[genjamon]

Hey folks, I'm curious how you all would compare and contrast these two speakers. They're both higher efficiency designs in roughy the same price range new.

 I saw several rooms with the Ulysses at RMAF several years ago, but didn't sit and listen due to popularity of the rooms at the time and out of my league financially at the time.  Also, there have been upgrades to the internal components since then that are supposedly major.

On the other hand, I auditioned a Zu Druid mk 4 many years ago and wasn't that impressed, though not sure it was set up right in terms of placement or was fully broken in.  Also, at that same RMAF I listened to the Zu room with their Soul Superfly and wasn't that impressed either. 

I have been happily using Tekton Lore for the past several years though, so am wondering if I just need to move up in the Zu line to find my sweet spot.

[Scottdazzle]

Genjamon,

You couldn't have picked more dissimilar speakers to compare.  While both are highly efficient, they have vastly different sonic signatures.  I'd be surprised to find many audiophiles who'd like both of these models.  Since I own and demo Daedalus speakers you can guess which ones are superior IMHO.  You should try to audition the Ulysses before you take a big plunge. 

Scott

[genjamon]

Well not quite as different as planar or horns would be, but I see your point. Certainly auditioning is in order before purchase, but I thought I'd ping the group for any descriptive thoughts.

Care to elaborate on the differences in sonic signature?  Strengths and weaknesses of each? Or their general approaches?

[macrojack]

How they compare to each other may not be as telling as how each compares to your Tektons. Pursue that line of inquiry for more useful comments.

You say you love your present speakers so they would make the ideal reference as you attempt to surpass them.

[genjamon]

I like the dynamics and "live" sound of the tektons. They have scale and immediacy. I'm a former percussionist, so PRAT matters a great deal. I also mainly listen to rock and indie music, but it can often be somewhat well recorded, although there are plenty of close-miked, compressed and over processed in my collection as well.

Concerns I have about the Tektons is that there is more to be had in the imaging department and soundstage depth, that massed strings and complex music may not be teased apart as well as they could, and detail in General might not quite be there. Also, getting realistic "body" and well developed tone to instruments takes careful choice in electronics. I have it now, but it took me a while, and still may not be as good as it could be.

I understand these all could be side effects of having a 10 inch widebander covering much of the audio band (although unlike the Zu approach, the widebander is not allowed to run full range, but rather cuts off around 3k I think), as well as a relatively wide cabinet baffle for some of the upper frequencies.  I'm certain lack of cabinet damping is a limitation in design compared to the higher price point speakers, and know that can play a role in resolution, imaging, etc.

What I don't know how to judge is how large these concerns are relative to each other, and how the Zu and Daedalus approaches to dealing with them compare.

They both have taken major effort to address cabinet concerns, with highly different approaches. All hardwood, versus highly engineered more conventional cabinet materials.

One of them goes with a three way design, of which I might be concerned would leave some immediacy and dynamics on the table while gaining in other areas.  The other retains the full range wide blander design while having invested in novel driver materials to try and address upper limit breakup resonance and so forth while keeping crossover minimal to keep the immediacy.

I would appreciate any discussion of the relative merits of any of these design choices.

[rbbert]

Genjamon,

You couldn't have picked more dissimilar speakers to compare.  While both are highly efficient, they have vastly different sonic signatures.  I'd be surprised to find many audiophiles who'd like both of these models.  Since I own and demo Daedalus speakers you can guess which ones are superior IMHO.  You should try to audition the Ulysses before you take a big plunge. 

Scott

As an audiophile who owns neither of these, but who has listened to both brands a fair amount at RAMF 2011 and 2012, I can only second this recommendation.  Very very dissimilar design approaches and sound.  I really wanted to like the Zu speakers but found I just couldn't.

[Letitroll98]

I have to agree about the very dissimilar speakers statements.  The Daedalus speaker line is geared toward beautiful presentation, a somewhat "older" sound that doesn't shout out at you HiFi, but one I would imagine wears well over time.  Zu speaker line is the complete opposite.  Dynamics, a "live" sound, if you like well done rock concert PA systems you'll like Zu speakers.  I actually liked the Omen better than the Definition, although the Definition had the dynamics and the built in subwoofer, the Omen sounded more like music to me. 

[genjamon]

Alright, alright, I get the point guys.  I live in the middle of Kansas, a long way from any dealers who would possibly have either of these to audition.  An audition would require a long weekend vacation, basically, so I was just hoping to garner some sense of these speakers without needing to travel.

[jonbee]

I've heard the earlier Definition II, and own Daedalus RMAs and have heard Athenas.
To me, the Zu are very good speakers, in a conventional hi-fi way. The Daedalus sound less like speakers and more like the music; not euphonic, or smoothed off, just very natural, easy, and refined. Pinpoint imaging, soundstage to die for, and very dynamic, too. They can disappear completely. A difficult package to pull off sonically, and with heirloom quality cabinetry thrown in!
They have no idiosyncrasies I've found, other than the usual room interaction issues. They can be used with great results with a very wide variety of amps, from 10 watt SETs to (in my case) powerhouse Ncore amps.
As one of the posters alluded to, they are very easy to live with over the long term. I know several Daedalus owners; none have ever considered selling them. Given the size of the investment, that is a very important factor. 

[genjamon]

Thanks, Jonbee.  I was really considering those RMA's you got - wish I'd had the scratch and willingness to go for them at the time.  I've been looking for them on the used markets ever since and haven't seen them - likely for good reason as you suggest.  That's probably more in line with a price range I could be willing to experiment with.  The Athena's could probably actually work fine in my space (12 X 22 X , but I thought for the purposes of this post it might be more appropriate to compare speakers in the same price range and at the same level of performance in their respective manufacturer lineups.

[catastrofe]

I have not heard the Zu lineup, but I do own Daedalus Ulysses.  Before settling on the Us, I had a succession of speakers:  Meridian DSP5000, Thiel CS1.6, Emerald Physics CS2 and CS2.3, Salk SoundScape 10, and Sanders 10C.

The Ulysses are as noted above. . .extremely musical without sounding "Hi-Fi".  The only other brand I would consider if I were to move away from Daedalus would  be Vapor Audio.  Since you're in Kansas, and Vapor is in St. Louis, you might consider a road trip.

[morganc]

I have owned the Tekton Lores and Pendragons and Zu Definitions.  I have not heard the Daedaelus though I would love to one day. 

I loved the Pendragons and only replaced them because Sean at Zu made me an incredible deal on an older pair of the Def III's.  The Def III's were a huge upgrade over the Pendragons in regards to Soundstage Depth, Dynamics, Tone, and Timbre.  The Def IV's are even better with the new Radian Tweeter. 

I am selling my Def IV's ( for sake of full disclosure) because I need the $$$ for an outstanding debt.......

However, the Def IV system from Phil ( 213 Cobra) is one of the best systems I have ever heard. I was never quite able to get my to that level as I just bought a house ( reason for the $$$) and my source just isn't quite up to the task (unmodded Mac Mini) and my room is too reflective and I haven't been able to fix the room acoustics. Just like with the Tektons, the Zu requires very careful component matching and tweaking, but the return is quite high for those investments. 

[jbtrio]

They are both excellent speakers. The newer Zu's sound much better the older ones. The nano drivers are more detailed, refined, and neutral without giving up that lively, engaging sound.
 You can play all genres of music now not only rock. The Radian tweeter is much more revealing, airy, and has better synergy with the new FRD driver.

It does take a little more time to really make them sing, but it is well worth it.
I have the new Druid V's with their Undertone sub and the sound is wonderful!
 
The Ulysses I heard sounded excellent. Daedalus does an excellent job with the crossovers to make it sing with one voice, but their is something about  having no crossovers for most of the frequency range. The Druids cross at I think 8k and only have one cap and resistor.

I was going to buy the Athena's but went with the Zu's because wanted to go the SET route and I'm happy I did.

Don't judge Zu by the Audio Shows. I heard from people I trust say they don't sound there best at Shows. Friends that heard them at my place say I never liked Zu's, but sound excellent in my set-up.

Joe

[Randy]

I know a guy who owns both the Ulysses and an Audio Kinesis "Dream Maker." He prefers the Dream Maker by a good margin.  Check into what Audio Kinesis has to offer, including a new Jazz Module 2 just out and on display in Denver as we speak.

[jtwrace]

Hey folks, I'm curious how you all would compare and contrast these two speakers. They're both higher efficiency designs in roughy the same price range new.

 I saw several rooms with the Ulysses at RMAF several years ago, but didn't sit and listen due to popularity of the rooms at the time and out of my league financially at the time.  Also, there have been upgrades to the internal components since then that are supposedly major.

On the other hand, I auditioned a Zu Druid mk 4 many years ago and wasn't that impressed, though not sure it was set up right in terms of placement or was fully broken in.  Also, at that same RMAF I listened to the Zu room with their Soul Superfly and wasn't that impressed either. 

I have been happily using Tekton Lore for the past several years though, so am wondering if I just need to move up in the Zu line to find my sweet spot.

My opinion is just that.  Go listen to them and see what you think.  Personally, I wouldn't rule out something else.   

I will say that they are completely different though. 

[DaveC113]

All good but very different sounding speakers mentioned here IMO. It would mostly come down to person preference in what kind of presentation you prefer. And having a large enough space for some of them too.

I 2nd jbtrio's post, the Druid/Sub setup at RMAF this year is impressive, and as letitroll said they sound like very refined PA speakers and can play at concert level SPLs with tons of dynamics. I liked them a lot better than Zu systems I have heard in previous years... and they will fill a very large room.

Audiokenisis was great too, but is different than Zu... same with Daedalus and Vapor. But from what I heard at RMAF this year, the speakers Vapor is showing with the smaller woofer (Joule Whites?) would be my choice, but $4k more than the Druid/Sub combo. The bigger Vapor speakers at ~$9.5k were very good, the JWs at ~$13k were even better... great clarity and detail, they just disappear. Best speaker I have heard in the ~$10k range so far.