Thoughts on the First Watt SIT Amps

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

Hello Phil,
I also like the 6 moons approach with their emphasis on musicality and feel that Srajan is very effective at putting into words what he hears. I don`t view him or anyone as a 'guru' however. Your further description of the SIT amp is what I suspected(short of hearing it myself).Your familiarity with the Frankenstein amp obviously adds relevance in my situation. As you clearly explain, there seem to be exclusive qualities in the 'good'DHT SET amplifiers(that matter most to me)that are very difficult for other amps to duplicate(even though they have other strengths of their own). Thanks again for your up close insight.
Regards,

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