Doge 8 and Conrad Johnson ET-3


Has anyone heard both of these units at one time or another. How would you compare/contrast them, and describe their sound. From what I've read, it sounds as if the Doge would be more neutral and less warm than the CJ, with the CJ being a little more on the warm/lush side of things. I've heard the CJ and liked the warmth that I heard. Any truth to my thinking?
hawk28

Showing 1 response by gbmcleod

I've heard the ET 3 and while I would say the CJ has a full mid, upper bass and
lower midrange, this is not less "neutral." People seem to have the
idea that live music is "neutral." Live music has color, and texture. A
preamp that de-natures the texture (timbre) of real instruments is the less
neutral one and is actually suppressing the inner detail of the instrument, which
will also make all violinists sound like their particular brand of violin is generic
(inner detail and low-level resolution are part of making different instrument
makers sound like themselves, just as Steinways don't sound like Baldwins).
Whoever heard a tuba that didn't have a "blattiness" in its sound??
That's part of the completeness of its sound. The CJs ALLOW this quality to
come through, they don't FORCE it to sound like something else.
Alan Sircom of HiFi Plus, reviewed the ET 3 and found it highly resembling the
GAT. It is unlikely that it would sound diffuse (never, EVER a CJ trait). I've had CJ
equipment from the old days, and they have excellent imaging traits, both front
to back, and side to side. In fact, depth layering is one of their strongest traits. I
can only imagine the SE to be a higher-resolution version of this, as Teflon
capacitors (I've had several devices, such as the Audience AR2p-T, which use
teflon, and they ALL reveal a clarity that is fascinating to hear) are higher rez
versions of non-Teflon versions. I haven't heard the SE version, I hasten to add,
but it is unlikely that Bill and Lew are foolish enough to charge more and make
the upgraded version mushier, with less resolution, and ESPECIALLY less focus
(including specificity of image) and put it on the market. Pretty illogical move,
given that even a Classic has terrific specificity of image. Something either
wasn't right with the SE or something in that system wasn't set up right (such
as putting your cables on top of each other (strictly amatuersville: talk about RFI
piling up and smearing the sound!). I'm leaning towards a 3 myself, with my
other option being upgrading my First Sound Presence Deluxe to a MK III
version.
The ET3 I heard was highly resolving and what's more, it has a
"continuousness" of sound that allows you to imagine ALL the
musicians in the room at the same time, instead of just the section that is
playing music. And, included in that, is the ambience of the hall, which many
excellent preamps miss, so that the recordings don't change even from cut to
cut. The ET 3 does this in spades, kings, queens, and jacks.
Go read the review of the ET3 on conrad johnson's site or AVguide.com, which
is the Absolute Sound's site, or google the review of the ET3. Sircom, the
reviewer, has excellent ears, and his opening commentary about the sound was
on the sound staging. More "detail" is not more "live" unless it accompanies the
breathing of the musicians, hall sounds, the hall itself (or the club or even
someone's basement, for that matter!), the way the musicians are playing their
instruments, etc.
This seems more a question of whether one wants it to sound live or like
Memorex.