[G.ear]

I just read a review on the Zu Cable Definition 1.5 on the 6moons.com website.  The reviewer, Srajan Ebaen, was certainly impressed, but after reading it, I must say that I haven't much idea as to what these speakers might actually sound like.  Dynamic, to be sure, but is it tonally, harmonically, and timbrally accurate?  Just from outward appearance, the design would seemingly produce limited dispersion both horizontally and vertically, but no comment was made in the review.  In many ways, this appears to be a very interesting design.  Would love to hear comments from anyone who has had first hand experience with this speaker.  

I've been an audiophool for over 30 years, but am brand new to this website.  If my query has been misplaced, I'm sure some kind member will gently nudge me in the right direction.

[213Cobra]

I own both Zu Definition and Druid speakers. I've posted comments about both of them elsewhere here and on Audiogon & Audio Circle, where you can search for them if you're interested.

The SixMoons reviews are pretty much spot on in their descriptions of what you will experience with both speakers. There wasn't anything in either that I disagree with but there are some things I can add.

First, to your comments about dispersion. The Druid has good vertical and horizontal dispersion, but you will experience discernible directionality horizontally that makes the sweet spot about 2humans wide, 3 if they are slim. Not nearly as limiting as a Quad electrostatic. The Definition is designed specifically to limit vertical dispersion to minimize room effects, particularly floor & ceiling, but to offer horizontal dispersion suitable for stereo home theater plus music purposes. Zu does make a "Druid Studio" speaker for home theater side and rear channels that tonally match Zu main speakers, but really everything is especially optimized for stereo. I use Definitions on my main system which does double duty for music and theater, and surround sound is moot. I am wired for stereo and the coverage is sensational, as well as center channel illusion being quite stable and clear. Stereo -- that's all you need.

Tonally, Zu speakers are among the most neutral I've heard ever at any price, with the Definition being in the very top echelon. The hallmark of Zu speakers is uniformity of transient character up and down the frequency range. No lagging bass or other driver-to-driver dynamic inconsistencies. The sound is integrated, holistic, precisely located, tonally convincing, and most of all, alive. This aliveness is a product of many intersecting behaviors but suffice for now to say that the aliveness comes without the usual trade-offs of shout, tonal vagaries, disjointed transient dynamics, etc. Also, Zu speakers leave you with a perception of exceptional speed. They sound fast top to bottom and this is doubly true for the Definition.

The Definition is dead-easy to drive. 101 db/w/m efficiency with the power transfer from most amps delivering closer to apparent 104 db crank. They are a nominal 6 ohm load with a very smooth and constrained impedance curve. And the sub-bass array is active, by way of an in-built solid state amp that takes its signal from the speaker input (amp level). In a 12" x 12" x 49" column you get 16Hz - 20+kHz neutral, dynamic, musical performance out of tiny single-ended tube amps to sand-based behemoths. I use a pair of Audiopax 88 tube amps with 30 watts each, and my head clips along with the room, before the amps or speakers do. You can pretty much choose any amp to your liking although 6 ohms isn't optimal for maximizing performance from most tube OTL designs.

The Zu FRD which is the heart of the speaker is exceptional at revealing range and subtlety at low volume levels. The Definitions are an immediately pleasing speaker regardless of experience of the buyer. They will audibly improve by the hour for the first 50 hours or so of play and settle in at a less obvious rate for a hundred hours or so after that.

Workmanship is excellent, packing and shipping are careful. The founders and their staff are completely customer service-oriented in the extreme, and you get a 60 day money-back trial privilege. I have been an audiophile consumer for 30 years and once worked in the industry. I still have some close connections to it so I have heard most of what's worth hearing. The Definition is the most convincing attainable speaker I've heard let alone owned, and far better than most of what's in the market for more money. I'm happy to answer questions. By the way, if you go to the ZuCable.com web site, you will see information on road show events Zu is staging in Pennsylania in September, and in Los Angeles this weekend. If you are in either vicinity, it will be worth hearing.

Phil

[G.ear]

Wow, Phil.  You were just the guy I was looking for.  Great feedback on the Definitions.  Well, I definitely must hear them, though I'm not crazy about a speaker that loses the highs when you stand up.  However, the horizontal dispersion is far more important to me.

How would you rate the speaker in terms of transparency?  I am coming from electrostats, which are both fast and transparent.  I appreciate the info regarding the money-back trial, but if I like the speakers, I would want to order them in a custom finish, and there won't be any money back on the cost of the custom finish.

You mentioned that you had posted comments elsewhere here on Audio Circle.  I did a search and came up empty, so perhaps you could recall what heading the post was under.  Clearly, you are enthralled with your speakers, and that's fantastic.  Thanks for the great feedback.

Dean

[213Cobra]

Dean,

The Definitions don't lose treble when you stand up to any disturbing degree. I'm 6'3" and while the difference is discernible it is not destructive to what's playing. It's subtle, not profound. However it is much more obvious that the Zu designers are correct about the disperson control limiting room effects. The Definition is clearly less placement sensitive than the Druid and retains its essential tonal balance in a much broader range of placements than Druids or the vast majority of other speakers. This way the company has engineered the dispersion behavior of highs delivers real results in the Defs. You're not going to have the sense of high frequency information dropping off a cliff when you stand up. The benefit is more obvious than the liability, by far.

I have owned Quad ESLs and KLH 9s in the past. The Definition is the first cone-driver speaker that I perceive as matching the transparency, transient coherence and speed of an electrostatic, but this holistic behavior extends deep. There's none of the subwoofer/membrane divergence in dynamics and transient behavior that electrostats with cone woofers saddle you with.

I ordered my Defs in a custom finish. That puts $1500 at risk. Reasonable given the total price of the speakers. Druids are an excellent but more idiosyncratic speaker. A buyer needs some orientation and patience to fully grasp the fidelity of that speaker. Amp selection for the Druid is quite personal. But the Definitions are perhaps suited to the widest variety of tastes and personal variables ever accommodated by a single speaker model. I really think that as long as a buyer has accurately assessed his or her ability to accommodate the 12" x 12" x 49" dimensions, there is very little risk of dissatisfaction. Certainly risk is reasonable.

You will find some comments by me in this thread:

http://www.audiocircle.com/index.php?topic=19374&highlight=druid

And if you search on Audiogon discussion forums and AudioAsylum for Zu, Druids, Definitions, you will find posts by me there too. Handles are different, but my sign-offs are first name. You'll recognize my posts.

Phil

[G.ear]

Phil,

Thanks again for the feedback.  I found your other posts--very well written and very informative.

I will have to buy an amplifier(s) as well as a speakers.  I would love to hear these with Cary 805 Anniversay Edition amps driving them, though I am sure there are many others that would sound great as well and would probably cost much less.

What types of room treatment have you found necessary or beneficial with the Definitions?  I would suspect that it requires less room treatment due to its  limited dispersion characteristics.  Have you ever done an in-room frequency response sweep of the speaker?  I have a hard time imagining that type of driver being exceedingly smooth or linear over such a wide frequency spectrum.  

I am planning on trying to attend the RMAF up in Denver at the end of September, so that will probably be my first opportunity to hear a pair of these.  Thanks again for sharing your experiences.

Dean

[213Cobra]

Dean,

I haven't done a room sweep. Everyone who has some knowledge of speakers at a design level first reacts to the Zu FRD and claims about it with skepticism. And that was my default reaction too. Shades of Fostex and Lowther. But it is very smooth in its usable range in the Druid and more so in the Definition. Zu is very adept at using physical control techniques wherever possible, over introducing complexity in the form of crossover circuitry. The use of dual FRDs in the Defs and their critical spacing is elemental to further flattening the response of the FRD and controling the behavior of the supertweeter's output.

I use no room treatments. Never have and never will, but that's just me. For me, it just goes too far in compromising the living purpose of a home and is aesthetically too compromising. I make adjustments through normal furniture choices and arrangement, careful speaker placement, and choice of associated equipment only. I lived in Boston for 10 years with steady attendance at BSO concerts in Symphony Hall -- as perfect a listening space as there is in North America. Well, even it had its tonal thumbprint. I accept the same from my rooms. I can say however, that I currently have a house with the 2 naturally best-sounding rooms I've ever lived in. The Definitions are less affected by room acoustics than any speaker I've ever owned, by a wide margin and sound quite neutral with no special attention at all.

Cary 805s should be very nice on Defs. 805, 845 and 211 amps do well on them. The sub-bass array assumes the bass qualities of the main amp since the active portion is fed with an amp-level signal at the speaker inputs. So 300B amps aren't the best match for Definitions on the bottom. I haven't heard a single 300B amp that didn't introduce bloat and excessive euphonics into the sub-bass band. However, PX25 amps sound quite good. And KT88-based amps fare very well too. I use Audion Black Shadow 845 monoblocks on my Druids. I tried them on Defs and while they are quite good, the deep bass discipline still isn't up to the standard of the Audiopax so I use it on the Defs.

Definitions also can handle high-power silicon. The McIntosh MC501 monoblocks are spectacular on them, and vice-versa. At more approachable prices, consider the Channel Islands D100 or D200 monoblocks.

Another amp that is excellent on Definitions, with the right preamp, is the Acoustic Masterpiece M101. This is an Air-Tight designed SE KT88 using Tamura transformers having the seeming specific gravity of plutonium.

Phil

[G.ear]

Phil,

Your 10 years of attendance at BSO concerts tells me you're my kind-of-guy.  Always nice to know where someone's sonic reference is when talking about tastes in loudspeakers/amplifiers.  I,  too, am a fairly frequent concertgoer, and truly am seeking to build a system that can suspend disbelief.

I've no experience with any of the amps you've mentioned except for the MC501, which is, IMHO, about as neutral an amp as one is likely to find.  I do think, however, that well designed SETs possess a level of transparency and a continuousness to the soundfield that even the best solid state amps cannot replicate.  As with all things, there seems to be tradeoffs.  I understand that the guys at Zu really like the Rogue Zeus amplifier.  If I'm not mistaken, the thing weighs a ton, and I'm 60 yrs. old with a bad back and an upstairs listening room.  I live alone, and I hate having to be dependent on someone else to get things done.  No amps over about 80 pounds for this guy.  Thus, I tend to prefer mono amps.

What are PX 25 amps?  Is that an output tube that I'm just not familiar with or is that a particular model of amp from some manufacturer?  In any event, I will definitely do some research on the amps you mention given the similarity we share in musical preferences.

Thanks once again.  Those lads over at Zu should put you on their payroll.  They couldn't buy this kind of advertising.

Dean

[213Cobra]

Dean,

The PX25 is a vintage triode tube, and contemporary versions are made by KR (expensive), TJ and Shuguang in China. Sophia in the US sells a very nice Chinese version, fully QC'd. An SET PX25 design yields 6 watts/channel typically. It's a drier more clinical sound than a 300B amp absent the 300Bs lushness, but detail is scinitillating and bass is extended and tight, which is noticeable on Druids. Audion makes an excellent PX25 SET in both stereo and monoblock form. Not heavy either. Also Art Audio makes an excellent PX25 stereo amp.

Sean Casey at Zu, during a visit to L.A., was able to hear my Druids on my 300B amp and suggested an 845 tube amp as an alternative. Sean likes a very muscular sound character and views performance-level volume as part of the fidelity illusion. He made a good suggestion. I found a pair of Audion Black Shadow monoblocks which are 845 SETs. With the new Chinese metal plate 845 they are especially satisfying. Antique Sound  ASL 1006 monoblocks are single 845 SET for much less money, about $3000 pr. and very nice. They also make a monoblock pair of parallel SET 845 amps, the AQ 1009, which use 2 845 tubes and sell for around $5500. And the deHavilland 845 amps are excellent too, made in California. So you have some 845 options.

I agree with you about SET vs. the McIntosh MC501, which is why after coming within a millisecond of springing for them for my Definitions, I spent the cash on the Audiopax 88 monoblocks instead. They are an unusual single-ended KT88 design that models triode characteristics from a KT88 pair. In each monoblock resides two single-ended KT88 amps with slightly dissimilar output xformers, which are paralleled at the output. They are the single most revealing, neutral, musical and non-fatiguing amps I've ever heard. If you could afford it, the Audiopax stereo 88, with 15/15 watts would be sensational with Druids.

But I advise people to not discount single-ended KT88 amps that cost much less. Audion, Antique Sound, Acoustic Masterpiece, and many Chinese firms sell affordable single-ended KT88 amps that sound superb and have better dynamics than many SETs.

I know Sean likes the Rogue Zeus amp. It is big, heavy and gives the sense of infinite power reserve I've heard from the McIntosh MC1201s. You can't sneer at six KT88s and what they can achieve in the right circuit. It is an intensely muscular amp, yet still musical and clear. However, it is not like an SET. You have many tubes working together and it is an ultralinear design. I think it is among the handful of best powerful amps and I can easily imagine how well it drives Druids and how well they can showcase the amp. But it doesn't have the same liquidity and seamlessness as a really solid SET, though it does offer more control of the speaker driver and that's evident in what you hear. It's excellent by any measure, just not the same experience as an SET.

Based on what you've described about your criteria, I think it would be worth you looking into the deHavilland Aries 845, http://www.dehavillandhifi.com/845-G.htm, which are 58 lbs. each, $8000/pr. The Audion Elite is a very manageable 3-chassis monoblock configuration, but it's more expensive (replaces the Black Shadow).  Then if you need to spend less than the deHavilland, you can consider what Consonance and Antique Sound have, from China.

The thing you have to consider, given the quality of affordable amps suddenly on the market is:

....if you were considering Druids at $2800/pr. plus $8,000 worth of amplification, would it be better to have Definitions at $9,000/pr. plus an $1,800 amp?

The Druids and Definitions are different experiences within a common approach to sonic realism. I'm glad and fortunate to have both. But if I could only have one and I were spending $11,000 total on amps and speakers, I'd get Definitions and settle on a good $1500 amp. There are many. If I however had less than the price of Definitions to spend on both speakers and amps, I'd be quite happy with what Druids make possible for my budget.

Phil

[G.ear]

Phil

As always, very informative.  I've been trying to check out some of the amlifiers that you mention in your last post.

Your Audiopax 88 mono blocks sound like wonderful amps.  I've read several reviews online, and they do sound like the amps to own if a person can afford them.  The timber lock sounds like something that a lot of folks could use to really mess up the sound, however (myself included).  I'm probably going to try and stay below $5K, but would stretch a bit further if is was an extraordinary fit with the speaker.

One amp that I definitely would like to hear is the Art Audio Carissa.  I read the review in 6 moons, and it sound like it is a very special little amp.  I am put off by the reviewer's comments regarding the upper midrange brightness, however.  I've always found components that exhibit that deviation to be fatiguing to listen to in the long run.

Audion apparently makes a 30 watt KT88 based single-ended amp that retails for just under $5K, and I would like to check it out as well.  I haven't found a thing in print on that amp so far.  If there are any others in their line near the price level I've indicated that I should listen to, please let me know.  I will also try to listen to the ASL AQ 1009.

I had an acquaintance that was using the deHavilland amps with a pair of Edgarhorns (approx. 106 db efficiency), and he was never able to get happy with them due to noise.  I guess there was just too much hum and tube rush when coupled to such a high efficiency speaker.  I could see this being a problem with many tube amps when coupled to speakers of that ilk, and frankly, the Zu Definition would seem to be largely of that ilk.

I am curious as to why you suggested that the Audiopax stereo 88 would be sensational with the Druids and not mention the Definitions in the same breath.  Do they simply work better on the Druids or were you just mentioning that combo as a way to keep the overall cost down?

I very much appreciate all your suggestions on amplifiers.  Of course, I still need to listen to the speakers before I get too excited about any single- ended amp.

Dean

[213Cobra]

Dean,

It was an oversight to not mention the Audiopax Stereo amp as suitable for the Definitions. It would be the second best choice to the monoblocks. Frankly, the Audiopax 88 monoblocks are the finest amps I've heard or owned. The stereo amp at half the power is the closest you can get to them, as long as you have a speaker that can work within the available power, and all Zu speakers qualify. It's not cheap for 15/15 watts, but on Definitions it's plenty.

KT-88 amps do well on the Defs because they tend to have superior bass to most SETs and since the Def sub-bass array amp takes its input from the amp signal, the bass qualities of the main power amp are transferred to the sub-bass array. 845 tubes work best among the SETs I've heard, but a really good KT88 circuit -- especially single-ended rather than push-pull -- delivers plenty of midrange and treble magic.

The Audiopax timbre-lock circuit isn't difficult to dial in. However when new, the Audiopax does improve significantly in its first 50 or so hours of break-in, then improves at a more incremental rate for another hundred or so hours after that. It takes a few days experience to sense where the timbre-lock settings snap everything into focus, but a little patience with yourself will get it done. It's quite stable once set. You can't really get yourself into a horrible mess with it. At its worst, the wrong timbre-lock setting bleaches emotion from the sound. It's wrong if it's cool and "dry" and equally wrong if it sounds slow and rounded off. These are very relative characterizations relative to expectations created by the expense. Then you dial in the right mix of settings and suddenly it's music.

I was at the Zu demo in Los Angeles yesterday. Zu brought a Rogue Zeus amp with them and a customer brought an Almarro A205. The Almarro is a tiny 4.8/4.8w EL84 single-ended amp with a single 12ax7 input. Just three tubes and $800. It drove Defs, Druids and Tones to very satisfying volume levels in a 32 x 24 hotel banquet room and it dripped with expression and emotion. The Rogue amp could steamroll the little Almarro on dynamics but the Almarro gave the Rogue a black eye on expression, 3-dimensional soundstaging and timbre. Single-ended tetrode and pentode designs, like the Almarro, the Audiopax and the Audion KT88 and EL34 amps really do well with Defs, owing in part to their bass discipline and ability to project near-triode intimacy, expression and transparency.

For some alternatives under $5K, watch Audiogon. I know there will be some Audion demo KT88 and EL34 amps listed there this week or very soon in any case. The seller has been the importer and he has a very good tube technician to provide service in the event its ever needed.

I have less confidence in push-pull amps producing the sound you seek, but two exceptions might be the McIntosh 2102 KT88 amp and any of the Audio Research units that currently fall in your budget. But if I were buying Definitions AND could afford more than $5K but less than $10K, I'd get the Audiopax Stereo 88. One thing with Audiopax.....tubes make a clear difference. My monoblocks shipped with Ei input tubes and Sovtek power tubes. OK, but a little dry to my hearing. Substitutions set things right. Otherwise, an 845 amp in the range, though there is clearly more noise with every 845 amp I've heard than with single-ended KT88 or 300B SETs. I don't expect the deHavilland, ASL, Consonance 845 amps to be any different than what I experienced with my Audion 845 amps. You have to work a bit to find the lowest noise cabling and grounding scheme and even then it won't be dead quiet. If that sort of noise is difficult for you to live with, then I recommend single-ended KT88 amps or for SET, the Audion or Art Audio PX-25 alternatives.

As for the Art Audio Carissa, keep in mind that you can get very distinctly different experiences from Chinese graphite plate and metal plate tubes. And the KR 845 ribbon filament tube is another experience still. And the vintage RCA and United 845s are another experience again, at much higher cost. I think you can mitigate any upper mid peaks. However if you find yourself at an Art Audio dealer to hear the Carissa, you might as well check out the PX25 too.

Phil

[G.ear]

Phil,

Wish I could have been there at the demo and heard that comparison.  Not surprised by what you experienced.

Sounds like you've been a tube hound for some time.  I've always loved the way tube gear sounds, but I know little to nothing about the various tubes and their characteristics.  Of the 845's, which is most likely to not exhibit the upper midrange emphasis?  I don't know which of the Chinese tubes the Carissa comes with, but clearly that isn't the one I'd want.

Based on my reading, you are confirming the opinions I have derived--namely that a good single-ended KT 88 amp might well be preferable overall.  I truly don't think I want any amp with less than 15 watts, and probably nothing with more than 30 watts, though I might still consider a pair of Cary 805 Anniversary Addition amps used.  You get a choice of either the 845 output tube or the 211.  These amps have sufficient power to drive virtually any speaker except those of the lowest sensitivity, and still yield that wonderful single-ended sound.  I wish there was some way to hear all these amps side by side.  Of course, that would make things too easy, or not.

From my readings, I doubt the PX25's are going to be my sonic preference, but if I am given the opportunity to hear them, I certainly will.  I have found far less information on the Audion amps than any of the ones that you have mentioned.  Do you know of any good on-line reviews?

What type of custom finish did you get on your Definitions?  I'm thinking about some shade of red, or possibly a combination of red and black.  I saw a picture of the Maserati blue ones in the 6 moons review, and they were gorgeous.  I do think darker colors are preferable if one chooses to use the speakers in a home theater application.  Can't tell you how anxious I am to hear these speakers, but just won't get the opportunity until RMAF.  Are you planning on attending?

Once again, your comments have been most helpful.

Dean

[213Cobra]

Dean,

I've been using tube amps of various types continuously since 1975. There have been some transistors in the mix now and then, but tubes have been present in my system amplification for 30 years. The PX25 tube typically has a lean and very disciplined sound character and does produce the best bass *quality* of any triode tube I've heard. But it is discernably lean and "objective" compared to, say, a 300B and even an 845/211. It's a more ascetic sound, in my experience.

The 845/211 amps can sound gorgeous, but as I noted before, I use my 845 amps on Druids. Even an 845 has a bit of a fat bottom on the Definitions, compared to what you can get out of a single-ended KT88. The default tube on the Carissa is Valve Art, which is a QC'd Shuguang tube. If it has the older "845A", a graphite plate version distinguishable by the mica spacer inside the top of the glass, you'd want to replace them. If it has the "845B", a graphite plate patterned after the mid-century Amperex 845 and distinguishable by the lack of mica spacer inside the top of the glass, then it is acceptable. However, that tube can sound a little dull on high-frequencies on an extended range speaker like Zu. On a single cone speaker it wouldn't be so noticeable. The Shuguang "845C" metal plate version produces about 20% less power but has a considerably more open sound and very articulate, extended top end, and it nicely dimensional in its soundspace presentation. And probably the best sound from a contemporary 845 is that from the KR845, which is a deviant design but modern and excellent at $600/pair. Vintage RCAs are the grail, but NOS tubes seem to be going for as much as $1600/pair, which isn't a good use of funds compared to what you can get from KR or the Chinese metal plates.

There are few reviews on Audion amps. The brand sells well in Europe and in the Far East but mostly on word-of-mouth and their dealers' efforts in those markets. In the US, the line has never been promoted in any sustained fashion. However there is a Positive Feedback review on a 300B amp and you will find some English language Italian online reviews of some of their stuff if you Google Audion + 300B, Black Shadows, 845, Sterling, Silver Night, Golden Dream, etc. I became familiar with Audion through chance circumstances a few years ago, otherwise I'd know little about the company or products. I have a few of their amps and they have proven bulletproof for me and sonically excellent, with some particular synergies with Zu speakers. Because it happens that the US importer is located here in Los Angeles, I've been able to sample most variants in their line on my speakers. They have single-ended and parallel single-ended KT88 variants that work really well on Definitions. But certainly there are many alternatives to Audion in that amp architecture.

The photograph of the blue Definition in the 6Moons review is one of mine. Zu took the photo before they shipped my speakers and included it in the photos they are using for promotion. Specifically, I requested Maserati Blue Nettuno finish, and Zu replicates vehicle colors in Dupont's Chroma finish system. It's produced to a very high standard. You can cite any automotive finish from any manufacturer that you like, or work with Zu on a custom color. My Druids, by the way, are brilliant gloss red in a different room. Over the weekend, for the first time I saw Zu's standard matte finishes. They are carefree, durable and pleasing. But if you have the scratch, the extra for a gloss automotive finish really amps up the decor factor and raises perceived value.

If you could afford it, I'm sure you'd find the Audiopax Stereo 88 sensationally satisfying if you become convinced to buy Definitions.

Phil

[G.ear]

Phil,

Well, that was quite a rundown on the various tubes, and most helpful to one as unfamiliar as myself with the characteristics of the various output tubes.  In speaking with deHaviland, I learned that the KR845 is, as you say, a "deviant" and cannot be replaced in amps that were originally set up for the 845B or 845C tubes without changing the filament voltage (if I understood correctly).  The KR845 runs a much lower filament voltage, so resistor values have to be changed in the circuit to accommodate the changeover.  In any event, I've been doing a lot of reading since your last post.  There is no question that I would be well served and most pleased with the Audiopax 88 monos, but I'm afraid they are simply out of my reach, but the stereo version is a possibility.  It just gets back to what speaker I'm going to end up with.

After owning Beveridge electrostats (with many modifications) for the past 26 years, I am spoiled in certain ways.  I've not heard any dynamic loudpseakers (save one) that I would favor over them in the parameters that are most important to me.  That said, I am unwilling to buy another speaker that has the same shortcomings that the Bevs possessed.  The one dynamic speaker I have heard that excels the most was the VMPS RM/X Elixer.  It is really a little rich for me (dollar wise), and I'm put off by its physical mass (375 lbs. per side) given my upstairs listening room.  Thus, my quest continues.  I am very fond of the overall sound of the big Sound Labs--so transparent and harmonically correct they are.  Cost is a factor with them as well, but frankly, they have all the shortcomings my Beveridges have--dynamically restricted and seemingly incapable of reproducing the mid and upper bass with anything like the proper weight of real instruments (just listen to a solo piano).  I'm sure there are Sound Lab owners that would disagree, but I haven't heard them set up or amplified in such a way to get that part of the spectrum right.

Everything about speakers are tradeoffs, it seems, so they become very personal.  One man's dream is another's nightmare.  I am skeptical as to whether the Definitions will meet my expectations regarding transparency and harmonic/timbral accuracy, not to mention a sufficiently wide sweet spot.  So few speakers in my experience are capable of this, but the Definitions have a good chance due to the absence of a crossover on either side of the main driver(s).  That has really got to help!  On the other hand, the cabinets don't appear to be anything special, so I wonder about resonant vibrations coloring the sound and obscuring detail.  I often times wish I wasn't such a jaded listenter.  Life would be much simpler.

BTW, I had actually wondered if the Maserati Blue speakers photographed in the 6 moons review were yours.  They really are quite gorgeous.

It's been a pleasure having your feedback on both the speaker and amplifier issues.  Thanks so much.

Dean

[213Cobra]

Dean,

I think Definitions have more than a chance of satisfying you. The cabinet is almost sonically irrelevant, being quite inert and there is so little excursion from the drivers that relatively little energy is channeled into it. Sweet spot is quite wide -- wider than the Druid and much more latitude than a Beveridge, which is a speaker I haven't heard anyone refer to in a long time. It was special and distinctive in its day.

The Definition is the first dynamic speaker that to me fully replicates the transient speed, transparency and effortless detail of a good electrostatic. I'm a former Quad ESL owner. The Druids have this essential quality too, but the Definition does it with a more extended apparent top end.

You should talk with Sean or Adam at Zu about the cabinet of their speakers. They are simple but the reasoning behind their designs is not, and construction techniques specifically emphasize precision, resonance reduction and generally marginalize the role of the cabinet in the speakers' tonal accuracy.

The Definition puts everything needed in a mere 12" x 12" footprint, just 49" tall at 120 lbs. Very manageable. When you listen to them I think you will see that your skepticism about the criteria you list is moot. You may observe something else that becomes material to you, but I don't think you will be disappointed relative to criteria you've defined so far. And with an Audiopax stereo 88 or good 845 amp with the metal plate tube, I think you will be pleased you've made a big step forward.

Phil

[G.ear]

Phil,

You wrote:  "wider than the Definition (I think you meant "Druid") and much more latitude than a Beveridge" WRT the sweet spot of the Definition.  I hope you're right, but I really have to question that.  I don't know when or where you heard the Beveridge loudspeaker, but I don't recall having ever heard any speaker that has a wider sweet spot than the Beveridge.  It is the only speaker I've experienced that has a nearly perfect uniform horizontal polar response of 180 degrees, has virtually no group delay, and almost perfect power response.  The MBL omni is the only speaker I've seen that has better horizontal polar response than the Beveridge.  Since the recommended placement of the Beveridge was facing each other on the side walls of a rectangular listening room, there is virtually no place in the room that you will not get a fully developed soundstage with uniform frequency response, and the frequency response from approx. 500 HZ to 10KHZ was easily withinn + or - 2 db.  In addition, since it is a true line source, it interacts minimally with the room in the vertical plane.  Simply one of the easiest speakers to get good sound from in any room.  And talk about phase coherence--the impulse response was such that you could place a microphone virtually anywhere in the room and get an oscilloscope impulse reading that was a very close facsimile of the impulse fed to the amplifier/speaker (first arrival only, of course).  Virtually no speaker today can achieve that, and IMHO, it is that failing that is largely responsible for most speakers being incapable of suspending disbelief.  Opinions, of course, will vary.  That said, based on the design topology of the Definitions, I'm thinking they should be able to largely replicate the impulse response of the Beveridge throughout most of the frequency spectrum, and it is for that reason that I am so drawn to them.  I can hardly stand having to wait until October to get to listen to them.

To me, these things look to potentially have most of the benefits of the Beveridge design without its drawbacks.  I can only imagine a Beveridge with great bass, dynamics, and headroom.  So, yes, I must agree with you that the Definitions have more than a chance of satisfying me and potentially being a real step forward.

Dean

[213Cobra]

Dean,

You're right -- I meant to write that the Definition's sweet spot is wider than the Druid's. It's been a long time since I heard the Beveridge's, more than 20 years. I knew a couple people who owned them and I once sold a traded-in pair when I was in the business way back when. Here's the thing -- there's a difference between great or even perfect polar response and sweet spot. I agree you can get AN image just about anywhere in a room if Beveridges are set up correctly. The phase relationships that help to define soundstage that are captured in a recording do not yield the same kind of image on playback to an imprecisely located listener as the latitude for soundstage a listener would experience in a live music setting. To me, the Beveridge and any other speaker that boasted "perfect" polar response never actually yielded a sweet spot anywhere close to the scope of their measured dispersion.

The Definition has, to me, as wide a sweet spot as is practical. In any case, the soundstage should not remain constant as you move around, just as it wouldn't in live music. But an intact soundstage for any reasonable location should be discernable, and in the rooms I've heard Definitions, this is true. My recollection of hearing the Beveridges is that while they had full sweep, the actual area of precision focus and placement was smaller or at least no larger than what I hear from Definitions.

The vertical FRD - tweeter - FRD array of the Definition also controls room effects in the vertical plane, particularly ceiling and floor effects, so you should sense some continuity of behavior between Bevs and Defs in that respect. The Beveridges had their advantages, but all said and done, the limitations of the design were for many people just as compromising as Quads and KLH 9s were for their respective owners -- but in each case the  stellar traits were extremely seductive and hard to deny.

The Definition has a very small group delay and tight phase coherence to go with its frequency linearity and range.  It's the only dynamic speaker that to me competes with the perception of transient speed and transparency usually associated with electrostatics and Magnepans. I am sure you will feel you have to give up something you enjoy about Beveridges and as a current and continuing owner of them you'll be in a position to report the differences that are vivid to you and meaningful to your decision.

Phil

[G.ear]

Phil,

Here's the thing -- there's a difference between great or even perfect polar response and sweet spot.

Well, you're absolutely correct, there is a difference.  I was referring to the fact that when I move off axis, the frequency response stays pretty uniform and I can still get a soundstage with right, center, and left images.  When I move to the right, the entire stage moves to the right, and vice versa.  Of course, the place where it sounds best is at the apex of the triangle, but it is enjoyable anywhere in the room, and I never feel cheated when I'm off axis.  It is that quality that I find missing in many speakers and that I am hoping is present in the Definitions, and from what you say, it shouldn't be a problem.

Aside from the things I've already mentioned, I think the thing that has made the Beveridges so compelling to me for so long has to do with the way they load the room with sound.  There is such a continuousness to the soundfield, and that continuousness facilitates the psychoacoustic effect of actually being there in the acoustic space of the recording venue.  Other speakers can create this, but with the Beveridges it was practically a given--with other speakers you often have to work long and hard to get a similar effect.

In all of your posts describing the sound and character of the Definitions, you have never given any indication of there being paratmeters of its performance that you feel could use improvement or areas of weakness.  I can only assume that the speaker isn't perfect as I haven't ever heard a perfect loudspeaker.  If you could ask for something more from the speaker or could change it in some way, what would it be?

Dean

[213Cobra]

Dean,

Alright, then. This will be long because I don't have time to craft a shorter note. As long as you're separating sweet spot from continuous presence of a sense of stage regardless of where you wander around a room, then we understand each other. I can only say this: My Definitions are in a 21' x 14.5' room, on the long wall. There is hi-def video in this system too. People can sit anywhere in the room and retain a soundstage for either a movie or music, and I don't experience loss of sensed space and localization in any location of the room I can use. My Druids are in a 22' x 12' room on the short wall. The same is essentially true there but I can extrapolate from wandering around that room, that if the Druids were subbed in for Defs in the room where Definitions are now used, the preservation of sound image, frequency linearity and continuous projection laterally would be somewhat reduced. Somewhat -- not radically. At least in my room where the Defs are used on the long wall, they project more even response as listener location changes, than I really need, and more than most speakers I've heard.

You're correct; I haven't written anything about what's missing. It's not because these speakers are perfect -- they're not. However, there is so much skepticism in these forums about whether what owners say can possibly be true, that I haven't felt there is any purpose to registering complaints. Online sentiment about Zu speakers, by people who haven't heard them, ranges from declarations that neither Druids nor Defs can possibly perform to specs, to suspicion that there's some kind of cult appeal that prevents those who like the speakers from objective assessment. Look, bought a pair of Druids out of curiosity. If anything, based on my experiences with other full-range high-efficiency speakers, I  was predisposed to reject them for long term duty in my system. If you read other posts elsewhere, I have repeatedly tried to explain that the Druid in particular is idiosyncratic and that Zu's design choices result in a speaker that requires some orientation by the buyer, if he or she is an experienced audiophile who has been conditioned by products to date. But to my surprise, Druids won consideration for Definitions and both earned a place in my home.

I don't expect any audio system regardless of cost to put live music in my house. I don't have rooms big enough to really care about subterranean bass fundamentals. The Definition goes to 16Hz anyway. I know that if a speaker is reasonably phase coherent with neutral tonality and doesn't scramble the time events, I'll get holographic imaging IF, IF it's present on the recording. If there were 15 mics in the room, forget it.

So, still....what's missing?

Let's see. The whole line is already 101 db/w/m efficient, and either 6 or 12 ohm. Hmm...would I like 115 db efficiency if I didn't have to give anything up? Sure, but....

Some people like hypertweeters extending out to 38K, 50K, 90K.  Gosh....there's a lot happening up there in modern digital electronics that isn't part of the music.

Would perfect polar response be a good idea? Hard to say -- it raises the influence of room factors, rather than reducing them.

When 1 watt in yields 101 db out at 1 m, do I need more than 300 watts power handling? Well, more is better always, but we all know that you can safely use a 1000 watt amp on a speaker rated for 200 watts max, with less risk than 10 watts on an 82db/w/m speaker with 200 watts power handling.

Could they be flatter in their frequency response? Perhaps, but as it is room, recording and associated equipment factors are already more influential to frequency linearity than the speaker itself.

"Well, Phil.....what are you saying? That Definitions are perfect after all?"

No.

Sure, I want more. The Definition is a statement speaker for Zu. It fills a room. If you heard the 4/4w Almarro amp in L.A. driving Defs in a 32' x 24' carpeted and draped room,  you'd know they fill a room nicely. But some of the Druid's intimacy, abetted by its suitability for near-field listening, is lost. The Druid sounds impressive when you move away from it but it grabs you by the throat when you get within 8 feet of the skinny maverick. The Definition sounds striking near-field but really puts the vice-grips on your attention when you can move at least 12' away. I'd like the Definition's performance without losing the Druid's intimacy.

I'd like the last tiny trace of FRD tonality to be wrung from both speakers. Every now and then, a note, some transient sound, will burst out of a Zu speaker and just for a flash moment you'll recognize an instant of a hint of a breath of FRD "shout." It's so seldom noticed that it's hardly worth mentioning but if I could have it gone altogether, I would.

Sean and Adam have innovated in drivers, cabinets and manufacturing. But their chief success has been in how they rejiggered priorities in conflicting elements of speaker design and struck a new balance. They made very judicious choices in their trade-offs, and expanded the scope of their options where possible through driver, cabinet, materials and methods innovations. That balance has reasserted the essence of "aliveness" to reproduced music, which is driven by dynamics, transient speed and consistency, bandwidth, and phase coherence more than by frequency accuracy. But unlike virtually everyone who has tried before them, they've addressed those priorities without sacrificing accuracy.

I've heard various Avant-garde horn models. They're good, but I couldn't own them. Many people say they are absent any deleterious traits of horns. Not to me. No matter how far away I get from them, I hear each driver individually. I've never heard a Wilson speaker that sounded relaxed. Both sound sensationally impressive as hi-fi. But that's proven a dead-end for anyone reaching for the emotion in music and the factors necessary to transmit that into your room.

After 30 years at this, I am tired of drivers that don't worth together on transient information. I am apathetic about music "squeezed" through crossovers with a dozen or more elements. I am sick of ringing tweeters, fed up with hi-fi hash, bored by unengaging clinical sound. Gear elephantiasis snaps my wallet shut tighter than a shoreline clam in a typhoon.  I don't want funny beaks or inert mass-loading blisters to convince myself that my speakers sound good. I don't want to buy bigger amps that sound progressively worse for incessantly more money, just because my speaker has to be goosed by Mickey Rourke to play Albert King without making him sound like B.B.

Instead, the Zu Definition is the most incisively balanced column of splendid imperfections I've found in a loudspeaker. I know from my conversations with Sean and Adam that it's going to get better still. I just don't know today how. They are thoroughly committed to continuous improvement and even small increments are on their to-do list. 6Moons wants a level control for the bass amp on the Definitions. It's already in production, for example. Zu thinks about extending bandwidth a quarter-octave at a time.  They'll shave an impedance curve a little flatter if they can. Smooth the supertweeter's roll-in. Research the optimal connector.

The Definition is a true high-end speaker that can be dropped into any room and sound great, the same way this was true for the prosaic Advents in the context of their market back in 1973, and Dynaco A25s before that. No dipole issues to mitigate. No Bose intentional reflection nonsense. No K-horn honking or Lowther anemia. No 96 drivers line-source blur. No woofer lag with membrane panels. No wound-by-virgins voice coils. No reactive, near-short-circuit load to flame your amp. No lumpy garage aesthetics in gloss paint for 5 or 6 figures. Finally, someone brings a speaker to market that is something more than the same old Danish drivers in a new container; something less than the Mars Rover stood on its hind wheels.  When you hear the Tone, Druid and Definition in one sitting, you realize you've never heard a line of speakers so close in performance so widely separated by price. Even the Tone is revealing enough to argue for an amp as good as an Audiopax if space is tight. Even in a market changed by Chinese manufacturing, you can't question the Definition's value, so when you hear the Definition, and then the Tone, you wonder how the Tone can sound like it does and be so inexpensive.

I used to see Tom Waits in bars and small clubs back in the early 70s when he was unknown. I've been 4-6 feet away from him, during performances. Most of his recordings are not multi-miked, many captured with only a pair of well-placed transducers. Zu puts him in my home, or as close as I've ever experienced. What do I want out of a Definition to make Waits sound even more like Waits? I don't know. I sure don't want him larger than life, more Waits than the real thing.

For years I did not listen to symphonic music on a stereo. I grew up hearing symphonic music live by the Philadelphia Orchestra under Eugene Ormandy. That kinda sets some expectations. Later, the BSO in Symphony Hall and Tanglewood under Seiji Ozawa. Recorded symphonies were just too disappointing to bother with on hifi, when I could wait for live. There was always a speaker rumored to be around the corner, that could make orchestral music worthwhile. I got a little satisfaction 20 years ago from ProAc EBS driven by Futterman OTLs. Almost. Every few years word of something big and unwieldy, sure to make a symphony sound right, would circulate. Remember Duntechs? Hahahahaha..... Huge, power-hungry, drivers galore. Of course made worse when the relentlessly unlovely Krell amps were roped to them. Apogee -- now there was a speaker! Actually excellent if you could keep an amp operating with them for more than a few months. And of course you had to check the weather to know if your speakers would sound good that day. Avant-garde "we-don't-sound-like-horns" horns in candy colors to distract you from the fact that at the end of the day they still sound like horns, only less so. WAMM monstrosities that look like someone stacked a toaster oven on a microwave on top of a washing machine and painted it all the same color.

Or you can get gorgeous Italian art objects that are "voiced" to the tastes of a specific designer, like an archtop luthier tap-tunes a jazzbox. British boxes that acquit themselves well but the stiff upper lip stands in the way.  OK, rude dismissals, but you understand the point. Well, guess what? I'm listening to orchestral music again. It started the day I got my Druids and stepped up again when Definitions arrived.

For me, the Definition is as good as you can expect a loudspeaker for domestic use to be in 2005. In a lot of respects it should have existed much earlier but as is often the case, it took a small team from a new generation to take a fresh look at principles from the past that had fallen out of favor and then marry them to the methods of contemporary craft. Unlike most of what is more expensive and physically grandiose, it doesn't overstate anything. Unlike the many decent speakers that cost less, it isn't missing any fundamental attribute necessary for a complete sense of fidelity. I believe it's the very best speaker on the market that can be used practically and without disruption in real homes, and that includes the total physical and financial footprint of speakers plus requisite amplification.

Phil

[G.ear]

Phil,

WHEW!!  I'm just recovering from a sideache!

After 30 years at this, I am tired of drivers that don't worth together on transient information. I am apathetic about music "squeezed" through crossovers with a dozen or more elements. I am sick of ringing tweeters, fed up with hi-fi hash, bored by unengaging clinical sound. Gear elephantitis snaps my wallet shut faster than a shoreline clam in a typhoon. I don't want funny beaks or inert mass-loading blisters to convince myself that my speakers sound good. I don't want to buy bigger amps that sound progressively worse for incessantly more money, just because my speaker has to be goosed by Mickey Rourke to play Albert King without making him sound like B.B.

Well, my new audiocircle friend, that was funny.  Priceless, actually.  The whole thing was.  The visuals I had of that "shoreline clam in a typhoon" put me in pain from laughing so hard.    Having been involved in this hobby for almost exactly the same length of time as yourself,  let me say that I could "relate" to your experiences and feelings.  I couldn't agree with you more regarding the Avant-Gardes, Wilsons, et.al.  

Christ, Phil, you have a tremendous writing talent.  You could put Srajan to shame as an audio reviewer.  Ever given that any thought?  

Interesting that you put the Definitions on the long wall firing into the shorter dimension of the room.  They must be out from the front wall by a couple of feet or more, so I'm guessing that you must sit fairly close to the speakers--certainly not over 10 to 12 feet away, and perhaps less.  I won't be able to get more than 14 feet away from the speaker in my room, and perhaps not that much depending on how far they'll need to come from the front wall.

In any event, Phil, I fully understand where you are coming from WRT the Zu loudspeakers, and I'd say you're coming from a pretty good place.  Didn't mean for my question to so stimulate your juices, but am glad that they did, as I now have the best understanding yet of what the speaker is and why it appeals to you so mightily.  I suspect that I'm going to like them just as much as you do.

It has truly been a pleasure having someone with your experience, communication skills, and demeanor to converse with.  Thank you for such a clear, entertaining, and well considered response.  Hope we get to meet someday and share a few tunes.

Dean

[213Cobra]

Dean,

The Definition can be used as close as 1" -- that's one-inch -- away from the rear wall. It isn't feasible to set this room up with the gear on the short wall and it sounds fine. My noggin is about 14' from the front of the front of each Def when I'm in center position. The Defs are toed-in a bit and have 9" - 12" free space to the wall behind. If you can sit at least 10' - 12' away from Definitions you'll be fine.

People make a living writing audio gear reviews?

Phil