[ScottMayo]

True.  Yet, my situation is so obviously a room issue that it isn't fair at all to hang it on the speakers.  If you read the text, I can hear those frequencies literally bouncing off the glass of my bar and opposite window.

Wouldn't treating the room be a plan at this point? Then you could fairly determine what the speakers are doing.

[miklorsmith]

Yes.  I've built some acoustic panels and I'm buying a few more.  I've got plans to put some heavy drapes over the window.  I'm a little worried, as the bar is built in and can't be easily covered.  Covering one side might be sufficient.

The funny thing is that bass response is the prototypical bugaboo, but I'm dead flat (+/- 3 db) from 1 khz down to 31 hz, except for a 5 db rise at 100 hz.  Pretty exemplary actually.  I thought the bass was shy and heard a ringing with piano music so I pulled out the Stereophile test discs and my SPL meter and spent a couple hours taking notes.

The warble tones from about 2k to 6k or 8k sound like they're bouncing off the glass.  Long note-sustains build in volume but short ones (like drums) sound even-keeled.  Most music sounds very balanced and, frankly, spectacular.  So, the goal is to counteract the glass/room peakiness.

Re:  the MTM graph - is this a Definition speaker?

[Watson]

Yes.  I've built some acoustic panels and I'm buying a few more.  I've got plans to put some heavy drapes over the window.

You could make your room into an anechoic chamber, and the response from the Definitions would still be terrible.  Those darn laws of physics.  Knock yourself out though.  Even electronic room correction can't fix the lobing.

Re: the MTM graph - is this a Definition speaker?

It's an MTM with smaller drivers and closer M-to-M spacing.  The lobing from the Definitions will be much worse than pictured.

[miklorsmith]

Yes, the age-old problem.  The scientist says "you will hear X because of Y and Z".  Subject replies "but I perceive M".  A good scientist will say "Hmmm, lets revisit the model".

You sir, are the other kind - defying reality to disprove your golden theory.  Please take care to preface all comments with "I presume", or "I imagine" to be clear to all the folks you're trying to sway.

I've had many discussions like this one where the opposition claims to tell me what's happening in my listening room.  Frankly, they do nothing to add to the topic at hand once the initial, theoretical disposition is concluded.

I will report back with my real-world experiences.

[JoshK]

What Watson is saying is very true about the physics of center-to-center spacing at a high xo point affecting lobing.   Even at 10Khz (instead of orig said 12Khz), the wavelenth is 1.3", that means if the center to center spacing between the woofers is more than 1.3" you will have lobing.  Obviously the drivers themselves are much more than 1.3" so the lobing will be predictably severe.  

This is the same reason why the Thors are often described as aggressive and forward.  It is a by product of comb filtering having some havoc on the response due to c-t-c spacing being too large for the given xo freq.

[jcoat007]

Hey guys, why don't you order a pair with the 60 day return policy and see for yourself.  Speculate all you want, but these speakers do not exhibit any of what you are saying.  

That is my only comment on this thread.  

Peace out.

[JoshK]

Speculate all you want, but these speakers do not exhibit any of what you are saying.  

Look, I am not saying these speakers sound bad, I am saying they will exhibit lobing (whether people can hear or not I am not suggesting) and I do not need to order a pair to hear to tell you that.  It is fact and there is no getting around that.  Simple as that.   It can also be seen by the behavior of the distortion plots around 5khz shown in the previous measurements and that has nothing to do with the tuning.

[JohnnyLightOn]

It never fails that comments are made about how these speakers must sound from people who haven't heard them, none of which ever match up to what any of their owners experience from them.  The most obvious way to reconcile this is to assume the graph is wrong.

But I do not understand the motivation behind these comments.  Is it to prove that a manufacturer cannot design around known issues typical of single-driver speakers?  Is it to demonstrate the posters' superior knowledge?  Somehow these speakers are presumed to be a threat by some, a fraud by others, and wonderful by yet a third group.  But in most cases, those in the first two groups have never even heard them!

Personally, I've heard all three speakers in the Zu line, and I think they're great.  I don't tolerate speakers with very obvious flaws well, and if they were seriously colored or uneven, I wouldn't have liked them.  My closest audiophile friend - who's on this site but I'll let him speak up if he wants to - bought the Druids after I heard them, and made them the centerpiece of his system.  He built his system around them.  This is a guy who's had a hundred pieces of gear and is very particular.  But he and I are just two people.  Like jcoat007 said, you should hear them for yourself.

[jcoat007]

OK. so I lied about not posting again.

I guess I get rubbed the wrong way, big time, when anyone bashes anything without first hand experience.  

Do you have a pair?  

Have you heard them?

I don't care what degree you have and I don't care what your credentials are.

Have you heard them and have you evaluated them first hand?

If not, then why speculate about their behavior in a public forum?  

This kind of sh*t drives me crazy.  

Try it first hand and then talk the talk.  

I have never once on this forum, or any other ever specualted about anything.  I buy it, I try it and the I talk about it.  If the manufacturer has a trial policy, I take advantage of it, even if there is a restocking fee, so that I can talk about something first hand.  

If something doesn't measure up in my listening room, I return it.  Simple as that.  

This is a waste of time and only serves to cast a shadow on an otherwise worthy product.  

I will equate this to the 3rd string player from Atlanta who got Jeremiah Trotter ejected from a pre-game altercation earlier this year.  Kevin Mathis from Atlanta started a fight with  Jeremiah Trotter and they were both ejected.  Who was hurt worse in that instance, Atlanta or the Eagles?  You guessed it, the Eagles.  

You are Kevin Mathis from the Falcons and Zu is Trotter.   This is despicable and unworthy of any audiophiles time.  

Go listen, and then post an opinion.  

Speculation is just that!

I'm done.  

I'm going to listen to my kick-ass system that includes some Zu Druid speakers!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Watson]

It never fails that comments are made about how these speakers must sound from people who haven't heard them, none of which ever match up to what any of their owners experience from them. The most obvious way to reconcile this is to assume the graph is wrong.

If you read through the Audiogon thread, you'll see that several owners of the speakers have had a negative experience with these speakers along the lines of the problems discussed in this thread.

The measurements are not likely wrong.  They match known speaker design theory very well, based on the size of the woofer and the crossover point.  What's more, the measurements were performed by the Canada's National Research Council lab, which has measured thousands of speakers over more than 30 years.  I find it a little curious that people are more willing to trust the word of a bunch of guys who sell $400 power cables, have a significant financial interest in selling the speakers, and who curiously won't provide their own set of graphs, over the measurements of the scientists at the NRC...  especially when the NRC's measurements just reflect known engineering concepts.

But I do not understand the motivation behind these comments. Is it to prove that a manufacturer cannot design around known issues typical of single-driver speakers?

There is nothing to "prove."  The original poster asked why he was getting such a peaky response from his speakers, and I responded with the most likely possibility based on the measurements that show these speakers are inherently nonlinear.

There are things that room treatments will fix.  This type of flaw is not one of them.

The discussion later got sidetracked towards the Definitions and their MTM-based design.  Frankly, that discussion is somewhat tangential, though it does suggest that Zu's designs have some fundamental flaws.  That's fine.  I'm not beating a drum against Zu.  I've said twice now that if people like this sound, great.  If not, however, people should realize that it's a hopeless goose chase to fix these speakers' flaws by room treatments (or cable rolling, or amp selection, or in the case of the Definitions, electronic room correction) as other posters have suggested.

[jcoat007]

They match known speaker design theory very well, based on the size of the woofer and the crossover point.

I am sure there is some manual out there that explains it all, for every driver that has ever been developed and there cannot ever be anything new, or old and improved upon, that is not covered in that manual.  

Where can I buy it?

[ooheadsoo]

Please keep in mind that we are discussing how the speaker measures, not how the speaker sounds.  There is a difference.  I personally have a hard time hearing combing effects except in specific circumstances, such as when I am moving around while listening critically.  The shifting peaks and nulls catch my attention, creating a strobing effect.  Otherwise, the speakers have the ability to sound fine from any fixed position.

[JohnnyLightOn]

If you read through the Audiogon thread, you'll see that several owners of the speakers have had a negative experience with these speakers along the lines of the problems discussed in this thread.

Hmmm...I don't know if I'm reading the Audiogon threads the same way as you.  There are three threads with the Druids as the topic.  One has the same original poster, so of course he's going to have the same problem he posted about here.  On that thread, two people didn't like the Druids, but that was based on a listening impression, not on ownership.  Two owners responded, both of whom were very positive and didn't see the same problem with their speakers (one of whom told the OP to wait for more break-in, a wise suggestion as the speakers were not broken-in yet).   On the thread "Anyone heard Zu Druid speakers?", there were five very positive posts from owners none of whom heard any problem like the OP has here, two negative posts both from listening impressions, and one neutral post based on an impresson.  On the thread Cain & Cain Abby vs. Zu Druid, there are two positive owner posts and no other posts about the Druid.  Note that the two negative impression posts were the same two people on both threads, and two of the owners also posted on multiple threads.

So there is a sum total of one owner on both these boards--the original poster of this thread--who is having this problem, and every other owner posting on Audiogon has no problem of this sort (or really any sort at all).  Can you point me to the owners you are referring to?  If not, I think your statement I quoted above hurts your arguments earlier in this thread.

[_scotty_]

If there is a peak centered at 1.4kHz that is 1.5 octaves wide that is between
7.6dB and 12dB in magnitude and it is contributing to the claimed
efficiency when it is removed the speaker is considerably less efficient than the manufacturer claims.  This would result in higher power requirements
than originally anticipated when they were purchased.  
I personally see nothing wrong with a person liking how the Zu loudspeaker line sounds, a speaker with a flat response in room  from 20Hz to 20kHz
 is not everyones cup of tea.  A simple discussion of how a speaker measures
and peoples impressions of how this impacts what they hear should not be cause for an extreme reaction.
Scotty

[jcoat007]

you read through the Audiogon thread, you'll see that several owners of the speakers have had a negative experience with these speakers along the lines of the problems discussed in this thread.

Hmmm...I don't know if I'm reading the Audiogon threads the same way as you. There are three threads with the Druids as the topic. One has the same original poster, so of course he's going to have the same problem he posted about here. On that thread, two people didn't like the Druids, but that was based on a listening impression, not on ownership. Two owners responded, both of whom were very positive and didn't see the same problem with their speakers (one of whom told the OP to wait for more break-in, a wise suggestion as the speakers were not broken-in yet). On the thread "Anyone heard Zu Druid speakers?", there were five very positive posts from owners none of whom heard any problem like the OP has here, two negative posts both from listening impressions, and one neutral post based on an impresson. On the thread Cain & Cain Abby vs. Zu Druid, there are two positive owner posts and no other posts about the Druid. Note that the two negative impression posts were the same two people on both threads, and two of the owners also posted on multiple threads.

So there is a sum total of one owner on both these boards--the original poster of this thread--who is having this problem, and every other owner posting on Audiogon has no problem of this sort (or really any sort at all). Can you point me to the owners you are referring to? If not, I think your statement I quoted above hurts your arguments earlier in this thread.

Nicely said.

[tvad4]

Post rescinded.

[Gridlock]

This thread has gotten somewhat out of hand.  Why people start insulting one another on these forums sometimes, I'll never understand.

I am the original poster, and for the record, other than the tonal problem, I think the speakers are quite good.  The soundstage in particular, is very good... it is actually eerily wide.  I'm not sure if this tonal anomaly is my particular pair, or Zu speakers are voiced in this way, but I have nothing at all against the company.  In fact, they have been very helpful, and always are willing to talk to me when I call.

All speakers have their voicing, and require some adjustments due to room reflections, or if the listener just prefers a somewhat different response characteristic.  It's done often today, especially with clearing up bass nodes, and very effectively done with digital processing.  One poster mentioned that the speakers sensitivity might measure higher due to the broad midrange peak, and I would agree with this, but even with that, they are still very sensitive and easy to drive.  I did some experimenting with a pair if Antique Sound Labs Wave 20's which at 20 watts/channel, drove the Tone's to very high levels.

I plan to keep my Zu Tone's even with this tonal anomaly, since it's easily correctable, and once it is, they are very enjoyable.

- Stew

[JohnnyLightOn]

How many hours would you say you have on them now, Stew?

[Gridlock]

Try different toe in/out and see what kind of readings you get.  Different speakers will interact with a room differently due to dispersion and interactions with what's in your room. My own room which is a well treated dedicated room has a heck of a suckout at 500hz. Two different sets of speakers and the same thing.  My point is that a room can affect different speakers differently.

How do you like that DEQ 2496?  I"m surprised you also use the Z systems equalizer while also owning the DEQ 2496.  I won ...

I agree about different toe settings, and it does make some difference, but nothing that would account for the size of the peak.  As I mentioned previously, I've had two other sets of speakers in the same position, neither of which had this problem whatsover.

I do like the DEQ2496 and am using it to correct room modes to the subwoofers.  I use the RDQ-1 in between PCM digital sources and the preamp, and the DEQ2496 only on the subs.  I did this, so that the bass room nodes would be taken care of with other sources other than PCM (i.e. Dolby Digital, analog, etc).  I didn't want to put the entire analog signal through DEQ, as it has to do AD and DA conversions, which I thought would degrade the sound, especially in the midrange.  I believe these conversion are much less audible in the very low octaves.  The DEQ is nice in that it also has DA and AD converters, so that it can accept either a digital or analog source, and output a digital or analog signal.  When I tested the DEQ (straight digital with no DA conversion)  against the RDQ-1, I could not tell a difference.  The DEQ is so much more flexible as well, but build quality is just not in the same ballpark as the RDQ.  In fact, one of the channels on the DEQ kept dropping out.  

- Stew

[Gridlock]

How many hours would you say you have on them now, Stew?

When I received them, the seller mentioned that he thought it had about 70 hours.  I've so far put on probably about another 50 or so.  I have heard by couple of people that the speskers may require a long break-in period.  Someone who posted here or on Audiogon, mentioned that the speakers improved dramatically after a long break-in.  What's your experience with this?

- Stew