Schiit Audio Tyr monoblock power amplifier

It's a not untypical tale. Two veteran engineers, Jason Stoddard, who had extensive experience in product design, development, manufacturing, and marketing (footnote 1), and Mike Moffat, who had an impressive track record designing hi-fi products (footnote 2), got together in June 2010 to start an audio company. What wasn't typical was the new company's brand name: Schiit Audio. What also wasn't typical was the company's business strategy. Instead of introducing a small number of very expensive products, an approach that's increasingly common in hi-fi (footnote 3), Schiit products would be affordably priced. What's more, affordability would not be due to subcontracting manufacturing to a Chinese company: Schiit products would be made in America. Schiit products would not be available from traditional audio dealers; instead they would be sold direct, with a 15-day money-back guarantee after purchase. (Schiit recently opened a retail store, the Schiitr; see the Specifications sidebar.)

Stereophile has reviewed several Schiit products since the company appeared on the scene. Some have been idiosyncratic, but all have been well-reviewed and offered generally excellent measured performance. One such was the Aegir two-channel power amplifier, which Herb Reichert reviewed in October 2019. According to the specifications, it offers up to 20Wpc into 8 ohms—I measured the maximum power as 28Wpc into 8 ohms—and cost just $799. The Aegir's output stage features a constant-transconductance topology called "Continuity," which was based on a concept developed by Robert Cordell (footnote 4) and John Broskie. According to Jason Stoddard in an email he sent Herb Reichert, "Continuity is an interesting way to get around the problems of transconductance droop and the mismatch between NPN and PNP output devices. ... [It] extends the benefits of class-A (linear transconductance) far past the class-A bias region [and] allows us to run more efficiently than class-A."


I've never reviewed a Schiit product in my system, but when I learned that Schiit was introducing a much more powerful amplifier, the monoblock Tyr ($3198/pair), which also has a Continuity output stage, I asked for review samples.

In terms of appearance, the Tyr resembles the Aegir, with a one-piece aluminum top and a front panel interrupted by a recessed gray subpanel at the base and black heatsinks on the sides of the chassis. However, it is almost twice as wide—16" vs 9"—and has a grille at the center rear of the top panel through which a pair of orange LEDs can be seen. It is also much heavier than the Aegir at 55lb per channel, vs 19.6lb for the smaller stereo amplifier.

The front-panel recess has a central button, used to switch the amplifier between standby and operation; the button is flanked by two white LEDs to indicate Standby (left LED) or On (right LED). The back panel features a central IEC AC inlet with an adjacent power switch, flanked by two widely spaced speaker binding posts. Balanced (XLR) and single-ended (RCA) input jacks are positioned beneath the AC input, with a switch to select the one in use. The Tyr is specified as being able to deliver 200W into 8 ohms (23dBW) and 350W into 4 ohms (22.43dBW). As well as the Continuity output stage, which uses 24 bipolar devices sourced from Toshiba, this balanced, differential amplifier features a discrete, current-feedback voltage gain-stage topology that Schiit calls Nexus. There are no coupling capacitors or DC servos in the signal path.


The Tyr's power supply is unusual for a solid state design in that rather than use high-value paralleled electrolytic capacitors after the rectifiers to smooth the DC and store energy, it echoes historical tube amplifiers in using a "choke"—a series inductor—to perform these duties. The advantage is said (by Schiit) to be better regulation of the DC voltages, ie, less ripple. The disadvantage is that the inductor has to be physically large—Schiit says that the Tyr's 12lb choke is the same size as the amplifier's 600VA power transformer—and has to have sufficiently low coil resistance to handle the amplifier's maximum output current. The choke-filtered supply feeds the Tyr's output stage; an additional regulated supply is used for the input, voltage gain, and driver stages.

Schiit says that a "microprocessor running custom firmware monitors all operational parameters, from bias to temperature to DC, and protects the amplifier in case of any fault, for near-bulletproof reliability." The standby light on the front panel flashes during the self-check when the amplifier is first turned on as well as when the microprocessor detects a fault.


According to Schiit's website, "Tyr is our most insane amplifier ever, designed for driving difficult speakers without breaking a sweat." To determine how much sweat I could coax from the review samples, I primarily used a Roon Ready MBL N31 D/A processor to audition the pair of Tyrs, connecting its balanced outputs to the amplifiers' balanced inputs with 3m AudioQuest Wild Blue interconnects. Speaker cables were 3m AudioQuest Robin Hoods. Because the amplifier's binding posts were too widely spaced for the cable's banana plugs to be plugged simultaneously into both, I used a short jumper cable for each channel.

Playback levels were controlled with Roon, and I compared the Tyrs with a Benchmark AHB2 stereo amplifier and a pair of Parasound Halo JC 1+ monoblocks. Speakers were my KEF LS50s, a loaner pair of GoldenEar BRXes, and the Mobile Fidelity SourcePoint 10 standmounts, in for review.


Starting with the KEFs, I was surprised how much of a sense of drive these small speakers produced, driven by the Tyr monoblocks. The pulsating percussion figure on "Song of the Stars" from Dead Can Dance's Spiritchaser (16/44.1 FLAC, 4AD/Tidal) propelled the song along to a greater extent than I had been expecting. Similarly, as long as I didn't play it too loud—<90dB(C), slow ballistics—the KEFs effectively punched the air with Joe Walsh's "Rocky Mountain Way" (AIFF 24/192 needle drop, from a 12" 45rpm single, ABC ABE 12002).

Footnote 1: See Jason Stoddard's Schiit Happened: The Story of the World's Most Improbable Start-Up. Stoddard worked for Magnavox and Sumo, and was responsible for the design of Theta's affordable Cobalt 307 D/A processor.

Footnote 2: Mike designed well-regarded audio products for Theta Digital and Angstrom; see

Footnote 3: See my discussion of why this is the lowest-risk business strategy for small companies.

Footnote 4: See my review of Bob Cordell's Designing Audio Power Amplifiers, Second Edition here.

Schiit Audio
24900 Anza Dr., Unit A
Valencia, CA 91355
(323) 230-0079

georgehifi's picture

Good to see an amp measured these days producing a proper looking 10khz square wave. Without the need of special camouflaging bench testing filters.

Unlike the even lower frequency/low power test with almost unrecognizable 1khz square waves that Class-D is shown to do in tests, even when using the camouflaging Audio Precision's AUX-0025 output filter. Which also hides the real truth of what coming out the speaker terminals.
This "can" be fixed with moving the "switching frequency" from Class-D's 400-500kHz to what Technics did with their (rare as rocking horse ****) flagship amp the SE-R1 to 1.5mHz! switching frequency, but! you need output devices that can do this. Technics did it with the newish GaN output devices which can take such a high switching frequency

Cheers George

windansea's picture

While the 10khz square wave test seems theoretically to be an objective standard for evaluating amplifier performance, music is nothing like square waves. Some highly euphonic amps don't do well with square waves, but that's not truly "high fidelity." At the end of the day, how important is the square wave test?

John Atkinson's picture
windansea wrote:
At the end of the day, how important is the square wave test?

The presence of overshoot and ringing reveals inherent instability, which competent design would have eliminated.

John Atkinson
Technical Editor, Stereophile

John Atkinson's picture
John Atkinson wrote:
The presence of overshoot and ringing reveals inherent instability, which competent design would have eliminated.

Meant to add that this is the case with solid-state amplifiers biased into class-A, class-AB, or class-B. Tube amplifiers often have overshoot and ringing due to an ultrasonic resonance in the output transformer secondary. Class D amplifiers can also have an ultrasonic resonance due to the necessary low-pass filter on the output that reduces the level of ultrasonic switching noise.

John Atkinson
Technical Editor, Stereophile

windansea's picture

I suspect the tube amp overshoot might be euphonic. As for ultrasonic resonance, is it then inaudible?

Bonsai's picture

CFA amps excel at reproducing square waves. I have a design reproducing a very credible 70 V pk to pk square wave. Google nx-Amplifier Hifisonix

Apollo's picture

JA1, thank you for a great review and comparison with the Parasound and Benchmark amps. I am interested in your perspective on how the Bel Canto REF600M would compare. Thank you in advance.

s10sondek's picture

Hi JA1,

Thanks for a great review, especially vis-a-vis your summary comment about the convergence of state-of-the-art solid state amplifier sound over the last decade or so. Such a comment would have been unthinkable 30 years ago in these pages (the shrill Stereo Review "all amplifiers sound the same" stance notwithstanding). It was valuable to me also to have you put into a broader perspective the magnitude of the differences between the amplifiers under comparison.

Also, I am not sure I have read in these pages many amplifier comparisons wherein loudness levels were at least attempted to be controlled and called out when differences were unavoidable. So thank you for doing that in the comparisons you made here in this review. Super helpful to see one crucial variable being controlled in the listening comments!

One question about the measurements: for monoblock amplifiers, I notice that Stereophile typically omits channel separation measurements. Presumably that is because there is thought to be very little cross-channel coupling with the use of separate chassis, power suppliers, etc. However, in practice I wonder how much coupling and bleed there actually may be. Have you ever tried to measure monoblock channel separation to test the underlying hypothesis that they would inherently outperform even the best designed stereo (shared channel chassis) types?

windansea's picture

Excellent review and I also appreciated Mr. Atkinson noting the imperfection in level matching. Easier said than done! I suppose perfect level matching would require a high quality potentiometer at the speaker terminals? And resistors may reduce the signal imperfectly.

Axiom05's picture

"However, in practice I wonder how much coupling and bleed there actually may be."

Just where is the coupling & bleed come from? Channel separation in the amps themselves is infinite, any limitation will be in upstream components, not the amps.

hemingway's picture

Hello John and all,

I agree with the previous commenter s10Sondek, I also appreciate your willingness to describe something that audiophiles sometimes do not want to hear: after a certain point, solid state amplifier performance converges, and that the distinction between the sounds was minimal. This is the point of the design after all, which is to provide amplification without distortion.

I do want to point out that the Benchmark's weren't put in a fair fight, since a single ABH2 was used in stereo, whereas the other amplifiers were used in monoblock pairs. I wonder how the ABH2 would fare in a monoblock arrangement as against the Parasounds (i.e. use two of them). And given that how colossal and expensive the Parasound monos are in comparison to the diminutive Benchmark, that the single Benchmark is within striking distance, even as a stereo amp, is a huge credit to the Benchmark.*

Your comments about amplifier performance converging reminds me of one that you wrote about a vinyl ripping software and a/d interface, where you concluded that it was difficult or not possible to distinguish between the "live" turntable playing against a hi-res, digitized copy of the same LP played via a high quality DAC.

To me this confirms what we all seem to know but not everyone wants to admit... though Art Dudley did if I remember. Audiophile preference is picking a flavor of distortion. Records can and do often sound better than digital, but I have to admit that it is probably the distortions of the medium or playback mechanisms that make it so. The "perfect" digital copy can capture those distortions and reproduce them. Similarly, certain amplifier topologies, or tube amplifiers, can and do sound great. But it seems that it has to be because of the distortions they introduce that we enjoy. And there is nothing wrong with that. Its all for fun, after all.

Thanks for the great article.

*p.s. about the Benchmark amps, I wonder further that if they were used in an all Benchmark system (dac at full output, L4A, and monoblocks at lowest gain setting), one could realize further benefit because of proper gain structuring taking advantage of the low noise floor of the amplifiers.

JHL's picture



Audiophile preference is picking a flavor of distortion.

This cliche stands out from among a handful of supporting audio fallacies and circularities, most notably because by now while such boilerplate is so commonplace among audio midwits as to be predictably tedious, this one is so underdeveloped. It just stands there, hoping.

The 'objective' hifi enthusiast's predictable subjectivity is telling. Having missed the point of it all and having not appreciated the sound of that point, s/he's effectively reduced to talking about denying both without the practiced authority to carry any of it through. Typically at the world's expense, hopes the worst of our persistent class of projecting, rude, and evidently unmoved subjectivist remoras. No? Well, does convergence really infer perfection or just a common ceiling? Do Benchmark and Parasound somehow represent the most authentic playback mechanisms?

And so on, yet the conclusion to all of these had been preordained and wrongly so.

That is the inevitable conclusion, after all: Not caring to pursue the goal abbreviated to declaring it can't exist because.

Glotz's picture

From the king of logic, he is correct, imo.

To draw conclusions from JA's article in that fashion is guesswork looking for a conclusion.

Audio Phile's picture

Your comment is pure unadulterated blathering supercilious tripe.

The Tinkerer's picture

They actually sounded better with one amplifier, in stereo, than bridged in mono. Mono, they took on a much cooler and even tighter personality that editorialized over a single AHB2 + LA4. Same trend with double AHB2vs single compared with LA4 feeding a Parasound JC5, Anthem STR, and NAD M33.

This, with Revel F228be's.

So, my findings mirror JA1's.

georgehifi's picture

"Merry Xmas to all, it's 6am Xmas morning here in Aus, waiting for the rabble to wake up." (some AC/DC should get them up)

"euphonic" is the operative word there.

If they aren't faithful to reproducing the exact signal that goes into them. It's called "coloration" a more distasteful term, "distortion".

Most competent designers all use square wave testing as well as a barrage of others during the development of their product.
99.9% of them would LOVE to have the perfect square wave, but some just can't get there, and no they don't purposely design their amps for so so average or unrecognizable looking square waves.

Cheers George

JHL's picture



reproducing the exact signal that goes into them.

Ah, no. That's pure rhetoric. Nothing rebuilds a mirrored but larger output, George, nothing. You know this, I know this, and we know this.

What matters, then, is what things sound like.


It's called "coloration" a more distasteful term, "distortion".

That's circular and even less technically rigorous.

What matters is still what things sound like relative to real live music. Talking about it online as if it's either known or foreordained is not that thing. There's another word for what that thing is.

So "euphonic" is not in fact the operative word here, at least not when it's assumed simply in order to be projected.

georgehifi's picture

The others (Parasound, and this Schiit Tye) are "true" monoblocks

The ABH2 would be "bridged" stereo amps, "pseudo" monoblocks, sure that gives them a **** load more watts but it degrades them to have a couple of drawbacks, in particular low impedance drive, which they don't have when in stereo form.

Cheers George

Glotz's picture

I have read reviews here and there where that is the case. The amp does struggle with low impedance drive output. Thinness or lightness is the result. For my needs, that's a non-starter, though I do love the HPA-4 for a pre.

David Harper's picture

"which I suppose is what you should expect for nearly 6X as much cash". nonsense. This quote perfectly illustrates the fallacy of "high end" audio. Price determines sound quality.

MatthewT's picture

Over at ASR.

JHL's picture a known site pest. Given that ASR has distilled fine sound down to a tiny, sighted sliver of all phenomenon with almost no bearing on musical fidelity, his mission is to then look dumb over here.

Glotz's picture

So true.

cafe67's picture

Let me guess , you’re here “to say important things that need to be said “lol

hiendmmoe's picture

Sounds like a great amp within its price range. Let’s get real, these are $3200. Pr mono amps and as good as they’re, they will never out perform upper echelon power amps that are well built. Part tolerance and quality along with more power supply regulation is what you pay for when you pay more. Anybody who disagrees is only hiding behind their inability to afford and hear such differences!

Glotz's picture

Better parts quality and resultant design work that goes into raises component and retail costs. Period. You pay, you get.

georgehifi's picture

"they will never out perform upper echelon power amps that are well built."

But they will be the equal of if not outperform ones with extremely "glitzy" chassis of well known hi-end brands that are trying to sell for many x and more price, but yet on the inside are just $120 Chinese subwoofer Class-D amp modules.

Cheers George

georgehifi's picture

@John Atkinson
Did you try some 2ohm load testing with these to see if they "were up to it" without turning off or blowing, for some of the nastier speaker loads out there, I know you showed the FR graph, but it's under music conditions power loading I'd like to know. IE: wattage increase from 4 to 2ohm

Cheers George

hemingway's picture

@JHL, I am not quite sure I follow what you wrote there but, I think if you read the body of work by Art Dudley and John's article, the idea that audiophiles prefer different distortion profiles is the consensus of thinking. I recall that Art literally wrote that in one article. That isn't necessarily a bad thing. That is what makes it a hobby, and not a science project, and what makes it fun. If things didn't sound different, we wouldnt all be here and there wouldnt be an industry full of gear and audiophiles buying and buying. You might also like to read some Nelson Pass writings. He is a rich man (i bet) because he deliberately designs amplifiers with different distortion profiles.*

Having compared the Benchmarks and a Class A solid state amp that is likely more colored or euphonic than the benchmark, I cant really say that I preferred one or the other. They are just different, and I have to acknowledge that the benchmark is literally the benchmark for performance (JA says its the best amp hes measured).. but that doesnt mean its my favorite or i want to use it.

I hope Santa brings you some perspective, or at least something to cheer you up. Take it easy.

@georgehifi, that is an interesting comment about the bridged versus "true" monoblocks. Can you please write a bit about how it affects impedance/performance?

*or did I get it backwards; he is a rich man and now he designs amps with different distortion profiles...

JHL's picture

I'm afraid that your remarks included a few familiar and usual conceits, hemingway. One could take their intent and imprecision as a strawman against successful and renown audiophile practices, and ultimately such against the thoughts and perceptions of users of those methods.

Such predictable tedium may be similarly deconstructed.

First, distortion is not the word you want. In audio it has a particular definition but you used it in a general shorthand, robbing technologies of merit beforehand and presumably diminishing their users. Second, context and complexity of distortion and its wide spectrum of manifestations also demands clarity. You can't throw "distortion" out there like you have.

Context matters but either you cited writers without that context or if you hadn't, you failed to establish the above, in which light they were wrong. Either way it doesn't wash.

One more example. In this thread we read that a 10kHz square wave is the product of an optimized amplifier. That claim is not unreasonable but if conventional shorthand about it is wrongly applied, as you did to disclaim whole classes of devices known for recreating very believable musical images, then it too is incorrect in its context, precision, and understanding.

I doubt our writers would make that mistake. You shouldn't either.

I'm aware that you included a favorable, perhaps disclaiming nod to vinyl playback, although you went on to make the usual anti-vinyl blunder so common these days, which is to conflate superior musical fidelity with, as you put it, pleasant distortion.

That outright contradiction is another common audio conceit, but it serves to illustrate the dichotomy some leap to, oddly, in order to discount a tech not by its sound, but out of a foregoing bias against its method!

It's telling that out of a false sense of virtuous, technological merit we should flagellate the ear to serve a bias. It's similar to how the eye is an acceptable agent to those who fear their own sighted bias.

Remarkably, as the organ for what this is all for, the ear has become reviled.

If we asserted less and did audio more, turning to the expert ear's reporting on music playback, we'd all be better off. Instead we seem to be afflicted by a class of audiophile that in places can't constrain its baser instincts and always descends on the superior experience, the better tech, and the more qualified reportage to smear it.

I'm glad you didn't. Others haven't nearly your degree of decorum and by now they at least, they may be called out while we still have vivid, colorful, and audacious means, methods, and actors.

georgehifi's picture

"Can you please write a bit about how it affects"

1: Distortion goes up,
2: Output impedance is higher (damping factor lower), which means bass is not as controlled.
3: The ability to drive below low impedance’s takes a hit.
4: The amp becomes more unstable..

It's known that damping factor is not as good (output impedance increases) which means less cone control (damping) over the bass driver even though you have far more wattage.
Also low impedances 2ohm of many speakers "could" be harmful to the amp/s or make them turn off or blow, because they are less stable bridged.
Also you will probably get more HF hiss from the tweeters that wasn't there in when in stereo mode.

Cheers George

Bonsai's picture

Nice to see a current feedback amplifier design getting a good review like this - the topology is under represented in the audio world in my view despite the fact that it offers many good points.

The mains noise is a little disappointing and points to more work being needed on layout etc.

s10sondek's picture

Guys, what's great about this review and the follow-on comment thread, is the debate it is sparking about deeply-held and entrenched ideas in Hi-Fi. I'd personally like to see more of that in an intelligent, civilized format in Stereophile. Where people are asking questions of one another, not rhetorically, but in a good faith in a dialog that seeks to develop understanding amidst the multi-variable confusion and problem that is sound reproduction.

Vanity, offensive dismissals, defensive posturing, and know-it-all smugness have places in many voyages, but not in a voyage of discovery and understanding. The debate we see in these comment sections speaks to the collective yearning amongst Stereophile readers for searching, good-intentioned dialog about such notions as "artifact vs accuracy," "what use are measurements when it's our ears that ultimately decide," and "what is the value of negative reviews."

It's honestly up to Stereophile's editorial team to set the tone, invite, and spur this debate, much in the spirit that Robert E Greene, Robert Harley, and Jonathan Valin have done in the past year or so in Absolute Sound. Maybe JA2 could invite Amir at ASR to guest-write a viewpoint and have a discussion with JA1, KR and HR about measurements and subjective correlations. Maybe Amir would respond in kind on his site. In a cordial way, to try to stop speaking over and across and against one another an instead to each other. We should really speak to one another instead of just launching blasts across the bow.

Anyway. Thank you, all of you, for sticking your neck out and debating here and in other forums. Here's to a 2023 where we continue to do so productively and respectfully, and learn from one another as to how to get the best sound in our homes and studios. Honestly, we all need all the help we can get. The problem is wicked hard.

JHL's picture those most guilty of "vanity, offensive dismissals, defensive posturing, and know-it-all smugness" and far more, by leaps and bounds, will be brought to the table, earless as they plainly are with their meters, charts, and litanies of damnations, to further the pursuits and practices involved in the finest music playback.

johnnythunder1's picture

"as Julian Vereker of Naim was quoted to say in response to a customer asking what the signal to noise ratio of his amplifier was, “Why? Is it bothering you?”
"I gave up on "accurate" sound a long time ago. All I care about now is an enjoyable listening session."

So I for one, would not care for the ASR crowd to have a voice in Stereophile. I think the blend of JA measurements and technical explanation along w the subjective listening by the reviewers is perfect for me (and many others here.) The ASR crowd are smug know it alls, skeptical, negative, cheap/Consumer Reports types. They have no appreciation for industrial design or aesthetics. They mostly listen with equipment not with their hearts. They NEVER talk about the emotional component of music. They are the music Taliban.

rpali's picture

"They are the music Taliban."

See, this is why we can't have a reasoned discussion. It's not a matter's complete dismissal...and it's from the fringe of both sides.

JHL's picture

Where's the audio "fringe" that wants reciprocity for meter-readers wanting to tear down the high end?

johnnythunder1's picture

inflexible and dogmatic to the extreme. I'm not dismissive of measurements being important. I certainly don't want to buy an electronically flawed product. But I will buy things based on how they sound and I will tend to buy things advocated by audio journalists that seem to have the same taste as me. It is not a dismissal of a Stereophile-esque appreciation that marries both the scientific and the subective and does not judge your choices. The entire function of ASR is to dismiss without finding any joy in the music. It is entirely this: this $10 speaker does the same thing as the $1000 speaker wire. Aren't those that buy into audiophile cables foolish ? They don't listen with their hearts and minds. They measure. They compare second harmonic specs etc.

Glotz's picture

and I think it is wonderful. JHL's writing is more objective rather than defensive, as I see it. I love his writing and his logic. He would be nigh-indestructible in any debate.

I wish all of us blessings and kindness as well as fortune and melodious music for 2023!

georgehifi's picture

Na sorry, ya got that arse about face, he's more subjective than objective.

Cheers George

Glotz's picture

or just talk smack without reference?

Throwing out the word 'distortion' without a reference point is complete garbage- it's too broad to have any meaning unless you qualify it.

And what's worse is you immediately imply (in a related post) that this $3200 set is just more Chinese crap disguised as a quality amp set.

There are several $3000 amplifiers and monos on the market at this price point and JA1's findings not only provide 'superb' measurements but also laudable sound quality.

You frequently interact with JA1 about his measurement sets and yet it appears you don't trust his ears.

georgehifi's picture

From your tirade of a post it's hard to tell who it's directed at. But here goes anyway.

Really, you need to read and absorb others posts a little better, for one I did nothing but praise JA's tests and review on these Schiit's (1st post).Except for one omitted test I would have liked to see into 2ohms.

As for your above Chinese remark if it was directed at me. I was referring to the $10k+ Rowland Contiuum in that post WITH A LINK!!!!, get it right please before unleashing on others here.

Also who is JA1 and JA2??
If it's John Atkinson call him JA

Cheers George

Glotz's picture

The link content is of a dubious nature in more than one way. You somehow felt this was a great place to disparage Rowland, because it related to the Schiit in some way? How can we verify the veracity of your claims from a photo on another website? I won't bother.

What exactly are you saying here? Just some random bile about all of the snake oil audio companies out there? Not sure there's a need for that, given this isn't a Rowland review, and this review was very positive.

I know you trust John's measurements, though trust has nothing to do with it. I doubt your faith in the subjective review, at least that's what you imply by your posts. You generally omit positive feedback. I take issue with that, as well as a simple attack on JHL without backing what you're saying about him being subjective. He is rarely subjective and his arguments pretty airtight 99% of the time. Using a link to explain your insult is equally weak. And uncool.

georgehifi's picture

Your the one loosing his cool.

And this from you: "How can we verify the veracity of your claims from a photo on another website? I won't bother."

If you were even the lowliest of technicians, you could see these are the same Class-D module from the same Chinese Class-D subwoofer amp manufacturer SANWAY!!! It takes nothing to verify it also.
Take a chill pill for the new year.

ejlif's picture

They were having a black friday sale and I made an impulse buy. I'm glad I did. I have had many amps in my system in the last year. Pass 30.8, First Watt J2 and F6, Benchmark AHB2, Theta Prometheus Luxman 20 watt class A integrated, Naim Nova and some tubes. Cary 805 AE, Decware super zen triode and Feliks Audio 300B. I have pretty much used the Klipsch La Scalas as my speakers with a few times trying the Maggie LRS. I like the tubes as well but the Tyrs are for sure my favorite of the solid state line up and they offer a lot more energy with the music than any of the tubes. You lose just a little bit of the tube magic but not much. If I had to choose I would keep the Decware amp and the Tyrs and just switch back and forth as my mood and the music played dictates. You can drive speakers like the LRS as well with the Tyr. I hear the same thing JA says with the difference in sound between the AHB2 and the Tyr.

The La Scala is a very easy to drive speaker so it might not be so useful info to most but the Tyr runs very cool for me, barely warm to the touch. I was concerned about a heat radiator but I am pleasantly surprised.

The Freya + preamp is also a very impressive product (with some upgraded tubes) I am very impressed with the sound you can get for such a low amount of money for the Freya + and Tyr combo.

Any of these other solid state amps I had on hand sound good but always had a little something about them I just could not get past and the Tyrs are continually impressing me, especially for the money. I would not be complaining about the sound if these cost 20K.

Tango14's picture

I just recently bought the Tyr's. I have read several reviews where the authors tell us that the Tyr's do not integrate well with McIntosh Preamps, we are not told if the Mc gear is tube or SS; Not sure how that is. My Tyr's are driven by a Tube McIntosh Preamp that I just reconditioned [C2200] and the sound is excellent in all regards. I have to agree with you, the Tyr's continue to impress me also, I am thinking these are keepers.

JPD-WA's picture

Dear JA or anyone: Schiit describes this amp as a "current feedback amplifier". Is that something other than zero negative feedback? I have been interested in zero negative feedback amps for my Vandersteens, mainly because Richard Vandersteen likes and recommends that. AYRE is one example of a brand I have considered, which Richard has used personally in the past.

That said, some claim that the concerns over zero feedback, vs some feedback, are exaggerated. So I have no idea how this would compare, and if the difference due to current feedback is audible vs zero negative feedback, or better/worse.

Can someone help me sort this out? I'm not this tech savvy, though I have googled this and read technical explanations. Another amp (monos) I'm also interested in the the new Van Alstine monos, which have gotten some rave reviews, but when I spoke to Mr. Van Alstine about "zero negative feedback" and if his amps use that, he launched into a detailed technical explanation (without answering yes or no!) that totally bewildered me.

These amps seem a good value, and JA likes them! At 50 lbs each...heavy X 2 (the Van Alstine monos are only about 17 lbs apiece, iirc). My Odyssey Audio Khartago stereo amp (which I love) is about 50 lbs.


David Rountree Smith's picture

In Mr. Atkinson's review, he states the "Synth-bass" notes at the beginning of "Song of the Stars"... There's only one problem. Those are NOT synthesizer based sounds. The low frequency sounds at the beginning of this song are from an Aboriginal digeridoo, a Ujazi or extra low frequency digeridoo... possibly sampled and looped, but definitely not from a synthesizer.
I sent Mr. Atkinson this correction hoping he might actually print this in letters to the editor. NOPE!, not only that but since that e-mail. I no longer have been receiving my subscription for the last 3 months! WHT? I live in Southern California and have the privilege of being able to go to Schiit Audio's retail space...The "Schiitr" in Newhall a little north of Los Angeles. What a great place to hang out hear some GREAT equipment, and get to pick up purchases without having to pay for shipping. Which I've done a few times now. Several calls have been made and I still have no resolution about my subscription (paid up for the next couple of years) I also mentioned that if Stereophile would do more reviews of more affordable Equpment they might actually INCREASE their subscription base...and sell more magazines.

Thrifty Audio's picture

How does the Tyr compare to Pass or Coda amps, specifically the Coda 8 or the Pass XA25? A new pair of the Tyr sells for around the same price as the others used. The power amp(s) would be driving a Acoustats 1+1 with a 0.5 Ohm drop in the high treble. I have found a few class D amps can't handle 0.5 Ohm resulting in a low shrill at 80 db three meters away.