Asking for c-j advice...

[slowGEEZR]

Hi all. I don't post very much, but I have enjoyed immensely reading many posts here on Audio Aficionado. I do contribute time to time at the "What's spinning" thread, though. There are so many people on this site that have had much more experience with higher end gear, specifically c-j gear, than myself and I want to tap into some of that experience.

Over the next year, I want to purchase a preamp and amp to replace my current integrated amps. I've been doing a lot of reading and listening to different brands of gear and seriously, I could live comfortably with most of what I have heard. I've listened to some of the major leaders in the audio world, EAR, AR, BAT, Marantz, McIntosh, actually most of the brands we have threads for on the site. None of them sound anything but great. C-j's build philosophy and style seems to match my sense of style and listening tastes the best, though my actual listening to c-j has been limited to RMAF, my dealer and some in my media room.

I'm fairly certain there are no wrong choices between the two preamps and two amps I'm considering, but I would like to read your comments on the (subtle?) sound differences between them, what's the difference in the way they treat music? I listen to jazz, rock, indie rock mostly, but I also listen to a wide variety of other music types.

Like any audio person, I will of course, listen to each of the following pieces of gear, if I can find them, and make my choices. Here are the contenders:

Preamps: CT5, ET5
Amps: ET250S, LP140M

My speakers are WP8's. I use both digital and analog sources.

I will probably buy used, as it is hard to ignore a 50% savings on gear at this level. Thank you for any thoughts you wish to type that may help me in my quest for a great c-j system.

[joeinid]

Have I got deal for you :)

[Masterlu]

Have I got deal for you :)

:deal:

[slowGEEZR]

Have I got deal for you :)

I'll be looking for deals when I am ready to buy. And I do want to buy from fellow members, of course! I'm a tire kicker and mull things around awhile.

[joeinid]

I'll be looking for deals when I am ready to buy. And I do want to buy from fellow members, of course! I'm a tire kicker and mull things around awhile.

I realize.

From what I understand, the ET5 (a baby GAT) is slightly warmer than the CT5 and a newer design.

The ET250s is a hybrid tube and solid state design on the more neutral side of sound vs the LP140s are all tube.

Joe

[bradleyc]

I'll be looking for deals when I am ready to buy. And I do want to buy from fellow members, of course! I'm a tire kicker and mull things around awhile.

Joe's prices always look extremely fair to me, often lower that they should be. He upgrades gear quite frequently so some of his gear for sale is not even broken in yet :D

[joeinid]

Joe's prices always look extremely fair to me, often lower that they should be. He upgrades gear quite frequently so some of his gear for sale is not even broken in yet :D

Thanks Bradley, and true about break in.

I think slowgeezr is in the information gathering stage and will need time to sort out all the different pieces and their sound quality.

[slowGEEZR]

Thanks Bradley, and true about break in.

I think slowgeezr is in the information gathering stage and will need time to sort out all the different pieces and their sound quality.

Absolutely correct. I was hoping that I could get some of the c-j faithful to lend their experiences and advice with these four products. In the meantime, I will continue to read the posts in this forum. :thumbsup:

[joeinid]

Totally understand! I certainly don't have the experience with CJ that others have, but as others will attest they have never heard a bad piece of CJ gear.

[repman]

+1 on the ET-5 I love mine and having owned a CT-5 I would rate it a step above that in all areas. I think the only step farther would be the GAT. Having owned 3 CJ preamps this has been my favorite so far.
Good luck on your hunt.

[slowGEEZR]

+1 on the ET-5 I love mine and having owned a CT-5 I would rate it a step above that in all areas. I think the only step farther would be the GAT. Having owned 3 CJ preamps this has been my favorite so far.
Good luck on your hunt.

Thanks for your reply, repman. When you say the ET-5 was a step above in all areas, should I take that to mean, you could hear more detail, it was more accurate, it was more musical, it put "more meat on the bones", it was less clinical?

[repman]

The ET-5 has a timbre that is quite intoxicating I think it may be going back to the 6922 tube over the 6N30P tubes in the CT-5.
I think the CT-5 was very good but maybe a little to sterile in the sound compared to the ET-5.
I like the wide and deep sound-stage that both have but the naturalness of instruments and the tone of the ET-5 is more to my liking.

[slowGEEZR]

The ET-5 has a timbre that is quite intoxicating I think it may be going back to the 6922 tube over the 6N30P tubes in the CT-5.
I think the CT-5 was very good but maybe a little to sterile in the sound compared to the ET-5.
I like the wide and deep sound-stage that both have but the naturalness of instruments and the tone of the ET-5 is more to my liking.

Thank you. I had been thinking (wrongly) that since the CT-5 was an older product that it would have been a little warmer, less sterile sounding than the ET-5.

[Rayooo]

Thank you. I had been thinking (wrongly) that since the CT-5 was an older product that it would have been a little warmer, less sterile sounding than the ET-5.

I'm definitely a Freshman w/regards to CJ and the evolution of CJ preamp sound. 'having really only experience with ET3SE and ET5.

It has been my presumption as well, and this is way overgeneralizing I'm sure, that earlier generations of CJ preamps were more on the warm side than current generation. My assumption has been that in part this was due to tube-based output drivers and thus overall higher output impedance.

Having said that, the FET output on ET3SE and ET5 seems absolutely great. low output impedance, great detail, but maintain that core CJ sound, if possibly ever so slightly lessened when compared to earlier generations.

[Puma Cat]

I have a CT-5 that I've spent the better part of a year running in, and now that it is, it's only fair to point out that the CT-5 is NOT a sterile sounding preamp, far from it. It is more neutral than older series C-J preamps e.g. the PV and Premier series, but it is still a superb sounding preamp that is very musical, engaging and involving, not to mention incredibly detailed, transparent, fast and quiet. It is ANYTHING but sterile. I would agree that it does not sound as warm as the older or non-Teflon capped C-J based preamps, but stating it is sterile sounding is inaccurate and does a disservice to this very fine preamp. C-J quite simply does not build sterile or unmusical sounding gear. While it is more neutral than many C-J preamps, it is still warmer and sweeter sounding than an Octave or ARC. I have both a more classic "warmer" sounding Premier 17 and the CT-5; and have friends who have heard both. Some prefer the Pr17 while others, including Jeff Whitlock of A/V Solutions really prefers the CT-5.

At this level of gear, and CT-5 is built to the same level of engineering specification as the ET-5, if not higher, what constitutes the better preamp is often a matter of personal preference rather than "absolutes", whatever those are.

My own CT-5 has recently made another quantum jump in its sound quality, and the attributes that had me preferring my Pr17 (a fuller, weightier presentation, though the 17 is slower, less detailed and transparent and has a higher noise floor) are no longer an issue. I listened at length to my CT-5 this weekend and it's performance had me shaking my head in disbelief at times.

I attribute the amount of time it took the CT-5 to come around to the very long time it takes to burn in the Teflon caps; the 300 hours figure that C-J provides and you read in reviews is a gross underestimate, 1000 hours is more like it. Be advised if you buy any new or relativly new Teflon capped component, dealing with the cap burn-in is pretty horrid for quite a while. I bought my CT-5 with over 300 hours on it in February, and it sounded, in a word, awful. I've spent the rest of the year burning it it in; it started notably improving back in July, and has recently made another "quantum jump" in performance. "Getting there" can be frustrating and painful, but once these these Teflon based components do "get there" they are spectacular; just ask Philippe with about his GAT.

[Rafale]

I completely agree with Stephen, the CT5 is extraordinary, around 4000 USD on audiogon it is a giant bargain, it is necessary to have to listen to a CT5 completely broke-in to realize its incredible qualities of transparency and musicality, besides 6N30P is little expensive and very reliable

[slowGEEZR]

Thank you very much Puma Cat (Stephen?) and Philippe. This is precisely the kind of information I have been seeking. Based on what I've been reading, either piece will be a splendid upgrade for me. I think it will come down to the best deal I can get on either one, when I am ready to purchase. I wish I was ready now, but I'm not quite ready yet.

I'm still not sure which amplifier to buy, as I want to "lift veils" to get closer to the sound of a real live performance happening in my media room. I currently use two vastly different sounding integrated amplifiers, a Krell 400xi transistor jobby and a Jolida JD1000RC. The Krell may be a little more transparent to the source, while the sound of the Jolida is more densely saturated (sax is so beautiful via the Jolida), to my ears. I don't want to lose the tube bloom, but want to gain transparency, so you can see my dilemma in amp choice.

[bgiliberti]

...very long time it takes to burn in the Teflon caps; the 300 hours figure that C-J provides and you read in reviews is a gross underestimate, 1000 hours is more like it. Be advised if you buy any new or relativly new Teflon capped component, dealing with the cap burn-in is pretty horrid for quite a while. I bought my CT-5 with over 300 hours on it in February, and it sounded, in a word, awful. I've spent the rest of the year burning it it in; it started notably improving back in July, and has recently made another "quantum jump" in performance. "Getting there" can be frustrating and painful, but once these these Teflon based components do "get there" they are spectacular; just ask Philippe with about his GAT.I think this is an important point to consider, based on my experience with the entry level Classic SE preamp. Not having heard the non-SE version, I can't really say how much the Teflon caps add -- I assume it's significant, because the transients are pretty amazing. On the other hand, the preamp really did sound awful for the first 600 hours, and it wasn't until about 1000 hours that I stopped missing my PV-7. That is asking a lot of anyone to put up with, and I'm not sure I'd ever want to go through it again. In fact, if I buy the Classic 60 Power Amp, which I am considering, I'm pretty sure I'll go with the non-SE. Burning in a preamp over 1000 hours is one thing -- burning in a power amp, with those big, expensive tubes, is quite another. The SE would have to be a HUGE improvement to justify that. I'm not sure it is, and I plan to take a ride to Spearit on my next trip to the area to take a listen. PS: I will also concede that if you really want to 'lift the veil,' as you say, that is what Teflon is all about. It's uncanny in that regard.

[Puma Cat]

I think this is an important point to consider, based on my experience with the entry level Classic SE preamp. Not having heard the non-SE version, I can't really say how much the Teflon caps add -- I assume it's significant, because the transients are pretty amazing. On the other hand, the preamp really did sound awful for the first 600 hours, and it wasn't until about 1000 hours that I stopped missing my PV-7. That is asking a lot of anyone to put up with, and I'm not sure I'd ever want to go through it again. In fact, if I buy the Classic 60 Power Amp, which I am considering, I'm pretty sure I'll go with the non-SE. Burning in a preamp over 1000 hours is one thing -- burning in a power amp, with those big, expensive tubes, is quite another. The SE would have to be a HUGE improvement to justify that. I'm not sure it is, and I plan to take a ride to Spearit on my next trip to the area to take a listen. PS: I will also concede that if you really want to 'lift the veil,' as you say, that is what Teflon is all about. It's uncanny in that regard.

I know what you mean, because I had read all this "glowing" press about the CT-5, and had seen so many people literally go "starry-eyed" at the mere mention of it, I thought it must be fantastic. When I got the CT-5, I thought the audio press must have been on crack because the preamp sounded awful...how was it possible to garner so many glowing reviews if it really sounded like that? It really made me feel like any credibility the audio press had was called into question. I also understood completely why the original seller had sold it; he put 300 hours on it, and it still sounded like crap, so he figured that it was always was going to sound that way. After all, that was the going line from C-J; a figure clearly now known to be inaccurate. I felt misled by my seller because he painted a different picture of it when I spoke to him on the phone about it and he knew full well all along it sounded like crap. I talked to a buddy who had a CT-5 (and an ET250S), and he told me that what I reported it sounding like was completely due to the Teflon caps, and to be patient, patient, patient...he said it took him at least 6 months of using his for it to begin to start to sound good, and it continued improving for another 3-4 months after that, and this has been completely consistent with my experience. I agree with you completely that it is asking a lot of anyone to put up with; the only consolation I can take from it is that it is worthwhile in the long run, and I guess in the long run it doesn't matter if you keep the component for several years...in which case the memory of the pain of burning it in will subside over time as the years of enjoying it pay off. Not sure that that completely holds water, though, given how frequently some folks go through gear, so all that has to be taken into account.

In the case of my own CT-5, I really feel that it finally "broke through" this last week, and the preamp, in all honesty, now sounds fabulous.

As for the Classic SE, having to burn in hell again with the Teflon cap "burn-in hell" with a power amp is a tough call. It is possible that the power amp might take less time as the voltages going through the caps are higher, so perhaps it will not take a 1000 hours, but it's difficult to really know. Personally, I don't think the power tube life is really a concern; stock EL34s really aren't that expensive, and the tube life estimates given out by C-J are extremely conservative, IMHO. On another, perhaps more important note, my experience with Teflon caps is that once fully burned in they are fantastic for detail, transparency and speed, but they tend to make the overall sound quality more neutral than euphonic. Whether this is what one really wants one can only decide for oneself. Personally, I think AndyPandy made the right decision to go with the "base" model ET-3, because I've heard this preamp and it is really a sweet-sounding pre. It's a major reason that I've not upgraded my Premier 17 to Series 2 status is that I'm a bit afraid I'd lose that magical sweetness that the Premier 17 Series 1 has...and it's one sweet pre; one of the sweetest I've ever heard. Not the most detailed, transparent, quiet or fastest pre I've heard, but it's really got it's own special magic and it's musical as all get-out.

[bgiliberti]

... On another, perhaps more important note, my experience with Teflon caps is that once fully burned in they are fantastic for detail, transparency and speed, but they tend to make the overall sound quality more neutral than euphonic. Whether this is what one really wants one can only decide for oneself. Personally, I think AndyPandy made the right decision to go with the "base" model ET-3, because I've heard this preamp and it is really a sweet-sounding pre. It's a major reason that I've not upgraded my Premier 17 to Series 2 status is that I'm a bit afraid I'd lose that magical sweetness that the Premier 17 Series 1 has...and it's one sweet pre; one of the sweetest I've ever heard. Not the most detailed, transparent, quiet or fastest pre I've heard, but it's really got it's own special magic and it's musical as all get-out.I think of 'sweetness' being more about the midrange than the highs or lows. I was told that the midrange on both editions of the Classic Preamp would be the same, because the Tcaps are only used in parts of the circuitry that affect the extremes, not the midrange. I don't know if the Premier 7 upgrade involves similarly limited use of Teflon, but if so, it suggests that your midrange would be unaffected, which I think is what you want. It might even be a sort of best of both worlds mod.

[Puma Cat]

I think of 'sweetness' being more about the midrange than the highs or lows. I was told that the midrange on both editions of the Classic Preamp would be the same, because the Tcaps are only used in parts of the circuitry that affect the extremes, not the midrange. I don't know if the Premier 7 upgrade involves similarly limited use of Teflon, but if so, it suggests that your midrange would be unaffected, which I think is what you want. It might even be a sort of best of both worlds mod.

It could well be....I've often wondered this myself; I've just been reluctant to risk that midrange sweetness. And, yes, the Series 2 upgrade is primarily replacement of a large no. of the stock caps with Teflon caps.

Also the Series 2 upgrade is quite expensive: $3000. :eek:

You can actually buy a used Premier 17 LS2 for less money.

[bgiliberti]

It could well be....I've often wondered this myself; I've just been reluctant to risk that midrange sweetness. And, yes, the Series 2 upgrade is primarily replacement of a large no. of the stock caps with Teflon caps.

Also the Series 2 upgrade is quite expensive: $3000. :eek:

You can actually buy a used Premier 17 LS2 for less money.The mod on the classic is only $500, I think, so the $3000 one for the Premier would probably involve many more circuits and changes to the sound, including the midrange, perhaps. So I'd be worrying about that too on a Premier 7 upgrade if you like the warmer type of midrange (which I do too.).

[Puma Cat]

BGiliberti,
The Classic circuitry is quite similar to the PV10/PV12, and has notably fewer caps than a Premier 17.

I was told by Ed at C-J that the cost of the Series 2 upgrade was due to the number of caps that are replaced...as you can see from this pic, there a lot of caps in a Premier 17:

http://photos.imageevent.com/puma_cat/fujif31andf20photos/Premier%2017-2.jpg

[repman]

I have a CT-5 that I've spent the better part of a year running in, and now that it is, it's only fair to point out that the CT-5 is NOT a sterile sounding preamp, far from it. It is more neutral than older series C-J preamps e.g. the PV and Premier series, but it is still a superb sounding preamp that is very musical, engaging and involving, not to mention incredibly detailed, transparent, fast and quiet. It is ANYTHING but sterile. I would agree that it does not sound as warm as the older or non-Teflon capped C-J based preamps, but stating it is sterile sounding is inaccurate and does a disservice to this very fine preamp. C-J quite simply does not build sterile or unmusical sounding gear. While it is more neutral than many C-J preamps, it is still warmer and sweeter sounding than an Octave or ARC. I have both a more classic "warmer" sounding Premier 17 and the CT-5; and have friends who have heard both. Some prefer the Pr17 while others, including Jeff Whitlock of A/V Solutions really prefers
the CT-5.

At this level of gear, and CT-5 is built to the same level of engineering specification as the ET-5, if not higher, what constitutes the better preamp is often a matter of personal preference rather than "absolutes", whatever those are.

My own CT-5 has recently made another quantum jump in its sound quality, and the attributes that had me preferring my Pr17 (a fuller, weightier presentation, though the 17 is slower, less detailed and transparent and has a higher noise floor) are no longer an issue. I listened at length to my CT-5 this weekend and it's performance had me shaking my head in disbelief at times.

I attribute the amount of time it took the CT-5 to come around to the very long time it takes to burn in the Teflon caps; the 300 hours figure that C-J provides and you read in reviews is a gross underestimate, 1000 hours is more like it. Be advised if you buy any new or relativly new Teflon capped component, dealing with the cap burn-in is pretty horrid for quite a while. I bought my CT-5 with over 300 hours on it in February, and it sounded, in a word, awful. I've spent the rest of the year burning it it in; it started notably improving back in July, and has recently made another "quantum jump" in performance. "Getting there" can be frustrating and painful, but once these these Teflon based components do "get there" they are spectacular; just ask Philippe with about his GAT.

Puma I did not mean to ruffle your feathers or insult the CT-5 I think it is a very good preamp and I enjoyed it when I owned mine. Slow-Geezer was asking my opinion and I gave him my impressions of both, maybe my choice of words were not perfect but I am not a seasoned reviewer. When I said it sounded more sterile I was trying to describe how it sounded compared to the ET-5 to me it is a little bit thinner sounding and not as rich in tone as the ET-5 all ears are different I just prefer the richness of the ET over the CT they are both fantastic and I do not think you could go wrong with either its just the sound you prefer.

[jimtranr]

Personally, I think AndyPandy made the right decision to go with the "base" model ET-3, because I've heard this preamp and it is really a sweet-sounding pre. It's a major reason that I've not upgraded my Premier 17 to Series 2 status is that I'm a bit afraid I'd lose that magical sweetness that the Premier 17 Series 1 has...and it's one sweet pre; one of the sweetest I've ever heard. Not the most detailed, transparent, quiet or fastest pre I've heard, but it's really got it's own special magic and it's musical as all get-out.

Which, aside from how the cost (Ed told me $3550) would impact my ability to upgrade other elements of my system, is why I've held off on upgrading my 17 to Series 2. Beyond that, upgrading the 17's power cord (the Oppo's, too) has injected greater transparency, detail, "blackness", and perceived agility into the mix--with a much shorter burn-in (about 200 hours) than Teflon would entail--without in any way defacing the magic that's characteristic of the 17 (that's with stock EH6922's) and how well it plays with others in this system.

(That's not a knock on CJD Teflon. If I were buying "new," I'd most likely go the SE route and put up with six to ten months of relative hell.)

[Puma Cat]

Puma I did not mean to ruffle your feathers or insult the CT-5 I think it is a very good preamp and I enjoyed it when I owned mine. Slow-Geezer was asking my opinion and I gave him my impressions of both, maybe my choice of words were not perfect but I am not a seasoned reviewer. When I said it sounded more sterile I was trying to describe how it sounded compared to the ET-5 to me it is a little bit thinner sounding and not as rich in tone as the ET-5 all ears are different I just prefer the richness of the ET over the CT they are both fantastic and I do not think you could go wrong with either its just the sound you prefer.

No worries! My feathers weren't ruffled in any way! :tresbon:

[Volks]

BGiliberti,
The Classic circuitry is quite similar to the PV10/PV12, and has notably fewer caps than a Premier 17.

I was told by Ed at C-J that the cost of the Series 2 upgrade was due to the number of caps that are replaced...as you can see from this pic, there a lot of caps in a Premier 17:

http://photos.imageevent.com/puma_cat/fujif31andf20photos/Premier%2017-2.jpg



Wow ...certainly not an empty box lol..........i swear the more i read these CJ threads....the more i want to "Dip my Toe" into CJ water and buy another system...

[Puma Cat]

You'll be forever spoiled if you do....just ask Joe.

[joeinid]

Wow ...certainly not an empty box lol..........i swear the more i read these CJ threads....the more i want to "Dip my Toe" into CJ water and buy another system...

It's just like potato chips, you can't stop at one. CJ really offers a unique, satisfying natural sound! :thumbsup:

[Volks]

It's just like potato chips, you can't stop at one. CJ really offers a unique, satisfying natural sound! :thumbsup:


LOL i like that.....although i must admit i am trying to quit eating potato chips....fat little buggers they are lol

[joeinid]

Everything in moderation! Except audio gear. :)

[Myles B. Astor]

It's just like potato chips, you can't stop at one. CJ really offers a unique, satisfying natural sound! :thumbsup:

I would offer the word synergistic :) When you equip the phono, line and amps with the cj teflon caps, the effect is more like 1+1 =3 than 1+1=2. One could really hear that sort of difference when comparing say the Premier 15 vs. the TEA phono sections (of course allowing for other variables).

[Myles B. Astor]

It could well be....I've often wondered this myself; I've just been reluctant to risk that midrange sweetness. And, yes, the Series 2 upgrade is primarily replacement of a large no. of the stock caps with Teflon caps.

Also the Series 2 upgrade is quite expensive: $3000. :eek:

You can actually buy a used Premier 17 LS2 for less money.

I thought the 17 delivered a lot of bang for the buck. Had the opportunity several years ago to compare the ART pre against the Prem. 17 in my system. The 17 was a bit less dynamic and wasn't as good at the frequency extremes as the ART. OTOH, thought that the 17 delivered 70% of so of the performance of the ART :)

[Puma Cat]

I thought the 17 delivered a lot of bang for the buck. Had the opportunity several years ago to compare the ART pre against the Prem. 17 in my system. The 17 was a bit less dynamic and wasn't as good at the frequency extremes as the ART. OTOH, thought that the 17 delivered 70% of so of the performance of the ART :)

I agree. The Premier 17 is a sweet preamp. It's like a Grado wood-body in that it's so musical. I haven't decided if I will be keeping my CT-5 yet (job uncertainties still might require selling it), but I think even if I kept the CT-5, I would likely still keep the Premier 17; it would make a great preamp for say, a smaller, more informal, second system.

Pair it with an MV60, an MF2250A, a McCormack DNA amp (or even my vintage Harman-Kardon Citation 12 power amp), a Rega P5, a pair of Dynaudio Focus 140s and a REL Serie T-5, and it would be a dynamite bedroom, study, or office system. :thumbsup:

[dude]

Hi Steve,

Next purchase for me is the ET5 to replace my 11 year old CJ Premier 18LS.

The 18 was the only SS pre CJ made and I still love it although I'm confident the ET5 will be superior due to new technology, beefed up power supply, etc.

Would highly encourage you to pursue. You will not be disappointed. A big :thumbsup:

Gordon

[Rafale]

Gordon....CJ made several SS preamp....PF-1 PF-2 PF- R...

[Puma Cat]

Hi Steve,

Next purchase for me is the ET5 to replace my 11 year old CJ Premier 18LS.

The 18 was the only SS pre CJ made and I still love it although I'm confident the ET5 will be superior due to new technology, beefed up power supply, etc.

Would highly encourage you to pursue. You will not be disappointed. A big :thumbsup:

Gordon

Hi Gordon,
Thanks for the suggestions. While I am sure the ET5 is terrific, I also have a CT-5, which is no slouch of a preamp and was the equivalent in the lineup before the arrival of the ET-5, that is, one model below the GAT. As such it is already replete with new technology, beefed up power supply, Teflon caps, etc.

Cheers,
Stephen

[dpod4]

Everything in moderation! Except audio gear. :)

Perfect Quote To Live By!

[joeinid]

Perfect Quote To Live By!

:)

[dude]

Philippe,

Thanks for the clarification.

Stephen,

The CT5 is also a distinct possibility. No diss intended on this fine unit.

Having a mod done on my CDP later this month. Will reassess afterwords.

Gordon

PS: Based on what I've seen for used units, the CT5 can be had for some $1,500 less that the ET5. I wonder if the dollar difference equates to the corresponding performance benefits. Any comments would be most appreciated.

[Puma Cat]

Philippe,

Thanks for the clarification.

Stephen,
The CT5 is also a distinct possibility. No diss intended on this fine unit.

None taken. :)


PS: Based on what I've seen for used units, the CT5 can be had for some $1,500 less that the ET5. I wonder if the dollar difference equates to the corresponding performance benefits. Any comments would be most appreciated.

The only way to really assess this is a side-by-side comparison and then decide. Only the end-user can decide for themselves if whatever the differences may be represent a value proposition as to the difference in cost, as the law of diminishing returns of price/performance applies here as pretty much everywhere else.

One example I can give is when I bought my Premier 17 for $1900; the seller had just bought an ACT2 S2 for $6800; he played them both for me so I could hear the differences. Do I think the ACT2 S2 was effectively $5000 better than the Premier 17?

No way; in fact, I was suprised as to how close the Pr17 was to the ACT2 S2 in performance.

[dude]

Hi Stephen,

Totally agree with the $ vs performance conundrum.

I am assuming their will be a sufficient / positive difference between the 18LS and the CT5 or the ET5 for the $'s involved to upgrade.

Gordon