Thoughts on the First Watt SIT Amps

Any further experiences with these amps? I am thinking of trading in my XA30.5 for the SIT-2 to drive a pair of Druids.

I'll say at the outset that I do not think the Pass 30.5 mates well to Zu speakers, so having heard both, I think the SIT amp will be a clear improvement.

The SIT amp is very smooth and articulate. It is among the two or three most natural solid state amps available at any price; and to put it another way it is one of the two or three least objectionable solid state amps you can buy. Within its power limits, it's listenable and satisfying -- if you've never had a better tube amp. Even on Zu at 101db/w/m, the amp's dynamic compression is evident at high but not deafening SPL. Its primary deficiency compared to a range of good tube amps is that while the transient events are defined, impactful and clear, decay is over-damped. You don't get "the whole note," compared to more complete amplifiers. But the SIT amp does have much more tonal depth natural space than the XA30.5 (which is exceedingly clean in its own right).

That's my view of it. If I were committed to solid state for Druids, SIT and Lavardin would probably be my contending choices.

Phil

Brawny,

would you agree with Phil and say the SIT is over damped? Does the SIT have any magic or is it more SS and a little devoid of the life a great SET would have?

Phil wrote,
"Decay is over damped. You don`t get the whole note".Phil I appreciate your input/impression very much.The SIT amplifier does intrigue me but I really wonder if it can duplicate what the Coincident Frankenstein(or other really good SET amps)do so well. I`m referring to full body tone,weight,harmonics,decay, inner nuance etc. In other words those qualities that make good SET so natural and real sounding compared to most other types of amplifiers.
Phil were you able to hear the SIT in your system? I know S.Ebaen of 6 Moons prefers it to any DHT SET amplifier.I do respect his opinions but we may very well have different listening preferences and sound/music presentation priorities.Exceptional SET amps IMO provide that 'breath of life' quality that many other amps seem to lack.
regards,

I heard the SIT in a friend's system I know well, on the same speakers as mine -- Zu Definition IV. I gave it every benefit of doubt and *wanted* to like it more than I do. It is very good solid state. However, the SIT amp cannot, will not, does not equal the tonal integrity, harmonic completeness, natural note decay and depth of nuance that well-implemented SET topology does. There are SET amps that I wouldn't buy which the SIT amp can beat, but those amps are irrelevant. The SIT amp won't satisfy someone already accustomed to SET at the level of implementation achieved in the Frankenstein, nor any SET amp Audion makes, for example.

It really isn't persuasive to me what anyone at 6Moons thinks. No one there has more listening experience than I do, so I have no particular reason to defer to Ebaen for time spent in audio nor range of gear. On the other hand everyone has different experience regardless of cumulative time in the pursuit, and 6Moons generally seeks musicality. If SIT works for him, fine. It falls considerably short for me. If for some reason I absolutely had to abandon tubes for transistors, then SIT is one of two or three next best alternatives. But I'm not abandoning SET nor tubes. Even a properly re-tubed pair of Quad II amps (push-pull, remember) with healthy capacitors will beat SIT in every musically-significant way except deep bass definition.

Phil