Jcote,
Room for anything. The hard part is getting a pair of SIT-1 and a DHT preamp in my house at the same time. Working on it, and will come back to let you know.
Phil |
Is there room for Shindo to join this listening session? I'm in Long Beach so just a stones throw from LA. |
Phil,
I look forward to this report.I`ll be patient.
Regards, |
Charles - I'm in Los Angeles. Put your Coincident under your arm and saddle up. Will update the thread when I eventually arrange this.
Phil |
Phil,
When you do get the chance to hear the SIT-1 amp with a DHT single stage preamp I`d love to read your impressions. If you lived nearby(Michigan) I`d certainly lend you my Coincident Linestage for comparison(and Frankenstein amp also).
Regards, |
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.
At the moment I have no reason to believe that putting a DHT preamp in front of the SIT will correct truncated note decay, nor the dynamic compression due to limited power and headroom. I agree the SIT amp has better bass control than any SET amp I can think of. I don't agree that it meaningfully outresolves every SET amp (though certainly many or even most), at least not in any way consistent with how instruments actually sound instead of how they sound close-mic'd and hot in the mix. But there's another thing: It's not just ears and mind but the body. There is a state of engagement, involvement -- full-body response, that I reliably experience listening to live performance. I have never had the identical full body response to recorded music played through transistor amplification nor through any push-pull vacuum tube amplifier. Nor, of course, to live music heard exclusively through electronic processing and conventional amplification. I did not have it with the SIT-2 either. The sound was "over there." I have the same full-body response listening to recorded music that I can have with a live orchestra, for example, only with a small range of exceptional SET amplification and crossoverless speakers. It's not "similar." It's the same organic response. I don't even have to analyze what I'm hearing. I feel it, in binary fashion. It's there or it's not. It's always been that way for me. Many times when I have noticed a small change in a sound system, it's because of what I felt before hearing something I can immediately pinpoint. Give me a solid state amp that can induce the same full-body engagement in recorded playback that I can get with certain SET aplification or upon hearing it live, and I'll buy it.
I am intrinsically interested in hearing proof that the SIT devices can compete with high-grade SET implementations. I want Nelson Pass' adventurism to pay off. He's always pushing in the right direction for the right reasons. I'd like an electrically more efficient and consistent successor to a high-heat triode tube if the sound warrants. Put another way, I am predisposed to like the SIT amps but the actual sound hasn't moved me yet. It's closer than other solid state options offered so far so I'll give it every chance to convince me.
Phil |
Hello Srajan,
I thought you made these points clearly in your review. I believe also that phil heard what he so very clearly described. All this means to me is the two of you simply value different sonic attributes and as a result individual preference hierarchies will naturally exist.
I suspect my listening /sonic taste probably(even though I use a DHT single gain preamp) are more in line with phil(as those differences he heard the DHT SET excel matter most to me). As always horses for courses.Thankfully there are choices for nearly all taste.I`d still like to hear the SIT amps if the opprotunity arises.
Regards, |
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... |
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. |
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 |
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, |
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 |
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, |
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 |
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, |
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? |
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 |
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. |
Very informative. Thank you for the write-up! |
Hi,
I owned the First watt SIT-2 amp for about a month. It was driving a pair of Avantgarde Duo Primo loudspeakers that are 107 db efficient. Unfortunately, an issue developed and I was forced to return it.
When I initially received the SIT-2, it was dead quiet. After three weeks, it started intermittently making a crackling static noise in the right channel. That went away, but a short time later, it started constantly making the crackling static noise in the left channel. It was noticeable during soft passages of music. I thought the amp had developed an issue. I was sent out a second another SIT-2 amp. The second SIT-2 amp immediately made the same static crackling noise in the right channel. I was told that SIT amp does make a popcorn type noise that can change over time.
I ultimately returned the SIT-2 and got back my First Watt M2 amp, which was/is very quiet. I was a little bummed-out because the SIT-2 was dead quiet when I first received it is an absolutely fantastic unique sounding amp. However, the First Watt M2 is very close and has a couple of advantages.
The SIT amp is an extremely open sounding amp. The most open sounding solid-state amp that I have ever heard. It throws a huge soundstage. The SIT's midrange sounds like it is lit-up and glows from within. Music and voices sound very intimate and real. With the SIT amp, vocals tend to be more diffuse and further back in the soundstage. With the M2, vocals are more dense and slightly more forward. This quality in the M2 allows you to make out words in songs easier. The M2 is definitely more dynamic with harder hitting bass than the SIT amp.
After owning the SIT amp for the month, I'm a little surprised at how close the SIT and M2 are to each other. If you could combine the attributes of each, you would probably have the perfect solid-state amp.
I would like to say that Mark at Reno Hi-Fi gave me fantastic customer service! He was attentive to the issues and took care of me immediately. He even paid all of the shipping charges for multiple amps each way! I couldn't have asked for better service. Who says you can't get great customer service these days? He has customer for life.
|
