On Fri, 25 Mar 2011 15:58:10 -0000, "David"
wrote:

I used to have a Cyrus II, which is similar sounding but a little more
powerful.
They are by no means transparent but not bad little units.
Stereo separation is very good and the detail is pretty good for what they
are but they are very aggressive sounding, so need to be partnered with some
nice warm speakers.

D


I have a Cyrus II right here, playing now, and I can assure you that
the above is the purest gibberish. Frequency response is ruler flat
from 1Hz up, and distortion is as low as any comparable amplifier. It
has never shown any sign of aggression in all the years I have owned
it despite occasional provocation, and it reproduces faithfully every
detail fed into it.

d

"Don Pearce" wrote in message

On Fri, 25 Mar 2011 15:58:10 -0000, "David"
wrote:

I used to have a Cyrus II, which is similar sounding but
a little more powerful.
They are by no means transparent but not bad little
units.
Stereo separation is very good and the detail is pretty
good for what they are but they are very aggressive
sounding, so need to be partnered with some nice warm
speakers.

D


I have a Cyrus II right here, playing now, and I can
assure you that the above is the purest gibberish.

It is possible that a person who is used to non-flat power amps might find a
flat response power amp to be too agressive.

Frequency response is ruler flat from 1Hz up, and
distortion is as low as any comparable amplifier.

A quick glance at the schematic shows corner frequencies outside of the
normal audible range. IOW, subjectively uncolored.

It has never shown any sign of aggression in all the years I
have owned it despite occasional provocation, and it
reproduces faithfully every detail fed into it.

We've got people around here who seem to affect speakers that are about as
non-flat as possible, so all kinds of unusual perceptions are possible.

In article ,
Don Pearce wrote:
On Fri, 25 Mar 2011 15:58:10 -0000, "David"
wrote:

I used to have a Cyrus II, which is similar sounding but a little more
powerful. They are by no means transparent but not bad little units.
Stereo separation is very good and the detail is pretty good for what
they are but they are very aggressive sounding, so need to be
partnered with some nice warm speakers.

D


I have a Cyrus II right here, playing now, and I can assure you that
the above is the purest gibberish. Frequency response is ruler flat
from 1Hz up, and distortion is as low as any comparable amplifier. It
has never shown any sign of aggression in all the years I have owned
it despite occasional provocation, and it reproduces faithfully every
detail fed into it.

It might be some would describe the channel I had with out of spec low
quiescent current as 'aggressive'. I just called it distortion.

Listened to it off and on all of yesterday after fixing it. Replacing the
WS amp which is a home built 150W per channel mosfet. And sounds nice to
me. The Cyrus1 sounded no different.

--
*Certain frogs can be frozen solid, then thawed, and survive *

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

"Don Pearce" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 25 Mar 2011 15:58:10 -0000, "David"
wrote:

I used to have a Cyrus II, which is similar sounding but a little more
powerful.
They are by no means transparent but not bad little units.
Stereo separation is very good and the detail is pretty good for what they
are but they are very aggressive sounding, so need to be partnered with
some
nice warm speakers.

D


I have a Cyrus II right here, playing now, and I can assure you that
the above is the purest gibberish. Frequency response is ruler flat
from 1Hz up, and distortion is as low as any comparable amplifier. It
has never shown any sign of aggression in all the years I have owned
it despite occasional provocation, and it reproduces faithfully every
detail fed into it.

d

It's really odd the way some products get reputations that have nothing to
do with any technical performance. Quad amplifiers are smooth, Cyrus is
aggressive, Naim has PRaT, valves are warm, SETs are detailed and so on.

I blame the parents!..or is that the magazines?

S.

On Mon, 28 Mar 2011 18:03:06 +0100, "Serge Auckland"
wrote:


"Don Pearce" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 25 Mar 2011 15:58:10 -0000, "David"
wrote:

I used to have a Cyrus II, which is similar sounding but a little more
powerful.
They are by no means transparent but not bad little units.
Stereo separation is very good and the detail is pretty good for what they
are but they are very aggressive sounding, so need to be partnered with
some
nice warm speakers.

D


I have a Cyrus II right here, playing now, and I can assure you that
the above is the purest gibberish. Frequency response is ruler flat
from 1Hz up, and distortion is as low as any comparable amplifier. It
has never shown any sign of aggression in all the years I have owned
it despite occasional provocation, and it reproduces faithfully every
detail fed into it.

d

It's really odd the way some products get reputations that have nothing to
do with any technical performance. Quad amplifiers are smooth, Cyrus is
aggressive, Naim has PRaT, valves are warm, SETs are detailed and so on.

I blame the parents!..or is that the magazines?

S.

It is something like anthropomorphism - but I can't put my finger on
the right word.

d

In article , Serge Auckland
wrote:

It's really odd the way some products get reputations that have nothing
to do with any technical performance.

Quad amplifiers are smooth,

Band limited

Cyrus is aggressive,

Pass.

Naim has PRaT,

I thought that was the reviewers... oops, sorry. I mean

risk of bursts of HF instability, tailored response, moderately high output
impedance.

valves are warm,

Don't touch. More than warm.

SETs are detailed

Big valves. Labels easier to read.

Slainte,

Jim

--
Please use the address on the audiomisc page if you wish to email me.
Electronics http://www.st-and.ac.uk/~www_pa/Scot...o/electron.htm
Armstrong Audio http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/Armstrong/armstrong.html
Audio Misc http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/index.html