[Srajan Ebaen]

Let's take the older Duos since those are what I owned and replaced with Zus 

Without a subwoofer, the Duos slaughter the Druids on bass. That's obvious. The Druids solo are good for about 40Hz but the bottom octave is MIA.
The Duos are more extended in the treble than the old Druid (i.e. pre latest tweeter network upgrade).
The Duos are more dynamic.

So with that 3:0 lead, why would anyone even mention the Druids in the same breath? Well, many wouldn't.

When I added the Method sub (2 x 15"), I felt that the Zu trio (2 Druids, 1 Method) had the better integrated, more seamless bass which, despite being mono from 20-40Hz, was every bit as convincing in my relatively small space at the time. I liked the midrange better and the whole tone/coherence thing and felt the advances in those areas (seamlessness and tone density) were a fair trade for lack of resolution in the upper midrange/treble band.

So the Druid/Method combo displaced the Duos in my digs and I never looked back. Which wouldn't imply that heard I a newer iteration of the Duo now, it couldn't turn my crank in a big way. They've apparently much improved bass integration and other items. However (in big Neon letters, flashing) - look at the price discrepancy. I've become quite disillusioned with mujo dinero propositions only the few can afford. Granted, where I play is still above what many consider sane but I feel I'm at least a bit closer to reality than with $30,000/pr speakers.

I would conclude by saying that the $8,000/pr Presence is directly competitive with the Duos I had at the time tho certainly not the same. Different listeners would prefer different things but in the final analysis, I believe both perform on the same level and do well on mid- to low-power amps. Which, considering price again, is my main point 

[DougE]

Hope I'm not too late to this party and someone sees this...thanks to Srajan and the other posters, I do believe I now have a good handle on the Zu sound.

But, there's one area I'd like a bit more input on from owners.  Since I haven't heard the Zu's yet (any model) I am wondering if they have the same "rawness" that most single drivers exhibit.  For example, my Fostex based BLH show this rawness, as do the Lowthers I've listened to.  When it's bad it may be what others call "shout", but for most of my average level listening the sound I hear, to me, seems "raw".  If this term doesn't make sense, I will try to describe it, but those that have or have heard single drivers probably know what I'm talking about.

So, my question is: do Zu's (Presence is what I'm considering) exhibit this rawness?

Thanks again for all your insights!
Doug

[Audio-fiilis]

What is "sound" that differentiates one speaker of all the rest?

If it is quick, it is something that is dramatically different of all of the others having reasonable distortion, manageable phase and polar response etc. Or quite the opposite.

If it is slow, it may be something less obvious. Something like manageable power response, maybe a flat 4PI response or (something that makes more sense) a reasonable 2PI response.

A perfect speaker is a perfect illusion. Choose the one you like. Do not promote it too eagerly, as someone elses illusion may (and definitely will) be different.

My illusion is that relatively small, 6 to 8 inch single driver loudspeakers have no anomalities caused by crossover network. Neiher can they have proper power response at high fequencies nor low distortion in deep bass.

If that is OK, that makes a good speaker.

If not, Zu adds a tweeter 

IMHO loudspeaker market is ridiculous.

[Graham Maynard]

I recently showed my proposed loudness control circuit in another thread, making the comment that it is not a loudspeaker 'sound' which changes with level, but our hearing of it.

Take the Druid; a loudspeaker which is likely to reproduce more convincingly if run at 'realistic' listening levels, but which is bound to 'sound' thin when running more quietly.
Go closer to the LS to increase the observed level and it will sound better again.

I think it likely that owners of the Druid would be better off using a combination of both loudness and level controls, otherwise put up with repeatedly having to re-set EQ controls.

"The Zu Sound", as with all other LSs, will change with the level at which we observe it; the Druid especially - with its larger driver and TL like loading - is likely to better reveal these hearing changes because there is less distraction due to other causes, eg. crossovers.

Cheers ........ Graham.

[Wind Chaser]

This is a very interesting thread; however call me stupid because I still don't get it.  When people describe the sound of a typical hi end rig the description is something we can all relate to because most hi end systems share the same attributes to one extent or another.  These attributes I find belie the characteristics of real live un-amplified music.  I think much of that may have to do with close microphoned multi track recording.  The detail retrieved in a high end system is over the top, live un-amplified music doesn't sound like that - at least to my ear.  In the area soundstaging and imaging things get real interesting with a decent system, but it's artificial.  I'm not saying that's bad, it's just like fake boobs that may be pleasant to behold, nevertheless it's unnatural.

Granted not everyone is looking for accurate life like anything any more.  We enjoy a lot of processed foods.  When we get sick the doctor gives us unnatural medicine.  Our way of life depends on artificial light.  In the twentieth century live theater took a back seat to film.  In short, modern technology has disconnected us from the real world. 

Years ago the owner of one hi-fi shop said that things have evolved to a point where recorded music sounds better than live music.  Who can argue with that?   Taste is very subjective.   A great example of that is the current thread which asks, ‘Why are there so many differing opinions on room sounds at RMAF?’  So if we are truly honest in the reality of our artificial fantasy, there can be no absolute best.  Maybe even the idea of what one considers ‘better’ may more accurately be described as ‘different’.

From what I gather the Zu sound is different.  Perhaps it’s less artificial and more life like since their emphasis seems to be on tone and dynamics rather than detail and tight focused imaging?  I don’t know but I’ll find out later this week when the deliveryman (or woman) drops off a pair of Druids.  Whatever the case may be… I hope I like them. 

[Srajan Ebaen]

When you say rawness, I believe you're referring to what's casually known as the Lowther shout even though it's by no means exclusive to Lowther. It's shorthand for a presence region lift, i.e. an elevated response that usually starts at around 800 - 1000Hz and really gets frisky around 3000.
The Zu driver doesn't have it. If the Lowther-type behavior gives you "too much" in that area (when properly tamed it subjectively feels like more resolution), Zu doesn't give you "quite enough".  That's why with Zu, the general consensus is that on raw resolution particularly in the upper midrange, their designs are not state of the art.

Put differently, widebanders that really cover the whole audible bandwidth don't completely exist even though the Voxativ I reviewed really came very close. But in general, you can either do widebander + tweeter or widebander + woofer. In the first case, you're looking at Zu. Their 10-inch driver in a big enough box does sufficient bass to feel realistically weighted but can't make it up high enough with sufficient output so they add a tweeter.

Jacob George at Rethm who until now relied on Lowthers (his latest Trishna is the first Rethm with a Rethm-designed widebander) falls into the second group. He uses small widebanders that don't need tweeters but don't make bass below 80Hz. Hence he adds woofers.

The Rethm sound is very lit up, energetic, soundstages hugely and does the upper harmonics, reflections, performer halos and such things very well. The Zu sound is meatier, with better macrodynamics and punch, greater tone density and fleshiness. One is earthbound, the other heaven. Those are silly generalizations but should give you the general idea.

The Zu Essence with the ribbon tweeter was an attempt to move the Zu sound more into the Rethm class if we stay with this comparison. Most Zu house sound lovers have gone on record saying they thought it a mistake. I happen to own the Essence and consider it an improvement - but I can certainly appreciate how someone grown up around the Druid would probably be much happier now with a Superfly or Omen.

Hope that helps.

[Wind Chaser]

Thanks Srajan, that does add some perspective.  I've previously experimented with some Fostex, Jordan and Visaton single drivers for a few years, so I know what you mean about the rising response.  If Zu products were like that I wouldn't consider them. 

I can certainly appreciate how someone grown up around the Druid would probably be much happier now with a Superfly or Omen.

Why is that?

[Mariusz]

 BTW.
Any plans for Omen review?
How they stock up to top of the line Zu models? Sibling rivalry is fun to watch but also confusing. 

[Woolz]

Srajan absolutely nailed my objection to the older Druid sound.  I had a pair in late 06-07 and the dip in the presence region drove me nuts.  I have a pair of older Dynaudio Contour 1.8 MKII and when I put them in the system for comparison the sound just came alive producing a much more convincing illusion of the real thing.  Of course the Dynaudios wouldn't go loud like the Druids or have the same propulsive quality.  If the new ones have addressed this presence dip it should be a very nice speaker.  Also my Druids sounded best with the Red Wine Sig. 30 amp. And I noticed in Denver Vinny was using Zu speakers in his room.

[Wind Chaser]

I've got the latest 2008 Mark IV versions on the way.  Apparently they were the most refined of the Druid line.  I've never obsessed about having a perfectly flat response; a relatively flat response will do just fine.  One of the most important characteristics for me is dynamics, and this is an area where I find most speakers fall pitifully flat.  It seems to me, the more refined the speaker, the polite it is in the way it restricts dynamics.  As I recall that is why I ultimately ditched my electrostats, which were exceedingly refined but virtually every trace of dynamics were MIA.

[turkey]

Judging by the measured FR of Zu speakers that I've seen, the "Zu sound" is the sound of coloration.

For example, look at the absolutely grotty plots here:

http://www.stereophile.com/floorloudspeakers/zu_essence_loudspeaker/index5.html

The people at Zu are either some of the most incompetent speaker designers out there, or they're doing it on purpose. Either way, they'd be about last on my list when it comes to shopping for speakers.

[Rocket_Ronny]

I like high definition techni-color, with a believable 3D image in front of me.

I have had speakers that image like crazy and others that did not. I would have to say the better the imaging the better I like it. I also like to hear speed and detail.

I own a pair of self built single driver speakers patterned after the HornShoppes. I liked them so much I sold my NewForm Research 645s.

After living with them form quite some time I listened to some great 2 ways and could really hear the slowness of the full range Fostex 4 inch in the upper frequencies. It also was grainier. I am not talking about frequency response here. I am talking grain.

When I compared my speakers to some HornShoppes they sounded the same except mine imaged better due to my sloped baffle.






I bought some Fostex 6" full rangers to go into a Bob Brines speaker build. I loved the sound of them but did notice the imaging go down quite a few notches. Less holographic, more vague, more upfront.

Enter the Zu with a 10" full range driver. I can only imagine how the sound staging would be killed. Dynamic yes. The 4" Fostex was even killer there.

I know for me the Zu's would not work. I could have fun with them for a time perhaps, but that's it.

Once I built my GR Research OB5s I packed up the HornShoppe Wannabes. The detail off of the BG Planer tweeter killed the Fostex. Simply breath taking. Did not give up anything in dynamics. Imaged even better.










Yet, hopefully I will be able to hear the Druids when I go to WindChaser's place next year. That's if he still has them. I think he will. I know he highly values a 3D sound stage, so I think he is going to have a hard time living with less. 


Rocket_Ronny

[davidrs]

Put differently, widebanders that really cover the whole audible bandwidth don't completely exist ... in general, you can either do widebander + tweeter or widebander + woofer.

Hi Srajan,

Your description of the differences and remarks in general were very helpful to me. Thank you.

- David.

[Wind Chaser]

The little Fostex / HornShoppes were hardly what I would call dynamic.  We have been so conditioned to polite lifeless 'hi-fi' sound that our idea of acceptable dynamics is like stopping at a molehill to take in the view.  There are no do-it-all perfect speakers.  But I'm tired of the highly polished artificial lifeless 'hi-fi' sound. It's just too predictable.  I miss the energy and emotion.  I'm no longer willing to substitute the that for the experience of 'being there'.

[davidrs]

There are no do-it-all perfect speakers ...  I miss the energy and emotion.  I'm no longer willing to substitute the that for the experience of 'being there'.

Wind Chaser,

So well said! 

[Wind Chaser]

Another way of looking at this is imagine a winding road complete with dips and peaks and unpredictable twists and turns.  You have the choice plodding along in a luxury but gutless sedan… or taking a rip with fast accelerating motorbike.  Which one is it going to be?

[davidrs]

Wind Chaser,

That isn't a fair question.

You are asking it of a a Ducati rider!   

- David.

[Wind Chaser]

David,

Are you located in Victoria, BC? - John

[davidrs]

Wind Chaser,

Other end of the continent - Rochester, NY.

- David.

[Rocket_Ronny]

Another way of looking at this is imagine a winding road complete with dips and peaks and unpredictable twists and turns.  You have the choice plodding along in a luxury but gutless sedan… or taking a rip with fast accelerating motorbike.  Which one is it going to be?

Since you have never piloted a bike you may not know this, but ripping through endless S turns at high speed your senses really wake up because your life is on the line. You notice every rock and pebble, how the bike responds to your every impulse. Everything is sharp 3D.

Now in a car all those fine details are taken away. Made more vague and imprecise. Much like the vagueness you are about to experience in your soundstage. Sure, you will have great acceleration, but to what gain?

So for me, I would rather ride the bike and wake up may senses.


Rocket_that's why they call me Rocket_Ronny