Thoughts on the First Watt SIT Amps

I returned the SIT-2 and got back my First Watt M2 amp, which was/is really quiet. I was a little bummed-out because the SIT-2 was dead all the same when I first received it is an absolutely fantastic unique sounding amp. The First Watt M2 is really stuffy and has a couple of advantages.

Good day all,

  I have had the First Watt SIT2 since 2013. The amp gets played every day for at least 8 hours. It has been driven with an Audiopax Model 5 (the original and the latest incarnation) and a DIY White Cathode Follower OTL tube pre.

  In every case and with all music it has bested any of my previous amps to include, Mac, Quad, First Watt F1J, F2J and F4, various 300B (SET), Leben CX300XS, Yamamoto 0A-11, and 0-8s, Transcendent SE OTL, and others of lesser fare. Sometimes not by much, but always better.

  The SIT drives a pair of 15" co-axial 100dB speakers in a 15X30 living room and has had many different DAC, CD players and transports, VPI vinyl setup and separate phone pre. As the chain gets better, so does the SIT.

  Quite by accident (because I was feeling lazy) while I was changing the equipment and positions in the rack, I decided to temporarily hook my DAC (Audio GD NFB-7 2015 fed through an AP1/PP (latest edition) from a Mac Mini and JRiver) directly to the SIT using the AP1 volume dither. 

 At low to normal listening levels, I have never heard any amp, at any price present music as well as this combination. The purity is unlike anything I have ever experienced. Whatever is in front of the SIT (given synergistic speakers) is what you are going to hear. If you have a great front end and hi ef speakers, you would need to go a long way to best the SIT amps. 

I have to say my Firstwatt F7 sounds amazing with the Manley Shrimp preamp, into 88db Gallo 3.1s, highly recommended! Listen to Nelson's latest creation if at all possible.

cobra213 "I’m going to make it a point to hear the SIT-1 monoblocks with a DHT preamp in front of it. I have listened to DHT preamps and have heard the SIT-2, but have not heard the two sequenced together. I’ll give Srajan benefit of doubt, and I do believe the adjustable bias monoblocks will get closer to being musically convincing than the SIT-2 regardless of what’s in front of it."

"I still want to hear SIT-1s driven by a DHT preamp, to hear whether Srajan’s postulate about the leap in results is true for me. But this was one step further in gaining experience with these amps."

213cobra, much time has gone on, yet has anyone followed up on Srajan’s example? As I do not believe he would have sold off the remainder of his once treasured DHT power amps in favor of the first watt SIT-1s if not for what the compo had accomplished. 

Dave_72, Mdeblanc was asking about FW SIT amps not the J2.

These are the findings that me and boys in the Las Vegas Audio Club came up with.

http://lasvegasaudioclub.blogspot.com/2014/12/our-sixteenth-meeting.html

Haven't used it with a DHT preamp but have used it with Rogue Audio 99 Super Magnum with Mundorf Supreme Silver/Oil with psvane cv-181 and tj full music and now with a Rogue Audio 99 with the Supreme Silver/Oil Caps(with electroharmonix gold ins). I've owned the Sit-2 for about a year now and it's probably the most transparent amp I have ever owned. Quite impressive really. I can't say the amp has a particular sound in that it will just present exactly what is presented to it. So you really need to pick your front end to taste. you can make it as lush/tubey or as neutral as you want it. What it does convey is detail in spades.

I wanted to revive this thread in case anyone had recently auditioned the SIT amps with a good DHT preamp.

I am currently using a sit 2 from Nelson. It's very quiet and very dynamic. I use a tvr for pre amplification. The First few days have been very impressive. It will drive even my 89db bright stars, but shines with the triangles. For jazz I use omega 3s or the Abby's. it has a huge sound stage with well controlled bass and sweet midrange. It seems to work it all sorts of types of music so far.

This is my third amp from Nelson. I have the f5, powerful but slightly dry, the F3 smooth dynamic perfect for jazz with single source or efficient multi driver speakers.

I recommend a trial from Reno Hi Fi, talk to Mark.

Brawny, you comment on bass from the SIT amp. Yet your Avant Garde speakers uses a plate amp with crossover ranging from 60-350hz. What do you mean by this? Thanks.

Jon ver Halen pointed me to this. In my experience systems where this sort of noise has occurred have high impedance in the source. This is why I have the input buffer option on the SIT amps.

Thanks much for your reply. The SIT amp sounds very intriguing. Hope to audition one in the near future.

The SIT-1 runs pretty hot for a solid state amp. Sort of like the old Bedini Class A amps did. SIT-2 runs quite warm too. These are definitely NOT cool-running boxes like Class D amps are. On the other hand, I don't think this is at all pertinent to season. No reason not to run the same gear year round.

Phil

From an operational standpoint, do the SIT's run hot or are they similar to Class D? While I love my tube amps, it would be nice to have a good sounding alternative that could be run during the Summer months.

Phil,
You have described in the past the sound of various components that I`ve also heard(ARC for one example) with dead on accuracy(I share your conclusions).I`d put much weight on your SIT-1 impressions. This appears to be an exceptional amplifier.Given your detailed comparison I imagine I`d like it quite a lot but probably not to the point of it replacing my current amplifier.Those 'special' qualities of good DHT SET amps are mandatory for my ultimate enjoyment.

Thanks for taking the time to reply with such useful insight.
Charles,
Best Regards,

I heard one of the SIT amps recently, and it sounded very good, fuller and richer than other First Watt amps also demo'd.

One concern I might have is how many of these SIT devices exist. It's not the same as availability of NOS tubes.

>>Did any of the SIT amps exhibit any noise or crackling sounds that you could hear through the loudspeakers? <<

Both SIT-2 and SIT-1s were dead-quiet in any practical snese, in my two encounters with them.

Phil

>>...would you say the SIT-1 is'more'resolved, nuance,faster and extended<<

Audion amps, whether SET or Push-Pull have a uniquely fast and transparent aural fingerprint, so I don't hear the SIT-1 as "faster" than the amps I prefer. In fact, in some respects I'd say a conventional Pass transistor amp sounds a bit faster than does the SIT. I also don't hear it as able to reveal more nuance nor is it more resolved. As to the latter, let me say that I don't hear the Audion SET amps leaving anything out that I can otherwise hear through the SIT-1. But the presentation of resolution is asserted more by the start of the note than the finish, if you understand my meaning. The SET amps lead a little more softly and finish with more "glow" or decay. But the momentary event is fully present through either amp. Will some people *perceive* the slightly softer leading edge of SET as less resolved than the SIT solid state amp? Maybe, and I can understand why. But that's not how I would rank the two different presentations.

As for extension, in the room I listened in, with recordings I am familiar with on my own systems, I did not hear deeper bass information with the SIT-1 (nor the SIT-2) than with SET, but the definition and agility of the sub 100Hz region is superior on the SIT amp -- either one of them. I'll venture that Dominance's extra measure of dynamic ease over Definitions is also apparent in the downfiring sub, by a discernible margin. So in a larger room with much more power, that speaker can deliver bass authority that might be mistaken for more "range," but where it might dig deeper I think that's relevant on very few recordings. As for the SIT amps, I haven't heard deeper-than-SET in either case, but the SIT amps reproduce bass more precisely, which is good.

On the top end, the Radian 850 is exceedlingly resolved and smooth at the same time, but it is not a hyper-extended tweeter for the ultra-sonic obsessives. Both the Audion SET amps and the SIT amps have top end response exceeding the flat response of the tweeter. Again, the presentation of top end information is different, but the presence of it is the same. I have this debate all the time with people who believe they like p-p tube or ss amps over good SET. With the Audion amps, all the information is present on top, that you get from the SIT (either one) but the sonic profile is somewhat different.

Where things get dicey from a value standpoint is: would I choose a single-ended SIT amp with tunable bias over a very simple-circuit push-pull tube amp like a Quad II Classic or Quad II-Forty, at $3k - $4k for the tubes and $10k for the SIT monoblocks? I would definitely pick the Quads over the SIT-2. The SIT-1 is a tougher call if cost is discounted and only sound is the selector. SIT-1 has the tonal unity of SET, which even the simplest p-p can't quite duplicate, but the simple Quads do better on dynamic heft and deliver the whole note with a minimum of crossover notch grunge. Not so with more complicated and massed-push-pull mad-power tube amps. With efficient speakers, I'd take SIT-1 monoblocks over any modern overwrought push-pull tube amp featuring more than one pair of tetrode or pentode tubes per channel.

Phil

213cobra,

Good write-up! I couldn't agree more, that the SIT amps could uses a little more power and headroom. Did any of the SIT amps exhibit any noise or crackling sounds that you could hear through the loudspeakers?

Hi Phil,
That was an interesting and informative read(as always). Compared to your Audion SET amps(845 and 300b) would you say the SIT-1 is'more'resolved, nuance,faster and extended(Srajan found these qualities superior with the SIT-1)? Calling it the best SS amp you`ve heard is high praise.
Regards,

An update on my experience with the First Watt SIT:

I had an opportunity over the weekend to hear a pair of SIT-1 mono amps in a system separate from the one in which I heard the SIT-2, but sharing some characteristics.

Both systems are in Rives-treated rooms and both are built around Zu speakers. The more completely Rives-treated room housed a system built around Zu Dominance loudspeakers. The other room had a system built around Zu Definition Mk 4 loudspeakers. I heard the SIT-2 in the Definitions system, and the SIT-1 in the Domance system. Both systems used digital sources, Meridian with Dominance and Berkeley with Definitions. I'll say that the DACs share essential traits of very clean presentation, quiet noise floor and tonal asceticism. The Meridian/Dominance system used a Pass preamp. The Berkeley/Definition system used a McIntosh C2300 preamp.

For context, let me say a few things about the speakers. Dominance is easily the finest speaker I've heard by any maker, under any circumstances in my entire audio life. It possesses the essential Zu qualities of crossoverless behavioral unity, frequency neutrality, tone density, convincing spatial dimensioning, revealing resolution, dynamic agility, scalar integrity, amp friendliness and easy drive -- all honed to an extreme level of aural competence. Dominance does more right in the presentation of music than any speaker I know of. It demolishes the pretense of the industry's most egregiously expensive efforts. That said, Definition 4 clearly inherited the essence of Dominance and sounds amazingly similar within its scalar limits, given Definition is about 1/4th the price. Where Dominance vaults beyond Definition 4 is in focus and precision of the spatial presentation (including the solidity of the aural holographic illusion), complete absence of cabinet talk, greater dynamic accommodation before congestion, even more authority and agility to the bottom end, generally even less coloration and I believe Dominance is a bit more efficient. Take everything good about Definition 4 and improve it linearly, then add new capabilities in focus, burstiness and (despite more drivers) behavioral unity. Let me put a finer point on it: Dominance is the first and only loudspeaker I've ever heard that impresses me as a lifetime purchase. Buy them; install them; you're done. So, did I hear the SIT-2 through better speakers and into a more corrected room? Yes. But the two systems had similar basic properties that were useful for rough and impressionistic evaluation of the two SIT amps.

Having heard both, I stand by my earlier expectation (and general rule) that when the same topology is implemented as stereo or mono amps, the monoblocks will be better, if you can afford the difference. In this case, SIT-1 monoblocks are $10,000/pr., against $5,000 for the stereo amp. In this case, the Dominance system is in a somewhat over-damped room, whereas the Definitions system is in a room that has a lighter Rives treatment, eats bass, but is still on the lively side elsewhere. With only 10w per channel available from either SIT amp, the dual power supplies give the SIT-1 perceptibly more dynamic ease, especially when crescendo dynamics hit both channels at once. For me, this is valuable, especially with low-power amplifiers. But this is the minor improvement of SIT-1 over SIT-2.

Where SIT-2 left me disappointed by the way it tamps down the finish of a note compared to a well-designed SET amp, SIT-1 has a variable that lets you get closer to genuine SET musicality. The SIT-1 manual bias control introduces a measure of tunability to the amp's musicality that drives differences more than subtle and less than stark. The basic traits of the SIT prevail: clean, absence of grain and grit, very good tone for solid state, deep and agile bass, effective aural neutrality. But you can favor 2nd order harmonics, roundness and warmth, or push the sound in the direction of pentode-like definition with the speed of simple circuits....or anything in between. The perception of tube-like note decay is variable too, and while getting the "whole note" isn't as complete an experience as with a well-implemented SET circuit, you can get appreciably closer than with SIT-2 and its static configuration. Ironically, the owner of the amps and I preferred mildly-different settings, but both were within the same realm of essential rightness. He owns solid state but preferred his bias controls set for warmth and 2nd order harmonic profile; I own fast and transparent SET but preferred the bias controls set for more elevated definition while keeping good tone. Within its dynamic limits, the SIT-1, in a stereo pair, is the best communicator of music through solid state amplification I've heard, and you get some latitude for how much you want it to emulate a clean and ascetic Pass SS amp, for example, or towards the amber tint of the most romantic triodes. SIT-1 is never going to sound less than highly credible, however you voice it. But you are voicing it regardless where you prefer the bias control be set. It wold further benefit in this system, from a more expressive preamp.

I wouldn't give up my Audion SET amps for a pair of SIT-1s. But for someone (like the owner) who is acutely bothered by the slightly higher noise floor of SET or has other reasons to eschew vacuum tube amplification of any topology yet appreciates tube sound for its convincing musicality, SIT-1 allows you to get closer than does SIT-2, and by a margin that I consider significant enough to say that I hear SIT-1 as being a higher value point at $10,000 than SIT-2 is at $5,000. Put another way, I would not own SIT-2, but if I didn't already have excellent SET amps, SIT-1 would be satisfying. I can only say that about the McIntosh MC1.2kw (specifically), the Larvardin, and now this SIT-1 -- and it's the SIT-1 that sounds tonally most authentic among these. Its major weakness is its power limit. Neither SIT amp delivers the sense of headroom and grace near clipping that a good tube amp does. I'd love to hear a parallel single-ended SIT amp.

I still want to hear SIT-1s driven by a DHT preamp, to hear whether Srajan's postulate about the leap in results is true for me. But this was one step further in gaining experience with these amps.

One more thing: the Dominance system I listened to also had a QOL processor connected. I switched it out (bypass) for all of my evaluations of the amplifiers and speakers but did some comparative listening, QOL engaged and disengaged. Spatially, the QOL is entertaining. In that respect it seemed like a vastly-refined implementation of the early SRS outboard processors. It expanded the soundstage width only marginally, but it tended to expand the spaces between instruments/performers within the soundstage, and anything away from the center was pushed further away from the center and toward the soundstage perimeter. The presentation of holographic depth was enhanced but not always realistically. The spatial effects would be thoroughly entertaining with movies. It was expansively entertaining with music but not in a way that impressed me as more realistic. With the QOL switched in, I thought the sound became tonally less authentic though dynamically more exciting. Any voice sounded tonally more human with QOL out than in. Leading trainsients of notes and percussive events are definitely enhanced in positive ways. The dynamic clarity and transient precision are improved but the downside is that the balance of attack v. decay is altered from what sounds most authentic, at least to me. In nearly three hours of listening, there wasn't any music that the QOL made sound more authentic to me, but it was consistently able to make any disc sound more exciting, whether the "excitement" was in the original recording or not. I do agree it seems to recover some definitional information that sounds like it's not artificially derived. If that quality could be better isolated from the less natural spatial warps and disturbances to the attack/decay balance, it might prove aurally valuable. But not yet, for me. It has the trait, upon immediate swithover from engaged to disengaged, to make make either one sound incorrect for a lingering moment. But lingering always led me back to having QOL out of the circuit. Others may have a different preference. Hearing the QOL makes it obvious why it's controversial.

Phil

Hi Vicks7,

Sorry, I have responded to your post sooner. I was on vacation for few days. Audiopax was sold and distributed hear in the U.S. for a years. Jim Smith initially did a great job of promoting the Audiopax amplifiers. Unfortunately, Audiopax managed to develop a reputation for poor customer service during that time. I know one customer who waited months to get his Model 88's repaired. I know a Audiopax dealer who had to wait 11 months for one of his amps to get repaired. I came very close to purchasing a pair of Model 88's myself. A friend in the industry, convinced me not to because of Audiopax 's poor reputation for service.

Eventually, Audiopax ran into U.S. distribution and dealer issues. To make matters worse, their U.S. retail prices sky-rocketed in a short amount of time. The devaluation of the American dollar didn't help either. In addition, Audiopax was constantly fiddling with the designs. Often swapping out different parts. It got to the point where no one knew what version of the product they had received or getting because no two were alike.

There is no doubt that Eduardo De Lima is a really nice guy and a very talented designer. However, it takes a lot more than these attributes to run a successful company. Performance, value, quality, and service is what I look for in a company. And I always initially look for these things from domestic companies. I do understand that Audiopax restructured. That still does not change the past. I do hope they get it together, and develop a track record for great customer service. Until they do, I would be very hesitant and cautious in purchasing any Audiopax product. It's just too much money to gamble with. I wish you the best of luck with your new amps!

Brawny,
Just off topic but I read your comments on Audiopax. I agree that there was a period when Audiopax may have lost their way - I believe in part due to the fact that Eduardo is best placed to be allowed to design and create and to leave customer support to others. The company has now been restructured and I believe many agree that they are much more responsive to providing proper customer service. I am of course heavily invested in the product so cannot say I do not have any skin in the game - but I do believe they are wonderful amplifiers from the new version of the Model 88 to the Maggiore 100 which I have purchased.
James

I imagine that Allnic L5000 DHT linestage sounds fantastic.
Regards,

I know this discussion is about current production SIT, but I had a Sony TA 5650 VFET amp in the day for ten years before it failed and was very fond of it. SIT and VFET are different designations for the same kind of voltage controlled transistor type.

I have had a variety of tube amps, both push pull and SET and own several SET amps at the moment and three DHT based preamps.

I recently acquired one of the Sony TA 4650 VFET amps to use as a phono amp in a second location.

The phono amp uses a small signal VFET in the RIAA gain circuit, which then goes to a single small signal FET gain stage, and then feeds the push pull amplifier stage in this model. One can switch in or out the tone control stage which adds another small signal FET stage.

My thoughts about the VFET on hearing it again is that it most definitely is superior to most standard solid state amps.

The sound is very "fast" with the ability to image with enormous specificity in the sound stage in three dimensions.

The tonality is natural, with a non fatiguing character, unlike most transistor devices. The VFET has an analog sounding pulse response.

The dynamics are open and liquid, like DHT tubes.

Where it differs is that it does not quite have the "charm" factor of good DHT designs, and the tonal decay is sharper, without the more sumptuous resonant tails that SET designs have. The tonality of the VFET device is natural but a bit on the shallow side compared to tubes.

I have found that coupling DHT preamps with good solid state amps is an outstanding combination for some reason. I would not have thought that DHT preamp would synergies well with solid state amps, but they do, and sound very good that way.

Haven't tried the DHT preamps with the VFET yet, they are at different locations, but may get another VFET to try with Manley 300b preamp*.

Thanks for the response. I never purchased the Audiopax amps because they had reliability and major service issues. When the folks representing a company have a hard time getting service I can only imagine what customers had to go through to get service. It's a shame because Eduardo from Audiopax was/is a talented designer. However, there is much more to running a business than designing product.

I owned and demoed a couple of 45 amps in my system. With Jazz, blues, and vocal type music they sounded fantastic. When music got complicated and needed power and drive the 45 amps faltered a bit. I listen to a lot of rock, classic rock, and classical music. Often times loud and sometimes very loud :) Even though Avantgarde loudspeakers are very efficient, I find they still need more than 10-20 watts to get them to really open up. I once heard Avantgarde Duos driven by BAT VK-150SE tubes amps and they sounded effortless. Dynamics that smaller amps just can not do. Musical preferences and type of presentation the listener is looking for are huge determining factors that influence an amplifier choice.

I found that the SIT amp met most of my needs in an amp. It could use more power and drive and in my case less noise. If you ever do demo the SIT amp, please let us know your thoughts and if you run into the noise issues that I ran into. FYI, Reno HiFi that represents First watt gave me great service.Take it easy.

Hi Brawny,

thank you.

I will try not to divert this thread, but in answer to your question I do not have the bass horns, but obviously have their active subs which work very well & cut in around 90hz.

There is alway an element of set up to get the best out of any speaker. But once you get a feel for what they do it's ok. There was a period of break in & understanding what sounded best.

I have not tried the audiopax but have read good things about it. I've also heard about problems with them too.

I have been lucky enough to have tried many great amps on the AG. Many I could have lived with including the Tom Evans. I was told that the 45 would not power the Trio due to the xover. But I have had no problems in my room which is an average size. Maybe in a bigger room i would have problems.

To get back on topic if I had a concern it would be about the usual tube issues.

The bass on the Trio with SS is mind blowing. It's so present. But the 45 had such wonderful texture that I don't mind losing some crispness. This is why I had high hopes for the SIT.

My feeling is amps should sound similar as they should just amplify. But unfortunately this is not true. Hense the long journey

Hey Chadeffect,

Nice system! Do you have the basshorns with your Trios? How big is your room? I've got the Avantgarde Duo Primos, which is one model down from the Trios. At the time I purchased them, I was contemplating getting the Trios with basshorns. I was told that the Duo Primos were easier to set-up and did not require as big of a room to sound their best. Have you thought about acoustic room treatment for your listening room? Professional acoustic room treatment (ASC, RPG, & etc.) was/is, by far, the biggest upgrade I made to my system. I know it sounds like hyperbole, but the room treatment transformed my listening experience.

The Audiopax Model 88 tube amplifiers (look like toasters:) were probably the most natural and best sounding amps that I heard on the Avantgarde line of loudspeakers. However, those amps didn't/don't do the creamy three-dimensional harmonic tube thing (like a good 45 amp) that many tube guys tend to seek out. The SIT amp is the best solid state amp that I heard on my Avantgarde loudspeakers. If the SIT had one weakness I thought it was in the dynamics department, which I thought was a slight weakness with Audiopax Model 88's.

I'll try not to make this into a tubes versus solid-state debate since I like both. I don't want the music I listen to on my system highly influenced, changed, colored, or editorialized by tubes, cables, electronics, power, and by the room. I believe that the best sounding tube and solid-state amps sound a lot closer than most people would be willing to admit. Tube amps by Coincident, Audiopax, Art Audio PX-25, Wyetech, and Yamamoto along with solid-state amps by First Watt, Pass, and Sugden are all great sounding amps that share many of the same attributes.

Hi Chad, I understand your point,but even in a recording studio that enviroment is not the so called'ink black' background of silence. But really overall it`s just a minor point I had thoughts on. Ultimately what ever one desires in their audio playback they should pursue.(no arguement there).
Regards,

Hi charles1dad,

If the recording has a tomb like silence then surely the playback of the recording should too? In other words if there is nothing there, there should be nothing, & if there is something there should be something.

I have had amplifiers like the Halcro where the recording leaps out at you from nowhere.

Even the Tom Evans Linear A (which is tubed) did this. I'm not sure the SET, for all it's positives, can do this. Even though the linear A is a kind of SET! But you understand what I'm getting at? Anything else is masking detail.

Phil/Keith,

Let me know if something comes to fruition, i'd be happy to lug over my Shindo Cortese for comparison.

Can I say I was ahead of the curve? I spent the last 3-4 years trying to get more info on these amps, but only a couple were being manufactured in Japan.
Well I had the yamaha B2 amps, which were great. Unfortunately I did not have it long enough to experiment.
The sound I rememeber is is definitely ss, but without the harshness, more liquid and smooth. What drove me to this technology was the rise time, it's very similar to tubes also it's switching characteristics.
If you are interested in SIT amps and are not sure, I would definitely try the DigitalDoMain B2a amps. I guess there in a pedigree in this tech. If you are adventurous, I would also look into Maxonic, they may make a new amp, hybrid tube and SIT.

Chad,
Does that "tomb like silence" seem natural to you? I find the 'ultra' silence or blackness artificial, as no background is that quiet(like outer space vacuum). I believe tube background ambience is the more realistic one in nature. Just an opinion that`s all.
Regards,

While I'd love to hear the SIT amps it looks like you need to spend a lot of money ($10K for monoblocks plus additional for single stage DHT preamp)to essentially approximate what a good SET already gives you for a lot less. On top of that, you will also be stuck with a sonic signature that you can't change. If I want to alter the sound in any of my tube amps I can simply change brand of tubes. Will keep an open ear on the subject but have been disappointed in my ventures into the land of high end SS amps. I really want to hear a SS amp that I can love - at least for the summer months so I can avoid using my tube space heaters.

Charles1dad,

when I say noise, I don't mean the old school noise from bad circuits. When I talk about noise here, i mean when compared with that tomb like silence one can get from SS or class D efforts.

Ok my speakers are very revealing due to their sensitivity, but I don't mean I hear hiss or hum from the yammy. Just a kind of glow around instruments.

Let's face it if that SS amp turns up that's capable of the magic we would all jump ship. Apart from the hair shirt brigade of course...

Well `I`m off to see jazz trombonist Delfaeyo Marsalis who`s in town for a few days. This jazz club acoustic instrument venue will always be my reference point.I wish more high end designers would model their sound/components to mimic this type of natural sound rather than the direction some have chosen.
Regards,

This thread has been very interesting and thought provoking. I believe the Frist Watt SIT amp is an exceptional product and genuine achievement. I also believe it will out perform many SET amplifiers,It all depends on one`s reference point and past SET amp exposure.There are noticeable quality/performance levels among these amps and a certain hierarchy is in place. Some SET amplifiers are indeed colored,slow,soft, too warm,rolled off etc, Others will demostrate supreme speed,openess,tone,dynamics etc.

My feeling is the true top tier SET amplifiers will out perform the SIT amp in certain vital areas of music reproduction and tactile realism- emotional connection. The SIT amps may have certain advantages in the 'hifi' realm/parameters i.e. image focus,transient speed,'tight' bass(perhaps less natural bass bloom or texture?).
Regards,

Chad,
Noise is`nt an issue in my system at all.With your 107db sensitive speakers(mine are 94 db) It could be. As to expense, yes my Takatsuki 300b pair is very expensive. Their perforformance is extraordinary! and I`d continue to buy them again in a heartbeat for the sheer joy and pleasure they provide. When SS amps equal this ability I`ll be very interested.

Keithr,
Thank you for your insight.
It seems Phil`s impression nailed the essential differences between the amplifiers and in the end it will boil down to taste and sonic vitues that are cherish most.Complete note substain-decay is a quality I won`t compromise, this loss is too significant in order to get bass a bit tighter or faster.It`s easy to understand the variance between Phil and Srajan.
Regards,

Charles1Dad-

I liked the SIT-2 very much, although wondered if it was a bit dynamically limited- above 92dbs or so I could hear it distorting in my room. It doesn't have tube decay, so is still a different sound than tube- but it has a very similar midrange to great SETs. I was really astonished by it's sound at times.

I ran it with a McIntosh C2300 tube preamp w/ NOS teles, so clearly not a DHT preamp. I really don't have interest in the monos as they don't increase power. Doesn't seem like anywhere worth 2x the $, bias adjustment or not. The gem of the line is the stereo version imo.

Charles1dad,

I want to avoid tubes for a few reasons.

1 they are inconvenient.
2 they are inefficient.
3 they are expensive to replace.
4 they are noisey.

But some tube amps & tubes do sound excellent. I am with you regarding the SET organic & holistic sound. I cannot seem to be able to beat my 2w amp for sonic bliss.

The systems that have lasted the longest & provided the most joy for me have been with tube power amplification. With all the new technologies and ideas that have come in the many years since the tube was invented, I find it hard to believe tubes have not been superseded in all areas.

As for luck finding an SS amp that's capable of such virtues? I have found absolutely none...yet.

Can the SIT be the start of this road? By the sound of it probably not (pardon the pun).

Why has no one got an SET a logarithm that comes on a chip? You plug it into a highly efficient amp stage with earth shattering spec and job done. You decide if you want a 45 mesh sound or a 300b or whatever to drive any speaker?

Come on its the 21st century. Do I really have to continue with this 100 year old glassware from an age of steam engines?

Chad,
Why the need to avoid tubes? They obviously provide that something special your prior SS amps lacked or you`d kept one of them. Your Yamamoto SET is very simple,straight forward and reliable like my Frankenstein(minimal fuss). The tubes in these amps last for thousands of hours. Just continue to enjoy your wonderful system.I`ve been in pure musical bliss since I discovered SET amps with high efficient/easy load speakers.People talk about SET colorations, I can`t speak for all SET amps but the Frankenstein is more accurate to real instruments and voice than any SS amp I`ve heard. I`d imagine you feel the same regarding your Yamamoto.Realism and natural/organic- holistic sound is most important to me.This is what generates the emotion and utter involvement of music.Good luck finding that with SS amps.Could the SIT-1 be it finally?
Regards,

Srajanebaen,

I read the SIT review and felt you were claiming that the SIT could possibly replace a DHT SET in most areas. I am interested in the SIT but suspect its the same old SS compromise.

I have been chasing the ultimate amplifier for many years. Probably like many here.

I surprised myself when I settled for a Yamamoto A08s. I installed it with EML mesh 45 and EML mesh 80, then with modified power caps (mundorf tube & silver gold in oil) and the coupling caps replaced (DuelundVSF copper). These mods & tubes I believe have taken the A08s as far as it can go.

The A08s is as you know it, but with more width,depth, slightly cleaner,less grain and a striking organicness. I believe this very adictive organic sound is helped by the duelunds coupling caps, & the extra detail is down to the mundorfs forcing more info to these coupling caps, but the duelunds remove any etching the mundorf can add. I tried many allternates before settling here.

Many amps (Tom Evans Linear/Halcro DM/ Yamamoto A011/Audio note conq/etc etc) have come to drive my AGs, and some do somethings things better. I.e lower noise floor.improved bass control, image size and so on. But within hours I'm bored by these amps. Whether they are tube or SS.

There is a harmonic beauty in the 45 tube especially with the mesh plated EML which helps music speak. Upon reading your review of the SIT I suspect this harmonic magic is not available to the SIT. Although you gain the usual SS attributes. Would you agree?

I think the Tom Evans is a excellent amp on my Trios though possibly a little forward. Would you say the SIT is more in the Tom Evans vain?I.e clean, fast with harmonic texture, but not as beautiful as a DHT SET.

I just wish for an amp that would remove the need for tubes.

>>Anyway, no I do not think the SIT amp was over damped, but remember I was coming from the First Watt M2 to the SIT.<<

Adjacent to the FW M2, which is very good SS in its own right, the SIT-2 sounds liquid and lingering by comparison. So from that perspective of amps sequence I fully understand Brawny's view of it.

Phil

Brawny and Phil with different perspectives (no surprise, different ears).Chad you`re going to have to bite the bullet and hear this amp in your system. It`d be very interesting how it compares to your modified Yamamoto SET amplifier.

Chadeffect,

Sorry, for not coming back and answering your question. I was out of town for couple weeks. After a few weeks, I thought this thread had disappeared. Anyway, no I do not think the SIT amp was over damped, but remember I was coming from the First Watt M2 to the SIT. If I was coming from a tube amp, then maybe I would think differently. I owned a number of nice (BAT, Art Audio, Cy Breeneman, and etc.) tube amps and just got tired of the hassle of tubes. Yes, the midrange and emotional impact is excellent, but the drawbacks (maintenance, reliability, colorization of sound, mediocre at frequency extremes, and etc.) just got to be too much. Convenience and hassle-free operation is important to me. That's why I got rid of my turntable in 1986, and never looked back.

I have had my differences with Srajan's writing style, but I think he eventually got the SIT-1 review right. Although, the last few pages of the review he rambled and was all over the map. Remember, Srajan was one of the biggest tube amplifier proponents for years. He has listened and reviewed every one of the First Watt amps and he seems to understand the character of each amp in his system. I'm sure in other systems the character of these amps might slightly change. That's why I think potential owners need to demo and listen to them in their own system.

The SIT 2 was/is the finest sounding solid-state sounding amp that I have ever heard with my horns. I have domed, owner and/or heard very one of Nelson Pass' low Watt offerings. The SIT is special. If the noise issue hadn't reared its ugly head, then I would still own the amp. If Nelson or I can figure out what was causing the noise in my system and alleviate it, then I will more than likely be the owner of the SIT-1 or SIT-2 amps.

Keithr,
What is your opinion of the SIT-2 amplifier driving the Zu Defs? Do you have an interest in auditioning the SIT-1 versions?

Hi Phil,
Reading Srajan`s complete review of the SIT-1 amplifier, he made the distinction of "single gain stage" DHT linestages as opposed to merely DHT tube based. Will you be able to get a single stage version?I may have to saddle up my horse and head west with the Coincident Linestage.
Regards,

Jcote- I would love to hear your Cortese at some point.

I've had the SIT-2, various SETs, and many others in my Zu Def4-based room. I currently am using Quads.

Cheers,

KeithR

I ordered a pair of SIT-2 amps a few months ago for bi-amping the horns on my Avantgarde Duo Omega G2 speakers. The amps won't be delivered until mid-August at the earliest, so in the meantime I'm looking forward to read about your findings.