET3SE, ET7s1 and ET7s2. They're all clear, natural, musical ... with premium parts and build quality.

I never owned a Premier 17L, so I can't comment, but compared to the several PV series preamps I'd owned before the ETs, I've enjoyed all of my CJ preamps, but prefer the ETs.

As for the lack of balance control on the ET3SE, this bothered me a lot, as did it's lack of two sets of main out jacks. But in truth, I think this was more psychological than a real issue. If you're mind is set on having those features, the ET3SE will be something to upgrade later. If instead you are not thinking about features but just about the music, then the ET3SE is a great component and will provide a very nice accounting of itself.

[Marcopirlo]

Thanks guys for the valuable input. I've taken the day off tomorrow to audition the 17LS. Rightly stated, I do need the additional pre out as I'm running a subwoofer. I'm leaning towards CJ warmth..
Looking forward to listening to the preamp tomorrow.

Regards,
Mark

[AnotherJohnson]

Some active subs, like REL and ML, can run from the signal at the main speaker terminals (Parallel). The input impedance of the sub is more than 1000 times the speaker impedance, so it does not have any noticeable impact on the main amp’s load.

I was reluctant to try this, but when I finally got around to it, I liked it. This approach also gets you out of the kabuki dance of the CJ preamp inversion. Just run red to red and black to black off the speaker, and make the single inversion from amp to main speaker.

[Marcopirlo]

Yes, in fact I was watching Paul from PS Audio who recommended that approach.
However my sub is a distance away from my power amp so using speaker level inputs would not be possible. I am running a wireless transceiver for better placement for my sub currently. That seems to be a good option as I hear no degradation in bass quality.

[admin]

I've heard a few high end systems with subs put in via simple speaker cable pass through. I was always weary of this (having another speaker in the chain) but I've never actually heard degradation of the audio quality. I even considered getting a pair of Magnepan DWM bass panels but ultimately elected not to as I felt that my 20.1's went low enough.

[AnotherJohnson]

The fellows at REL, and at PS Audio, argue that the subs in parallel with the main speakers is better.

The argument is that you are now following the sound signature of the main amp when you feed it to the sub's active amp. So the sub should fit in better with the main amps signature sound.

Is this true?

I dunno....

I was reluctant to try it, but tried it anyway after I picked up my ML BF210, and I honestly couldn't see any advantage to going through the preamp's second main out jacks as I've done before.

I think the biggest argument in favor of one over the other is the ease of hiding and routing interconnects and speaker wires.

In my application, I've installed the main system with the sub in my large shop where the sub resided directly between the two Revel F228BEs. It is easy to run the speakers and sub in parallel in this application. When I had a BF210 in another system in another building, and the sub was in a corner out of the way, it was easier to run the sub directly out of the preamps second main out jacks.

Either way, I think you can get a good result. I was very happy with both applications.

[Automaticftp]

Thanks guys for the valuable input. I've taken the day off tomorrow to audition the 17LS. Rightly stated, I do need the additional pre out as I'm running a subwoofer. I'm leaning towards CJ warmth..
Looking forward to listening to the preamp tomorrow.

Regards,
Mark

Hi - did you end up with the Premier 17 or an ET?