A tale of two CJ's

[Briz Vegaas]

I had the same experience as the OP.

Digital volume control into the CA200 seemed to better the analogue control in the amp. It was more detailed etc. I checked this a couple of times while I was running this configuration just to be sure.

I borrowed a CT5 and it's been here ever since, if you ignore the speaker demoes that I tried before discovering that the pre was the best option.

What sold me was pretty much everything about the sound, it was addictive. One caveat however, turns out my source had been juiced up by the power cord I also had to borrow for the new configuration. The power cord alone made a small difference but it was the CT5 that knocked the ball out of the park, so to speak.

[Rayooo]

Originally Posted by ronenash

As many here know I am enjoying my LP125m SE for a few month now. I am driving them with the Lyngdorf DPA-1 preamp with room correction. I was extremely happy with this setup and it was the best my system ever sounded that is until….
Last weekend a friend offered me to try the ET3 preamp. My initial reply was I am not interested. I had the ET3 for a brief time before and I could not see what benefits another component in the signal pass can bring. Given the fact that I am using the Lyngdorf as a DAC/Room Correction device that can be configured for either fixed or variable output, I did not think adding another component to control volume will have a positive impact on the sound. Remember, we are talking about more electronics and another pair of interconnects.
Well, after my friend insisted I took the ET3 for a try. I am telling you folks, I could not believe the change the ET3 made in my system. The soundstage grew to enormous proportions, harmonic structures were laid out with such beauty and I could feel the musicians sitting in front of me so clearly it is spooky. I still cannot rationalize what I am hearing but the ET3 definitely has a very positive effect on the sound. Mind you this is the standard version and not the SE version. I do not know if this is magic synergy between the CJ power and pre amps or if there is something else coming into play here but there is no denying the result is very special.
I am now starting the hunt for an ET3SE or ET5. Maybe an ACT2. This CJ pre/power combination is just too good to pass.

Can anyone explain these results? I cannot. I only know what I hear.

I went kicking and screaming into the same realization a couple years ago.
Between moving to a CJ preamp, a few cable tweaks, I've literally entered an entirely new realm that I spent many years never accepting was possible.

In my case I run a DAC-2 in fixed output through the ET5. Logic would suggest running the DAC in variable output directly to amps. So much for logic. It's the difference between a very good sounding system, and one that is astounding.

[ronenash]

Originally Posted by Rayooo

I went kicking and screaming into the same realization a couple years ago.
Between moving to a CJ preamp, a few cable tweaks, I've literally entered an entirely new realm that I spent many years never accepting was possible.

In my case I run a DAC-2 in fixed output through the ET5. Logic would suggest running the DAC in variable output directly to amps. So much for logic. It's the difference between a very good sounding system, and one that is astounding.

I will try to get an ET5, ACT2 or if I don't find the right opportunity I will get the ET3SE.

[ronenash]

The funny thing is that I have worked with a CJ preamp all my life starting with the PV10 almost 20 years ago. When I got the Lyngdorf DPA-1 it was so much more transparent and detailed than the vintage CJ preamps that I switched.
Its amazing to hear the progress CJ has made with its current line of preamps.

[Puma Cat]

Originally Posted by ronenash

The funny thing is that I have worked with a CJ preamp all my life starting with the PV10 almost 20 years ago. When I got the Lyngdorf DPA-1 it was so much more transparent and detailed than the vintage CJ preamps that I switched.
Its amazing to hear the progress CJ has made with its current line of preamps.

I think this is what astonished Jonathan Valin when he wrote about the GAT/ART combination in TAS late in 2011. It's clear he had not listened to a C-J component since the original ART back in '98....

[Jerome W]

Ron,

See my thread in the general audio discussion titled "More is not Better" and you will probably recognize some of your experience.
I have been using a RP1 for 2 years and thought it was wonderful. When I removed it from my system, I started to enjoy music again at a much higher point. The RP1 is out now. It has more negative effects than positive.

Moreover, CJ knows how to build a quality preamp. I'm not sure about Lyngdorf. Synergy is also of prime importance so that is no surprise to me if a CJ preamp works better in your system than the Lyngdorf.

The preamp is the key element of the electronics. More than anything else, except the Source, it gives the signature, the voicing of the system. You were more listening to the Lyngdorf sound, even with your CJ amps, than to the CJ sound. Welcome to the CJ sound club !

[bgiliberti]

I thought the reason preamps sound better is that DACs lower volume by removing bits.

[Joe Appierto]

Originally Posted by bgiliberti

I thought the reason preamps sound better is that DACs lower volume by removing bits.

That was my impression as well whenever the volume was controlled in the digital domain.

[CDLehner]

Originally Posted by bgiliberti

I thought the reason preamps sound better is that DACs lower volume by removing bits.

Some do; most now, do it after the upsample anyway...so the bits "removed" are out of the sonic signature. Other DACs...like the Eastern Electric Minimax that I referred to...have a true analog pre, and don't control volume in the digital realm at all.

Still, as good as the EE was, the analog pre stage was still passive, not active; and it just sounded thin and anemic, compared to a good active stage. Some may prefer that "lean" sound; I like a little more meat on the musical bones.

[Rayooo]

Originally Posted by bgiliberti

I thought the reason preamps sound better is that DACs lower volume by removing bits.

I'm no expert, but from what little I know, originally, that was the case where in essence one lost resolution by throwing away bits, and ya only had 16 to start with. Nowadays, modern DACs use up sampling to 32 bits and beyond I'd presume..whereas even at lowest volume levels the resolution remains as good or better than the input resolution.

With all things audiophile, I'm sure there are N+10000 opinions on this issue. (where N is the total population of the planet)

ADDED: I guess up sampling is not the correct term for mathematically increasing the bit-depth..as up sampling would just be increasing the sample rate. so if 16 bits are increased mathematically to 32 or more, then one can do digital volume control at high resolution. I think.