[davidrs]

Not necessarily "audiophile" quality. (whatever that means)

Mariusz,

I think we are going to have to have a separate thread on defining:

"["audiophile" quality]"

and, of course in a cheerful, but not cheap way 

The Superflys rocked this audiophile's world.



Separately:

To address a point made in an earlier post, I personally did not experience the Superflys as being 'colored.'

The 'color' issue has been raised by some with previous Zu speakers, and probably rightfully so.

I did experience them not to have the level of resolution and detail that some other speakers have offered within my system and room. Despite this, I still found myself choosing the Superflys because they did so many other things so well and in a significantly different way than 'box speakers' that just made sense and was right to my ears.

One reason we have so many speakers out there is that we all relate to them in different ways and any given specific speaker is not going to rock everyone, nor be to their taste.

To date, I have not had a speaker in my own system and room that I did not appreciate or could not live with. Just different personalities and ways in which they engage you and connect you to the music.

But I do get what WindChaser has been trying to communicate and my experience with the Superflys appears to mirror his.

The Superflys are special speakers. Are they for everyone - we all know the answer to that. It is going to be very interesting to see how they are written up by the reviewer community.

- David.

[mjosef]

If me not liking the sound of that Zu model, that one time some 3 years ago =

dismissive or critical based a bad experience or two isn't exactly fair or broad minded

Then I am guilty in your court of World View.
I shall wear my new found badge of dishonor with honor. 

Carry on...

[mbakes]

I agree with Martin.  I attend 20-30 concerts a year, from rock to classical, in small and large venues, and amplified and unamplified.  I have heard different Zu models several times in the past 6-7 years, and none of them are close to reproducing live music.  There are several speaker manufacturers I have heard which reproduce sound closer to live music than any of the Zu models in my experience.

Differences of opinion is what makes the audio world go round.

[Mariusz]

IMHO
Audiophile sound = crayon made " Mona Lisa Smile"
 

[ltr317]

IMHO
Audiophile sound = crayon made " Mona Lisa Smile"
 

 

[Wind Chaser]

I took in 5 live acts last week and bought all the music they had available after the show, 7 CDs in all.  The various performances consisted great vocals combined with acoustic guitars, a banjo, a mandolin, a viola, an up right bass and electric drums.  Some of this was amplified and some wasn't. 

I took the discs home and played them through both the Gershmans and the Druids.  The Gershmans as good as they sound are artificial.  While they are not as detailed in the top end as a ribbon tweeter, compared to the live performances, the detail was way over the top.  The imaging, although pleasing was too precise and too clearly defined.  While from an audiophile POV those things may be very desirable, but in reality it's just too over the top and unbelievable.

From an audiophile perspective the Druids may as well failed.  But in terms of which speaker sounded more real, there’s no question.  The Druids are far more honest  than the Gershmans.  Then there is the question of dynamics.  The Druids and Klipsch Horns are by far the most dynamic speakers I have ever heard in 35 years of chasing the audio rainbow.  Every other speaker I’ve heard sounds dull and lifeless in comparison.

As they say, different strokes for different folks.