Thoughts on the First Watt SIT Amps

Let me add something about the SIT amps. I listened to the SIT-2 stereo amp. When asked, I advised the gentleman who ordered it to instead buy a pair of SIT-1 monoblocks. He was going to spend that much on a different amp anyway, so why not? I always endorse monoblocks over same-design stereo, but an interesting thing happened. The dealer insisted that there's "no difference" between SIT-2 and SIT-1, so "save the money and get SIT-2." So that's what my friend auditioned and what I heard at some length.

Now, I know in my bones that SIT-1 will sound different and I think very likely it will sound better even though the monoblocks output the same power per channel. For one thing, separate power supplies on the same circuit virtually always sound better and certainly sound different in discernible ways. But additionally, the SIT-1 has a user-adjustable bias control.Sure, there's a reference point on the meters for optimal bias, but you're free to shade it + or - the reference setting. I've *never* heard an amp that doesn't sound variable according to whether its bias is shaded hot or cold, off center. Sometimes the differences can be quite dramatic, depending how far out of "normal" you change bias and trade device longevity and stability for sonic bliss.

I know from some third party conversations and from what can be inferred thus far in his published review, that Srajan at 6Moons believes SIT-1 has sound possibilities SIT-2 can't equal. So while I'll say that I heard nothing in the SIT-2 amp to suggest that this solid state device can fully deliver the organic life that quality SET can, it's reasonable to surmise that SIT-1 can get substantially closer, especially if associated gear is chosen carefully.

Phil

Phil,

You make quite valid points between the two versions of the amplifiers. Is your friend`s view of the SIT-2 amp the same as yours or is he happy with them in his system?

Does your friend plan to try the SIT-1 amps to see for himself?

Is he a former DHT SET amp owner?
Thanks,

Charles,

He did not keep the SIT-2 beyond the agreed trial, due to the traits I noted. He returned to tube amplification. I recall his comment being, "I'm done with solid state."

Phil

Upon rereading the 6moons review, it does not seem to argue that the SIT amps are a replacement for tubes as implied by Phil. The reviewer did state that

While this SIT platform does bridge transistors and tubes, it doesn't clone the latter. It remains distinctive. Depending on your triggers and their sequence and what music you fancy, you still might prefer valves.

I am seeking just a bit of that SET tube magic myself, so I still want to hear a few more views on these amps.

As I explained in the review, you can get better than SET performance from the SIT if you precede it with a single-stage DHT preamp. Those are rare critters but I listed a few models from Coincident, Jeffrey Jackson, Trafomatic and Wavelength. Now you hear a direct-heated triode in an ideal circumstance (no harmonic dilution from a driver tube, no massive turns ratio for the output transformer and the valve is driving a stable amplifier input impedance rather than reactive loudspeaker load), far better than the tube would sound in a multi-stage power amp. This combo of DHT/SIT goes places most SETs can only dream of. No noise. More bandwidth. More control in the bass. More resolution. More linear THD. And, the THD can be strategically shifted.

The SIT by itself doesn't sound like transformer-coupled tube amps at all. It's much more linear and far quicker and more open. If you reference an OTL however it gets much much closer...