KeithR's "Dream Speaker" Search

[microstrip]

Purple, I'm pretty good at. Orange, sometimes I miss.

I'm brand insensitive. Example: About 10 years ago Zu made a speaker called Essence, incorporating a ribbon supertweeter. Not only was I then (and still) a Zu crossoverless advocate, but also personally friendly with the founders. I thought the Essence was a big fat mistake for them. But it was THE Zu speaker that got the cover of Stereophile!. At the time, Sean Casey had a cofounder in the company who pushed for making a "hifi" speaker. They succeeded. I dissented publicly. The person running Zu then, a hired CEO (not Sean Casey), threatened to sue me. It made no difference to me. My view of the Essence held, even while I was able to unconditionally endorse the rest of the line.

Circa 1986 or 87, I had a close friend who was a high end audio dealer. One day I was at his store when his first pair of Duntech Sovereigns showed up. He was a Threshold (Pass), Krell, Jadis, Magneplanar, Apogee, ProAc, NYAL, VPI, McIntosh, Conrad-Johnson, et al dealer. Those big ridiculous towers got wheeled in with great anticipation. Absolute Sound was shouting praises. Stereophile too. Unpacked. Setup. People raved. But all their artificiality and ludicrousness was immediately exposed for their anathema to music, at least to me. But cash didn't care. I can't count the number of people who later, after I was well out of the business, rang my phone to find a path out of the "most expensive popular brands" they committed to, when they realized the musical mediocrity of what they bought, even if material build was very high.

Krell almost single-handedly broke what was viable about the high-end audio economy in the '80s. That masculine-audio-jewelry-regardless-of-sound aesthetic funneled money but broke the relationship between high fidelity, customers, and gear. After that, a consumer couldn't trust that spending delivered commensurate music. The consumer could expect that expenditure commanded respect from certain people who often didn't know anything at all about musical fidelity. The two were not the same, and that remains so. I have half a century in this interest; from what I hear, fewer than half of the brands in what we call high-end audio have any real interest in music reproduction fidelity. Among those that do, there's a lot of room for debate on approaches. YG has a point-of -view, and I think that's good. I think the same designer pushing for same goals through different means would likely accomplish even more. But he's among the good guys in this.

You can hear what I say I hear. You just have to train your brain and pay attention. Simple as that. There is no such thing as a Golden Ear. It's the attentive brain that matters. Nothing else.

As the late, great Tasso Spanos (Opus One, Pittsburgh, PA) once said to me, "...Phil, if you pay enough attention to what Henry Kloss made great in a KLH Radio (later, Advent), you will understand what will be great at 100X that cost...." If the meaty midrange isn't natural, holistic and right, nothing else matters. YG could get it right focusing on getting the meaty midrange right without throwing away the bass performance and top end he's already attained.

Phil

Resentfulness and bitterness have never been a good help to analyze an whole - the same way of excessive love for or too deep involvement in the hobby, I must say. Surely there were sad cases of poor sounding, bad quality products, deception and even fraud in the high-end industry in the last 50 years. But, excepting those few cases most of these people were enthusiasts of sound reproduction and properly used equipment of the "most expensive popular brands" as you say could create great experiences and plenty of happy owners. If you have doubts, just read our several treads on "equipment I have loved in the past" or " equipment I regret having sold" or "great past experiences". I do not consider people are misguided just because we have different preferences - we can learn a lot from them.

Along decades every brand had a poor case, an infelicitous or wretched model - but IMHO with the participation of good dealers and proper advice most equipment could and can be incorporated in excellent sounding systems, far away from musical mediocrity, provided it matches owner preferences and room. But this is an hobby ruled by small differences that become hyperbolic - we all have some kind of prejudice and I have found that in this hobby swimming against the tide seldom is successful. We must believe in the trend we are following, permanent skepticism kills any hope of illusion. It is why I would like to read more from KeithR in this thread.

 

[bonzo75]

How do you define tide? There are currents flowing in different directions at the same time. You might think it is high tide because of limited exposure to a group while others in other groups would think you are on the titanic

 

[morricab]

I didn't say I have prejudice against MOSFETs. I said the promise, decades long, has been unfulfilled. If someone makes a musically credible MOSFET amp, I'm all in.

Phil

Try to get your hands on a NAT Symbiosis SE...a rare beast that if you are patient enough to really let it warm up will probably change your mind about MOSFETS (at least if they are used single ended, and with a tube input/driver stage and having a fully regulated output stage (also rare). I liked mine but couldn't live with 2 hours + warmup time, during which it sounded ok but suddenly it went psychadelic and OMG. Not a standard way to use a MOSFET I grant you...

 

[213Cobra]

Phil, wasn't that the CEO who nearly bankrupted Zu? As relayed on their website at the time.

Yes.

 

[morricab]

Purple, I'm pretty good at. Orange, sometimes I miss.

I'm brand insensitive. Example: About 10 years ago Zu made a speaker called Essence, incorporating a ribbon supertweeter. Not only was I then (and still) a Zu crossoverless advocate, but also personally friendly with the founders. I thought the Essence was a big fat mistake for them. But it was THE Zu speaker that got the cover of Stereophile!. At the time, Sean Casey had a cofounder in the company who pushed for making a "hifi" speaker. They succeeded. I dissented publicly. The person running Zu then, a hired CEO (not Sean Casey), threatened to sue me. It made no difference to me. My view of the Essence held, even while I was able to unconditionally endorse the rest of the line.

Circa 1986 or 87, I had a close friend who was a high end audio dealer. One day I was at his store when his first pair of Duntech Sovereigns showed up. He was a Threshold (Pass), Krell, Jadis, Magneplanar, Apogee, ProAc, NYAL, VPI, McIntosh, Conrad-Johnson, et al dealer. Those big ridiculous towers got wheeled in with great anticipation. Absolute Sound was shouting praises. Stereophile too. Unpacked. Setup. People raved. But all their artificiality and ludicrousness was immediately exposed for their anathema to music, at least to me. But cash didn't care. I can't count the number of people who later, after I was well out of the business, rang my phone to find a path out of the "most expensive popular brands" they committed to, when they realized the musical mediocrity of what they bought, even if material build was very high.

Krell almost single-handedly broke what was viable about the high-end audio economy in the '80s. That masculine-audio-jewelry-regardless-of-sound aesthetic funneled money but broke the relationship between high fidelity, customers, and gear. After that, a consumer couldn't trust that spending delivered commensurate music. The consumer could expect that expenditure commanded respect from certain people who often didn't know anything at all about musical fidelity. The two were not the same, and that remains so. I have half a century in this interest; from what I hear, fewer than half of the brands in what we call high-end audio have any real interest in music reproduction fidelity. Among those that do, there's a lot of room for debate on approaches. YG has a point-of -view, and I think that's good. I think the same designer pushing for same goals through different means would likely accomplish even more. But he's among the good guys in this.

You can hear what I say I hear. You just have to train your brain and pay attention. Simple as that. There is no such thing as a Golden Ear. It's the attentive brain that matters. Nothing else.

As the late, great Tasso Spanos (Opus One, Pittsburgh, PA) once said to me, "...Phil, if you pay enough attention to what Henry Kloss made great in a KLH Radio (later, Advent), you will understand what will be great at 100X that cost...." If the meaty midrange isn't natural, holistic and right, nothing else matters. YG could get it right focusing on getting the meaty midrange right without throwing away the bass performance and top end he's already attained.

Phil

I truly get the appeal of single driver (or crossoverless with more than one driver), having owned Acoustats, which were a single big driver and Reference 3A, which only had a single element on the tweeter and none on the mid/bass. I have also owned a couple true single driver speakers, the Decware HDTs and now I have Supravox Alizees. The Acoustats actually could do it all and sounded very good with tubes. Maybe a bit of macro limitation due to excursion limits but otherwise a great single driver even for large music. For single cone driver and crossoverless I am less enthusiastic at this point. They sound great at moderate volume with not too busy music...big orchestra...well not really. Going already to a two-way design with a simple or active crossover though makes a big difference (I am talking about high sensitivity designs here). My two-way Odeons and now my modified Supravox system (two-way with horn/compression driver added for highs) doesn't lose coherence and tackles busy and elevated volumes much better than the Supravox driver alone. Mind you, the Supravox 215-2000 is a very good extended range driver but if you relieve it of having to cover the whole range it works much better.


You are dead on about training the brain to hear what is really going on... but it is a rarer skill than you presume. For me there are a lot more speakers out there that will "work" than electronics...most sound pretty synthetic to me.

 

[213Cobra]

I even know audioplhiles who can tell what type of solder was used in the X over ,...
Phil your ¨ preference ¨ is clear you dont like X overs and you have a strong opinion , seems to me only ZU / owners listeners can hear the diffs in fuses

Well I'm sure that's not true. But I don't obsess on fuses. -Phil

 

[213Cobra]

I truly get the appeal of single driver (or crossoverless with more than one driver), having owned Acoustats, which were a single big driver and Reference 3A, which only had a single element on the tweeter and none on the mid/bass. I have also owned a couple true single driver speakers, the Decware HDTs and now I have Supravox Alizees. The Acoustats actually could do it all and sounded very good with tubes. Maybe a bit of macro limitation due to excursion limits but otherwise a great single driver even for large music. For single cone driver and crossoverless I am less enthusiastic at this point. They sound great at moderate volume with not too busy music...big orchestra...well not really. Going already to a two-way design with a simple or active crossover though makes a big difference (I am talking about high sensitivity designs here). My two-way Odeons and now my modified Supravox system (two-way with horn/compression driver added for highs) doesn't lose coherence and tackles busy and elevated volumes much better than the Supravox driver alone. Mind you, the Supravox 215-2000 is a very good extended range driver but if you relieve it of having to cover the whole range it works much better.


You are dead on about training the brain to hear what is really going on... but it is a rarer skill than you presume. For me there are a lot more speakers out there that will "work" than electronics...most sound pretty synthetic to me.

I avoided full range driver speakers for the reasons you mention, until Zu. Big, busy music was the reason I made the change. The Zu Definition 1.5, specifically, was the first speaker that ever scaled for me for full orchestra music while also maintaining clarity regardless of dynamics. It scaled both spatially and dynamically, with musically-convincing texture and tone. Versions 2 and 4 significantly improved everything about the dual 10" FRD-centered design. At 101db/w/m, one *can* wire up just a 2w amp on Zu and get real music, but it takes a little more for big, busy material. That starts at about 15 watts. 25w watts, plenty in most domestic rooms. Marc needs more like 75w in his space. But you can also put a 1000w amp on them. What other crossoverless, FRD speaker can accept that range of amplifiers and not collapse? 2w 45 tube SET to 1200w SS McIntosh and beyond. With that kind of useful power range a Zu owner has unrestricted amplifier choice. Before Zu, I just didn't listen to symphonic music on hifi. I owned a lot. But when I wanted to hear an orchestra, I went for a live performance. I since left even the relative simplicity of two-ways behind.

Phil

 

[the sound of Tao]

I avoided full range driver speakers for the reasons you mention, until Zu. Big, busy music was the reason I made the change. The Zu Definition 1.5, specifically, was the first speaker that ever scaled for me for full orchestra music while also maintaining clarity regardless of dynamics. It scaled both spatially and dynamically, with musically-convincing texture and tone. Versions 2 and 4 significantly improved everything about the dual 10" FRD-centered design. At 101db/w/m, one *can* wire up just a 2w amp on Zu and get real music, but it takes a little more for big, busy material. That starts at about 15 watts. 25w watts, plenty in most domestic rooms. Marc needs more like 75w in his space. But you can also put a 1000w amp on them. What other crossoverless, FRD speaker can accept that range of amplifiers and not collapse? 2w 45 tube SET to 1200w SS McIntosh and beyond. With that kind of useful power range a Zu owner has unrestricted amplifier choice. Before Zu, I just didn't listen to symphonic music on hifi. I owned a lot. But when I wanted to hear an orchestra, I went for a live performance. I since left even the relative simplicity of two-ways behind.

Phil

A mate had a few different Zu’s including the Definitions, Druids and Souls and then he left them behind in 2014. His story was always about a frustrated love with them which he then solved (personal solution for him) when he moved on to his first pair of horns. So for a time I got considerable exposure to a range of the Zu.

I enjoyed what they could do on some genres of music but then put to task with classical (and especially large scale) and they musically just weren’t up to it. The simpler raw qualities that acted as virtues in simpler and rawer forms of music started to trip over themselves when they then needed to get more sophisticated and more layered. My mate always had other speakers that he’d go for as his primary use and kept at the Zus for an occasional feed of the dense tonal shove that was their striking flavour.

So I got where Marc was coming from with Zu but the way then that Marc has had to go in modifying them to extraordinary levels to make them more satisfying with classical is legendary. But no marriage is without trial and some frustration in a wild and lasting love affair is just part and sometimes parcel of our oh so OCD hobby.

Maybe that only a few here are quite overtly pro Zu and those that do seem then to be very much in love with them for me supports a notion of Zu as more of a fine niche speaker (and that could also be read as nice speaker). So maybe also the traditional Zu signature is a perfect fit for a few but too much of a definite flavour then for others. For some clearly like Phil and Marc (and others) Zu just had them in their spell at hello and that is the perfect outcome. We all should meet our great matches in time.

I also completely get that Zu have also gotten better at things that were areas for development over the last decade but after a bit of exposure my interest too moved on to horns and ribbons simply because I found speakers that let me forget their nature and fall into the music, but for me whenever I heard the Zus I was always more aware that it was a Zu speaker I was listening to. I admire the Zu virtues but couldn't live with their particular constraints and given my particular set of musical loves areas that needed to be more core strengths.

Great variability in nature is why speakers are so caught up in such very personal preferences in outcomes as demonstrated in this thread on Keith’s speaker journey. So there is plenty out there to admire but perhaps very few that we can then live with... which is why we should celebrate difference rather than thinking there is any one universal solution, speakers need to be just as different as we all are.

 

[DaveC]

Hmmm, if I were to pick one speaker to recreate an orchestra it would probably be YG Sonja XV. I don't hear any deficiencies with their new xo design and don't think it's responsible for the speaker's lower efficiency either. It's probably the extremely rigid aluminum cones YG machines for their drivers, YG's design goal is perfectly pistonic action, meaning they don't want the driver cones to flex, which requires more material and hence a heavier cone. IMO, it's as simple as that.

I've never heard a wideband driver do complex music as well as a multi way with steep xos, and my own speaker design uses a wideband mid. Horses for courses...

 

[213Cobra]

A mate had a few different Zu’s including the Definitions, Druids and Souls and then he left them behind in 2014. His story was always about a frustrated love with them which he then solved (personal solution for him) when he moved on to his first pair of horns. So for a time I got considerable exposure to a range of the Zu.

I enjoyed what they could do on some genres of music but then put to task with classical (and especially large scale) and they musically just weren’t up to it. The simpler raw qualities that acted as virtues in simpler and rawer forms of music started to trip over themselves when they then needed to get more sophisticated and more layered. My mate always had other speakers that he’d go for as his primary use and kept at the Zus for an occasional feed of the dense tonal shove that was their striking flavour.

So I got where Marc was coming from with Zu but the way then that Marc has had to go in modifying them to extraordinary levels to make them more satisfying with classical is legendary. But no marriage is without trial and some frustration in a wild and lasting love affair is just part and sometimes parcel of our oh so OCD hobby.

Maybe that only a few here are quite overtly pro Zu and those that do seem then to be very much in love with them for me supports a notion of Zu as more of a fine niche speaker (and that could also be read as nice speaker). So maybe also the traditional Zu signature is a perfect fit for a few but too much of a definite flavour then for others. For some clearly like Phil and Marc (and others) Zu just had them in their spell at hello and that is the perfect outcome. We all should meet our great matches in time.

I also completely get that Zu have also gotten better at things that were areas for development over the last decade but after a bit of exposure my interest too moved on to horns and ribbons simply because I found speakers that let me forget their nature and fall into the music, but for me whenever I heard the Zus I was always more aware that it was a Zu speaker I was listening to. I admire the Zu virtues but couldn't live with their particular constraints and given my particular set of musical loves areas that needed to be more core strengths.

Great variability in nature is why speakers are so caught up in such very personal preferences in outcomes as demonstrated in this thread on Keith’s speaker journey. So there is plenty out there to admire but perhaps very few that we can then live with... which is why we should celebrate difference rather than thinking there is any one universal solution, speakers need to be just as different as we all are.

We can disagree on whether Zu trips up on large scale orchestral music. It's difficult to comment on your conclusions without knowing what you were driving them with. My experience is that if that's what you're hearing, it's the amplifier chosen, and the speaker can remain more than competent if the right amp is used for that music. Like with YG, with Zu the most important decision you will make is the amplifier you choose to drive them with. Also, like any other truly full range speaker (Definition has an integral 12" downfire sub flat to 16Hz) complex music reproduction is affected negatively and positively by ineffective or effective coupling or isolation, depending on floor construction.

A single FRD Zu speaker circa 2014 or earlier did not fully scale for large scale symphonic music, but did a good job relative to other speakers in their price ranges. So if you were then both a Zu owner and a symphony-first music listener, you'd have found some frustration if trying to get, say, a Druid or Soul to scale like a KEF Blade. Definition behaves and scales distinctly differently. I haven't read all of Marc's history but I don't recall that he significantly modified his Definitions. It's what he implemented under and around them, and system component trials that got him where he is now. I can say they scale for dynamics and complexity in my room and system, but if one has a hungry ear seeking more resolution than what anyone would actually hear in a live orchestra performance, no Zu will over-resolve synthetically like many mainstream high-end hifi speakers do, including many horns.

Druid 6 is the first single driver Zu speaker that can scale to orchestral demands, though still not as expansively as can the dual FRD Definition. I took a flyer on a pair of used 1st gen Druids in 2004. They were one of the 1st ten pair built back in 2000, upgraded to 2004 innards by Zu before delivered to me. They were not spell-castingly-complete. That era Druid had many unique strengths, but it was soft on top, euphonically warm and a little beamy. However, it's crossoverless sonic holism, tone density and jumpy immediacy were more directly evocative of music than their frequency anomalies detracted from same. I doubled down on the 1st gen Definitions two months later in early 2005 precisely because they were more linear, objective and scalar, while retaining the best aspects of Druid. Point is, I got onboard after talking with the founders because it was clear Zu is a platform, and everything built on it would be under continuous improvement, many of which improvements Zu would equip you to do yourself. And that's exactly how it panned out. My upgraded 1st gen Druid "3.5" became v4.08 and I enjoyed them, but I didn't really get the Druid I was looking for in 2004 until Druid 5 years later. My initial Definition 1.5 pair had some cabinet talk at high SPLs, due to ringing, underdamped MDF in the cabs. Druid 2 fixed that with a massive birch ply cab. Definition 4 (3 was brief variation on 2) addressed every limiting aspect of the Definition implementations prior, which is why it has lasted 10 years. It is still a great speaker and as Marc demonstrated, it can stay current through continual optimization. Sean Casey told me early on that all Zu materials are selected for his speakers to have a minimum useful life of 100 years. That includes his treated paper cones. His oldest products are now one-fifth of their way into that lifespan. Nothing is perfect but the Zu platform keeps getting closer, with the single deviation having been the short-lived Essence that Stereophile liked so much.

YG appears to have the makings of a platform approach, which I think is great. It's a highly considered approach, and a point I made to Keith was that YGs are intensively engineered speakers, as opposed to more artisanal products like Devore. YG engineers for exceedingly flat and wide response first with time and frequency coherence immediately behind, accepting what he has to do to deliver that, and what he sacrifices in other attributes like dynamic responsiveness. Zu (Sean Casey) engineers for coherence and dynamism first, accepting what he has to do to deliver that, and leaves himself a lot of latitude to mitigate or overcome the sacrifices implied by his decisions. They are both smart guys. For me Zu's imperatives lead to a more convincing, musically holistic speaker than YG's, with vastly more amplification flexibility. And yet still, there are ever only a few really good amps around. Put another way, YG will have a very difficult task building the Zu qualities of immediacy, tone density dynamic responsiveness and scale on reasonably-sized amps. But Sean has many ways to continually refine the Zu platform for frequency accuracy and resolution, as he's already proven over the 15 years I've owned Zu. It started by choosing from the beginning to eschew crossovers and deliver coherent efficiency. That originating insight was a point of liberation that will inform and reverberate through everything Zu builds as long as Zu survives. That was a train I was willing to board. Sean Casey did not want to deliver the pinched sound of crossover speakers. He wanted something more musically hedonistic. Now, what's YG's originating insight? Will YG find a way to tune out the choke points imposed by a passive crossover? Can he keep his world class flat response and find more efficiency? Find out and if that's your train, ride it.

Phil

 

[spiritofmusic]

Phil and Graham, its not that I've modded my Zus to do the sow's ear > silk purse trick. It's that I initially had to battle caustic room acoustics (correctly called out by Ked when I was skeptical of how poor my room was), meaning that the Zu usp of tone density was at the expense of any other subtleties re bass speed/articulation, timbral accuracy, air/delicacy, imaging/dimensionality, and microdynamics. So, I could appreciate what this Zu tone density improved upon my previous more anaemic sounding Pro Ac Futures 2 (relatively inefficient and using ribbon tweeter and open range midrange cones), but got no other magic really.

However this tone density proved hypnotic and rarely bettered in demos I attended of apparently better spkrs in better rooms.

Even w my rough sounding room/Zus presentation, that fleshed out holistic SQ remained the one thing I absolutely did not ever want to sacrifice/relinquish.

So even when I heard (at the time) more superior presentations of music via horns like AG Duos and Cessaro Liszts, Apogee Duettas and Divas, ML Prodigies and Spires, Rockport Antares, Hyperions and Kharma Exquisites 1D, that Zu crossoverless magic remained the DNA in my bloodstream.

I was v close to deciding to go modded Apogee Duettas upon moving here, or even maybe AG Duos. Certainly had I heard User211's Duettas prior to my move here, I almost certainly would have commissioned a serious pair (and worried about the amps later).

However, I only heard Justin's stellar Duettas AFTER my move, and at that point the die was already cast w my room project.

Fascinatingly, just plonking the system willy nilly on initial zero attention setup in the new room, stock cheapo pwr cords into domestic grid, a situation that in my old room would have failed miserably, resulted in such a vast step up, Zu tone plus for first time real hints of more subtle properties that I've refined since, that all my love for Zu SQ came thru after 12 months of no music, and the impulse to look beyond them evaporated.

Now having only the budget for optimising, no desperation to look beyond Zu, meant I could go to work on trying to approximate to what I've also loved in the handful of systems that I've really respected. And the fact I've made massive strides while losing no essential unique Zu goodness, suggests Phil's take on Zu is way more accurate than the Zu/single driver naysayers are.

Case in point, Rimsky Korsakov "Scheherazade" has real articulation, dynamics, timbral accuracy and only minimal roughness/compression, and is more engaging here than the ostensibly more superior horns I've regularly listened to the same piece on. For me, this is a new magic I could not have ever had before w Zu, but now the spkr takes it in it's stride.
And massive reward for the uber fuss and fettling that has been the biggest indicator of my OCD in this hobby.

 

[the sound of Tao]

We can disagree on whether Zu trips up on large scale orchestral music. It's difficult to comment on your conclusions without knowing what you were driving them with. My experience is that if that's what you're hearing, it's the amplifier chosen, and the speaker can remain more than competent if the right amp is used for that music. Like with YG, with Zu the most important decision you will make is the amplifier you choose to drive them with. Also, like any other truly full range speaker (Definition has an integral 12" downfire sub flat to 16Hz) complex music reproduction is affected negatively and positively by ineffective or effective coupling or isolation, depending on floor construction.

A single FRD Zu speaker circa 2014 or earlier did not fully scale for large scale symphonic music, but did a good job relative to other speakers in their price ranges. So if you were then both a Zu owner and a symphony-first music listener, you'd have found some frustration if trying to get, say, a Druid or Soul to scale like a KEF Blade. Definition behaves and scales distinctly differently. I haven't read all of Marc's history but I don't recall that he significantly modified his Definitions. It's what he implemented under and around them, and system component trials that got him where he is now. I can say they scale for dynamics and complexity in my room and system, but if one has a hungry ear seeking more resolution than what anyone would actually hear in a live orchestra performance, no Zu will over-resolve synthetically like many mainstream high-end hifi speakers do, including many horns.

Druid 6 is the first single driver Zu speaker that can scale to orchestral demands, though still not as expansively as can the dual FRD Definition. I took a flyer on a pair of used 1st gen Druids in 2004. They were one of the 1st ten pair built back in 2000, upgraded to 2004 innards by Zu before delivered to me. They were not spell-castingly-complete. That era Druid had many unique strengths, but it was soft on top, euphonically warm and a little beamy. However, it's crossoverless sonic holism, tone density and jumpy immediacy were more directly evocative of music than their frequency anomalies detracted from same. I doubled down on the 1st gen Definitions two months later in early 2005 precisely because they were more linear, objective and scalar, while retaining the best aspects of Druid. Point is, I got onboard after talking with the founders because it was clear Zu is a platform, and everything built on it would be under continuous improvement, many of which improvements Zu would equip you to do yourself. And that's exactly how it panned out. My upgraded 1st gen Druid "3.5" became v4.08 and I enjoyed them, but I didn't really get the Druid I was looking for in 2004 until Druid 5 years later. My initial Definition 1.5 pair had some cabinet talk at high SPLs, due to ringing, underdamped MDF in the cabs. Druid 2 fixed that with a massive birch ply cab. Definition 4 (3 was brief variation on 2) addressed every limiting aspect of the Definition implementations prior, which is why it has lasted 10 years. It is still a great speaker and as Marc demonstrated, it can stay current through continual optimization. Sean Casey told me early on that all Zu materials are selected for his speakers to have a minimum useful life of 100 years. That includes his treated paper cones. His oldest products are now one-fifth of their way into that lifespan. Nothing is perfect but the Zu platform keeps getting closer, with the single deviation having been the short-lived Essence that Stereophile liked so much.

YG appears to have the makings of a platform approach, which I think is great. It's a highly considered approach, and a point I made to Keith was that YGs are intensively engineered speakers, as opposed to more artisanal products like Devore. YG engineers for exceedingly flat and wide response first with time and frequency coherence immediately behind, accepting what he has to do to deliver that, and what he sacrifices in other attributes like dynamic responsiveness. Zu (Sean Casey) engineers for coherence and dynamism first, accepting what he has to do to deliver that, and leaves himself a lot of latitude to mitigate or overcome the sacrifices implied by his decisions. They are both smart guys. For me Zu's imperatives lead to a more convincing, musically holistic speaker than YG's, with vastly more amplification flexibility. And yet still, there are ever only a few really good amps around. Put another way, YG will have a very difficult task building the Zu qualities of immediacy, tone density dynamic responsiveness and scale on reasonably-sized amps. But Sean has many ways to continually refine the Zu platform for frequency accuracy and resolution, as he's already proven over the 15 years I've owned Zu. It started by choosing from the beginning to eschew crossovers and deliver coherent efficiency. That originating insight was a point of liberation that will inform and reverberate through everything Zu builds as long as Zu survives. That was a train I was willing to board. Sean Casey did not want to deliver the pinched sound of crossover speakers. He wanted something more musically hedonistic. Now, what's YG's originating insight? Will YG find a way to tune out the choke point imposed by a passive crossover? Can he keep his world class flat response and find more efficiency? Find out and if that's your train, ride it.

Phil

My mate tried quite a few amps with the Zus including Manley EL34 push pull and Manley 300B mono PSE, Audion Black Shadows and from memory also a Audion KT150 SE, Modwright Integrated and with a Modwright valve pre, Bakoon 11R, some Pass First Watts and Pure Audio SS amp are the ones that I remember.

He had Monaco Grand Prix, Sota and VPI and back then it was an Esoteric phono and a Modwright phono plus an Esoteric K1 Dac player.

The speakers he moved to since then are a big step up and just from a purely personal perspective pretty marvellous. Tune Animas, OMA minis, Harbeth 40.2 Anniversary and some lovely Verity Sarastros. All good and I’d very much love to live with any or all of these.

 

[KeithR]

To @microstrip and others- I’ll have some more detailed comments this weekend after the amps are broken in and the extension cords take the Ampzillas to the Torus.

I can say the lion share of amp breakin was finished around the 50 hour mark- not hearing much since. The manufacturer runs them in for 24 hours before shipping as well.

 

[Ron Resnick]

We can disagree on whether Zu trips up on large scale orchestral music. It's difficult to comment on your conclusions without knowing what you were driving them with. My experience is that if that's what you're hearing, it's the amplifier chosen, and the speaker can remain more than competent if the right amp is used for that music. Like with YG, with Zu the most important decision you will make is the amplifier you choose to drive them with. Also, like any other truly full range speaker (Definition has an integral 12" downfire sub flat to 16Hz) complex music reproduction is affected negatively and positively by ineffective or effective coupling or isolation, depending on floor construction.

A single FRD Zu speaker circa 2014 or earlier did not fully scale for large scale symphonic music, but did a good job relative to other speakers in their price ranges. So if you were then both a Zu owner and a symphony-first music listener, you'd have found some frustration if trying to get, say, a Druid or Soul to scale like a KEF Blade. Definition behaves and scales distinctly differently. I haven't read all of Marc's history but I don't recall that he significantly modified his Definitions. It's what he implemented under and around them, and system component trials that got him where he is now. I can say they scale for dynamics and complexity in my room and system, but if one has a hungry ear seeking more resolution than what anyone would actually hear in a live orchestra performance, no Zu will over-resolve synthetically like many mainstream high-end hifi speakers do, including many horns.

Druid 6 is the first single driver Zu speaker that can scale to orchestral demands, though still not as expansively as can the dual FRD Definition. I took a flyer on a pair of used 1st gen Druids in 2004. They were one of the 1st ten pair built back in 2000, upgraded to 2004 innards by Zu before delivered to me. They were not spell-castingly-complete. That era Druid had many unique strengths, but it was soft on top, euphonically warm and a little beamy. However, it's crossoverless sonic holism, tone density and jumpy immediacy were more directly evocative of music than their frequency anomalies detracted from same. I doubled down on the 1st gen Definitions two months later in early 2005 precisely because they were more linear, objective and scalar, while retaining the best aspects of Druid. Point is, I got onboard after talking with the founders because it was clear Zu is a platform, and everything built on it would be under continuous improvement, many of which improvements Zu would equip you to do yourself. And that's exactly how it panned out. My upgraded 1st gen Druid "3.5" became v4.08 and I enjoyed them, but I didn't really get the Druid I was looking for in 2004 until Druid 5 years later. My initial Definition 1.5 pair had some cabinet talk at high SPLs, due to ringing, underdamped MDF in the cabs. Druid 2 fixed that with a massive birch ply cab. Definition 4 (3 was brief variation on 2) addressed every limiting aspect of the Definition implementations prior, which is why it has lasted 10 years. It is still a great speaker and as Marc demonstrated, it can stay current through continual optimization. Sean Casey told me early on that all Zu materials are selected for his speakers to have a minimum useful life of 100 years. That includes his treated paper cones. His oldest products are now one-fifth of their way into that lifespan. Nothing is perfect but the Zu platform keeps getting closer, with the single deviation having been the short-lived Essence that Stereophile liked so much.

YG appears to have the makings of a platform approach, which I think is great. It's a highly considered approach, and a point I made to Keith was that YGs are intensively engineered speakers, as opposed to more artisanal products like Devore. YG engineers for exceedingly flat and wide response first with time and frequency coherence immediately behind, accepting what he has to do to deliver that, and what he sacrifices in other attributes like dynamic responsiveness. Zu (Sean Casey) engineers for coherence and dynamism first, accepting what he has to do to deliver that, and leaves himself a lot of latitude to mitigate or overcome the sacrifices implied by his decisions. They are both smart guys. For me Zu's imperatives lead to a more convincing, musically holistic speaker than YG's, with vastly more amplification flexibility. And yet still, there are ever only a few really good amps around. Put another way, YG will have a very difficult task building the Zu qualities of immediacy, tone density dynamic responsiveness and scale on reasonably-sized amps. But Sean has many ways to continually refine the Zu platform for frequency accuracy and resolution, as he's already proven over the 15 years I've owned Zu. It started by choosing from the beginning to eschew crossovers and deliver coherent efficiency. That originating insight was a point of liberation that will inform and reverberate through everything Zu builds as long as Zu survives. That was a train I was willing to board. Sean Casey did not want to deliver the pinched sound of crossover speakers. He wanted something more musically hedonistic. Now, what's YG's originating insight? Will YG find a way to tune out the choke points imposed by a passive crossover? Can he keep his world class flat response and find more efficiency? Find out and if that's your train, ride it.

Phil

Wonderfully incisively and decisively written, as usual, Phil!

 

[Ron Resnick]

I have gigantic respect for Phil's knowledge, experience and opinions. Phil's bulls-eye call on the Ampzillas for Keith is but one in a long line of Phil's opinions which have been confirmed in practice.

But I share sound of Tao's puzzlement that Phil hears a full classical symphony orchestra projecting from a single 10" driver. One of the firm audio truths I believe I have learned experientially with dynamic driver loudspeakers is that driver surface area is highly positively correlated with (1) the ability of the speaker to project the scale and width and power of classical symphony orchestra music, and (2) resolution.

MikeL's Evolution Acoustics MM7s, with the largest total driver surface of any loudspeaker I have heard, still holds for me the title of most convincing reproduction of large-scale symphony orchestra music.

For example from the Haley 2s to the Sonja 2.3s to the XV Jr. I hear big increases in resolution, believability and convincing reproduction of large-scale soundstage. (And I think the three additional midbass drivers in the XV Jr. are responsible for the biggest step up.)

In theory I agree with much of Phil's philosophy about single drivers and wide-range drivers. If my system ever is hatched it uses a wide-range driver from 200Hz to 18kHz.

 

[213Cobra]

My mate tried quite a few amps with the Zus including Manley EL34 push pull and Manley 300B mono PSE, Audion Black Shadows and from memory also a Audion KT150 SE, Modwright Integrated and with a Modwright valve pre, Bakoon 11R, some Pass First Watts and Pure Audio SS amp are the ones that I remember.

He had Monaco Grand Prix, Sota and VPI and back then it was an Esoteric phono and a Modwright phono plus an Esoteric K1 Dac player.

The speakers he moved to since then are a big step up and just from a purely personal perspective pretty marvellous. Tune Animas, OMA minis, Harbeth 40.2 Anniversary and some lovely Verity Sarastros. All good and I’d very much love to live with any or all of these.

My mate tried quite a few amps with the Zus including Manley EL34 push pull and Manley 300B mono PSE, Audion Black Shadows and from memory also a Audion KT150 SE, Modwright Integrated and with a Modwright valve pre, Bakoon 11R, some Pass First Watts and Pure Audio SS amp are the ones that I remember.

He had Monaco Grand Prix, Sota and VPI and back then it was an Esoteric phono and a Modwright phono plus an Esoteric K1 Dac player.

The speakers he moved to since then are a big step up and just from a purely personal perspective pretty marvellous. Tune Animas, OMA minis, Harbeth 40.2 Anniversary and some lovely Verity Sarastros. All good and I’d very much love to live with any or all of these.

While all of those turntables sound distinctly different, I do not think his lack of orchestral grace under strain was due to his front ends. The amplifiers explain a lot. Both Manleys smear on heavy crescendo even if you get the tube choices right. I auditioned both and rejected them firstly for this reason. The Audion Black Shadow, which I used on Definitions for 12 years and still own, will get tangled on scaled orchestra if using the stock 845A power tube. It's much more capable with myriad simultaneous crescendo events with the 845B. The newer Shuguang 95w-dissipation 845C metal plate is even better (with some lean-out of tone), as well as the Psvane graphite plate. The amp's intrinsic high resolution is best maintained under peaks with the KR 845, but many people experience less reliability with it. I keep hearing that's been fixed but then someone writes me to ask about why their KR 845 tube just blew up. The Elrog 845 also does well, and the new version is reputed to be much more reliable than the original. If he tried to listen to full symphony sound through the 845A tube in a Black Shadow or any other 845 amp, his disappointment isn't surprising to me.

I would expect the Audion KT150 SE to do ok in this respect but it doesn't have the same shove as the 845s. I have not liked Modwright amps on Zu for sizable rooms and omnimusical tastes. Can't comment on Bakoon or Pure Audio. First Watts are variable. The 10 watters don't have headroom for orchestra and are tone-over-resoultion machines. Some of the 25 watt amps can keep their wits together under full orchestra as long as you keep them out of clipping. How big and or absorbent was the room? It's possible 15-25w wasn't enough.

I'm going to find out next week how Ampzilla 2000 Second Edition works with Zu Definition 4, and will include a blasting orchestra. Other solid state that I know will work is SPL, the m2tech Crosby monoblocks, 47 Labs Gaincard, and the McIntosh autoformer-output amps of the MC601/1201/1.2kw era. The mainstream Pass amps have never sounded engaging on Zu for me. Very good corrective for a Sonus Faber though.

Phil

 

[213Cobra]

I have gigantic respect for Phil's knowledge, experience and opinions. Phil's bulls-eye call on the Ampzillas for Keith is but one in a long line of Phil's opinions which have been confirmed in practice.

But I share sound of Tao's puzzlement that Phil hears a full classical symphony orchestra projecting from a single 10" driver. One of the firm audio truths I believe I have learned experientially with dynamic driver loudspeakers is that driver surface area is highly positively correlated with (1) the ability of the speaker to project the scale and width and power of classical symphony orchestra music, and (2) resolution.

MikeL's Evolution Acoustics MM7s, with the largest total driver surface of any loudspeaker I have heard, still holds for me the title of most convincing reproduction of large-scale symphony orchestra music.

For example from the Haley 2s to the Sonja 2.3s to the XV Jr. I hear big increases in resolution, believability and convincing reproduction of large-scale soundstage. (And I think the three additional midbass drivers in the XV Jr. are responsible for the biggest step up.)

In theory I agree with much of Phil's philosophy about single drivers and wide-range drivers. If my system ever is hatched it uses a wide-range driver from 200Hz to 18kHz.

Well, first, I did say that I don't consider any single FRD Zu speaker before the Druid 6 as fully convincing on symphonic music. And even with the Druid 6, that would be suitable only in a fairly contained room. But I listen to symphonic music on Definition 4s which each have TWO 10" FRDs + a supertweeter + a 12" powered sub. The sub and the tweet are on low pass and high pass filters, respectively. The amp sees no crossover; the FRD is driven directly.

This is all very much affected by the room one is trying to pressurize for crescendo at orchestral scale. 47 years ago, I could put orchestral scale in a dorm room with a pair of Large Advents and a Marantz 240 power amp. But in the hifi store I worked in, which was in a large house with an open plan first floor, doing the same took Double Advents (we were doing it before Harry) and a Marantz 500, bridged Crown DC-300A used as monoblocks, or later an SAE 2500. At that efficiency, even an ARC Dual 150 wouldn't cut it. We did the same thing with Double Dahlquist DQ10. racked like the double Quad ESL system. I don't know anything about Mike's room, but he has...what...22 drivers in stereo in that system? Are you saying no speaker can do convincing symphonic music with fewer than 22 drivers? C'mon...there must be dial on that concept -- it can't be a switch.

The largest driven surface area we could set up in that store was via Magneplanar Tympani IIIa tri-amped with monoblocked Crown DC300As on the bass and ARC Dual 76As on mid and treble panels, using an ARC or Levinson electronic crossover. It didn't matter how loud you played it, the symphonic perspective was 2/3rds back in Boston's Symphony Hall, because the Tympanis had resolution but not shove. With the Double Advents, the sound was less resolved but more vivid. You got pulled up to a seat about 4/10ths back.

Back when I was still dependent on crossover speakers. I ran "doubles" a few times and found that doubling the driven surface areas yielded more than 2X benefits in scale and dynamism. Double Advents sounded disproportionately scaled over a single pair. Same with double LS3/5a (yes, I really did it, to great benefit). And in one of my large rooms in Massachusetts, I briefly ran doubled ProAc EBS -- in some ways a YG Hailey more traditionally constructed circa 1985. I point this out to say that Definition using two FRDs instead of one yields disproportionate gains in scale and dynamism over a single Zu FRD. And then there's the 12" sub taking on the foundational duties. Which has more driven surface area -- Zu Defs with 4 10.5" FRDS + 2 12" subs + two compression supertweeters, or YG Haileys? YG doesn't spec its drivers' sizes but it's easy to see, Definitions win on driven surface. There is the contention that a 10" FRD can't resolve upper frequencies but that's a theory based on old materials and build methods for the drivers. Zu is inspired by the past but not living in it.

The next Definition you will hear this spring, Ron, is now likely to show up sporting three Zu FRDs, each with its captive concentric supertweeter. The 12" sub continues. And you will hear Dominance 2, which including supertweeters will have 18 total drivers per stereo pair. How many Zu drivers are necessary for convincing symphonic presentation in a normal room?

If Sean stays on schedule, we'll see come Spring.

Phil

 

[Folsom]

But I share sound of Tao's puzzlement that Phil hears a full classical symphony orchestra projecting from a single 10" driver. One of the firm audio truths I believe I have learned experientially with dynamic driver loudspeakers is that driver surface area is highly positively correlated with (1) the ability of the speaker to project the scale and width and power of classical symphony orchestra music, and (2) resolution.

I don't see any reason a 10" driver couldn't produce orchestra at certain volumes. The biggest problem with one doing it is that the high frequencies get bounced a bit by the low ones. In fact that's the only problem as long as it's not exceeding Xmax for given frequencies. The issues would be more with amplifiers unable to control the driver.

Understanding the reasons for speaker size to project scale, width, and power is interesting. Consider that the smaller the driver is, the more wide it projects sound waves. So the larger speaker with presumably larger drivers projects a more narrow but higher power wave (aka higher sensitivity, not higher power for adjusted volume). So what makes the width? It can't be how wide the sound projects. There are lots of other variables though, like room size relative to large speakers, reflections being timed right, and associated gear.

MikeL's Evolution Acoustics MM7s, with the largest total driver surface of any loudspeaker I have heard, still holds for me the title of most convincing reproduction of large-scale symphony orchestra music.

This is interesting given that the surface of the midranges are significantly smaller than any other speaker you've heard that used a 15" driver such as a JBL. In fact a 10" alone is slightly larger than two 7" midranges (barely, a smidge). But the speakers don't have to approach their Xmax at all to be loud, and don't have problems with floor/ceiling bounce for vertical/forward projection. They have the perfect shape for delayed reflections, and Mike has electronics that aid in soundstage. My point basically being that it isn't a driver surface total that is distinctly responsible. Were you to compare a 10" Zu, you basically can follow all the rules in the exact situation, so long as the Xmax isn't exceeded - in which you'll have more surface area in the midrange than the MM7. I think it would be more appropriate to ask why 10" Zu's don't project a symphony more often to the scale - to which the reply is easily/likely room, electronics, and volume.

I guess, what I mean, is I'm not in disbelieve of Phil.

 

[the sound of Tao]

While all of those turntables sound distinctly different, I do not think his lack of orchestral grace under strain was due to his front ends. The amplifiers explain a lot. Both Manleys smear on heavy crescendo even if you get the tube choices right. I auditioned both and rejected them firstly for this reason. The Audion Black Shadow, which I used on Definitions for 12 years and still own, will get tangled on scaled orchestra if using the stock 845A power tube. It's much more capable with myriad simultaneous crescendo events with the 845B. The newer Shuguang 95w-dissipation 845C metal plate is even better (with some lean-out of tone), as well as the Psvane graphite plate. The amp's intrinsic high resolution is best maintained under peaks with the KR 845, but many people experience less reliability with it. I keep hearing that's been fixed but then someone writes me to ask about why their KR 845 tube just blew up. The Elrog 845 also does well, and the new version is reputed to be much more reliable than the original. If he tried to listen to full symphony sound through the 845A tube in a Black Shadow or any other 845 amp, his disappointment isn't surprising to me.

I would expect the Audion KT150 SE to do ok in this respect but it doesn't have the same shove as the 845s. I have not liked Modwright amps on Zu for sizable rooms and omnimusical tastes. Can't comment on Bakoon or Pure Audio. First Watts are variable. The 10 watters don't have headroom for orchestra and are tone-over-resoultion machines. Some of the 25 watt amps can keep their wits together under full orchestra as long as you keep them out of clipping. How big and or absorbent was the room? It's possible 15-25w wasn't enough.

I'm going to find out next week how Ampzilla 2000 Second Edition works with Zu Definition 4, and will include a blasting orchestra. Other solid state that I know will work is SPL, the m2tech Crosby monoblocks, 47 Labs Gaincard, and the McIntosh autoformer-output amps of the MC601/1201/1.2kw era. The mainstream Pass amps have never sounded engaging on Zu for me. Very good corrective for a Sonus Faber though.

Phil

Would just add that fairly much the same high quality components did really great with large scale orchestra on his other speakers at the time which were Harbeths, Wilson Benesch and a different pair of Veritys. Both he and I agreed that the large scale elephant culprit in the room was in the nature of all the Zus he had. Also in the end while he much liked them generally he had to move on from them because he found this constraint an issue as he was spending more and more time with the very music that was for him the archilles heel for them.

Either way its hardly life and death unless you play a reasonable amount of complex full scale symphonic music and that the very thing that makes a speaker possibly not so great with big scale complex music is sometimes the feature that also can make them so great in other ways and for smaller scale music.

 

[213Cobra]

Would just add that fairly much the same high quality components did really great with large scale orchestra on his other speakers at the time which were Harbeths, Wilson Benesch and a different pair of Veritys. Both he and I agreed that the large scale elephant culprit in the room was in the nature of all the Zus he had. Also in the end while he much liked them generally he had to move on from them because he found this constraint an issue as he was spending more and more time with the very music that was for him the archilles heel for them.

Either way it's hardly life and death unless you play a reasonable amount of complex full scale symphonic music and that the very thing that makes a speaker possibly not so great with big scale complex music is sometimes the feature that also can make them so great in other ways and for smaller scale music.

Yes, possibly. If I had your friend with me here in Los Angeles listening to full orchestra on my Definition4 system in my room, and listening to his commentary, I'd be able to be more precise as to the causal elements driving his conclusions. Or he might hear orchestra presented just fine. Either way, my door is open if he's ever here in L.A. I'll add that some of what is delegated to the crossover in a different speaker is allocated to the amp/speaker interface with Zu. So, for instance, an Audion Black Shadow stuffed with the 845A tube into a reasonably efficient multi-way speaker might have characteristics different from directly driving Zu.

Phil