2. amps-preamps
  3. 1337175928

Thoughts on the First Watt SIT Amps

Has anyone bought the First Watt SIT amp (either model)? If so, tell us your thoughts compared to previous amps you've had.
mdeblanc
charles1dad's avatar
charles1dad
10,250 posts
 
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,
213cobra
885 posts
 
>>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
chadeffect
586 posts
 
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and ideas that have come in the many years since the tube was invented, I find it hard to believe tubes have not been superseded in all areas.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?
keithr
1,306 posts
 
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's avatar
charles1dad
10,250 posts
 
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,
More to discover