Cyrus ONE, issue 07 remove steps on volume/balance pot

post questions / problems regarding Cyrus kit here, or any other queries of a tech nature.
Abolf
One+
Posts: 1
Joined: Wed Jun 19, 2019 2:58 pm

Cyrus ONE, issue 07 remove steps on volume/balance pot

Postby Abolf » Tue Jul 09, 2019 11:25 am

Hi, My first post here since I didn't find any useful threads by searching neither her or google.

I wonder if it would be a fairly easy operation to remove the sprocket like wheel on the back of the combined Vol/balance control pot in my old Cyrus One? It is just bugging me that I cant set the volume right where I want it. I know that there are a lot of seps, but I sometimes feel the need to be in between...

From looking at the internals it seems to be a "primitive" mechanical "sprocket-meets-bump" construction, putting it in incorrect terms...

Has anyone done this and is willing to do a write up on it?

Another issue. The extensions from the control knobs are very worn internally, and if I dont want to model and 3D print new ones, are there replacements available from anywhere for a reasonable cost?

mojo
Hero Member
Hero Member
Posts: 518
Joined: Wed Nov 27, 2002 11:23 pm

Re: Cyrus ONE, issue 07 remove steps on volume/balance pot

Postby mojo » Tue Jul 09, 2019 7:05 pm

Abolf wrote:I wonder if it would be a fairly easy operation to remove the sprocket like wheel on the back of the combined Vol/balance control pot in my old Cyrus One?


If it's the same as on the Cyrus Two - yes, it should be almost trivial. You should be able to lift one end of the spring that sits under the ballbearing and slide it backwards away from the pot. The ballbearing should then drop away with the spring.

Probably the easiest way to fix the connecting rods on the controls would be to add a little tape on the pot spindles and then slip a small jubilee clip (or eqivalent) over the outside of the connecting rods to increase the grip. I would think the chances of finding someone who makes new replacements are close to zero, but happy to be proved wrong on that...