Keith, from what you heard at Phil's from the new Druids VI, and extrapolating how new Definitions VI might shape up, is Sean's new approach esp to keeping cabinet colorations to a minimum helping to bridge the new Zu sound into more neutral, better resolving presentation? Ie maintaining core Zu dynamics and coherence, but way better on all the microdynamics, transparency, resolution and shading essential for classical material?
KeithR's "Dream Speaker" Search
- Thread starter KeithR
- Start date
Marc,
Keep in mind, Sean isn't taking a new approach. What he's done in Druid 6 is a straight line of evolution from every Druid and Definition since I met him in 2005. Every version of both speakers has benefited from driver improvements and a continued attack on cabinet talk and energy management to ensure maximum preservation of driver output and increased resolution. But newer sophisticated materials are getting cheaper and more accessible. There are more feasible mixed-materials solutions. Sean's experimentation builds on prior accomplishments, and he is able to take on more detailed manufacturing methods.
Druid 5 was a big advancement over Druid 1 through v4-08. Druid 6 is advanced over Druid 5 in all the same attributes but the aggregated effects are becoming more pronounced. Zu design and results are in their hockey stick moment, quality-wise, with Druid 6 learnings. Definition 2 was a large advancement over Definition 1.5, particularly in taming cabinet resonance. Sean probably went too far on that one, overdamping the cab. Definition 4 is significantly more resolving than Def 2 was. When Def 6 arrives, it will have been a decade since Def 4 was a final design, so you can expect very large improvements ala Druid 6, but greater. Why? There was no Definition 5 equal to all that was applied to Druid 5. Just as there was no true Druid 4 that encapsulated what was applied in Def 4.
So much of what people regard as high resolution in hifi is pseudo resolution -- presenting music more resolved and detailed than you ever hear it naturally. Zu's resolution in Definition 4 is sufficient to be realistic, and it is better to fall a little short and leave the ear a little hungry, than to be over-resolved. As I wrote in my assessment, there will be people for whom Druid 6 is too much. Too energetic. Too resolved. Too transparent. Too real. Resolution will not be a shortfall in Definition 6. It will take more care in mating the right amp. Remember, the design of Definition is intrinsically more resolving than Druid, hence the name. Plus the sealed cabinet offers an even better structure for energy management. You will have to find something else to worry about; resolution will be crossed off your worry list.
Phil
Keep in mind, Sean isn't taking a new approach. What he's done in Druid 6 is a straight line of evolution from every Druid and Definition since I met him in 2005. Every version of both speakers has benefited from driver improvements and a continued attack on cabinet talk and energy management to ensure maximum preservation of driver output and increased resolution. But newer sophisticated materials are getting cheaper and more accessible. There are more feasible mixed-materials solutions. Sean's experimentation builds on prior accomplishments, and he is able to take on more detailed manufacturing methods.
Druid 5 was a big advancement over Druid 1 through v4-08. Druid 6 is advanced over Druid 5 in all the same attributes but the aggregated effects are becoming more pronounced. Zu design and results are in their hockey stick moment, quality-wise, with Druid 6 learnings. Definition 2 was a large advancement over Definition 1.5, particularly in taming cabinet resonance. Sean probably went too far on that one, overdamping the cab. Definition 4 is significantly more resolving than Def 2 was. When Def 6 arrives, it will have been a decade since Def 4 was a final design, so you can expect very large improvements ala Druid 6, but greater. Why? There was no Definition 5 equal to all that was applied to Druid 5. Just as there was no true Druid 4 that encapsulated what was applied in Def 4.
So much of what people regard as high resolution in hifi is pseudo resolution -- presenting music more resolved and detailed than you ever hear it naturally. Zu's resolution in Definition 4 is sufficient to be realistic, and it is better to fall a little short and leave the ear a little hungry, than to be over-resolved. As I wrote in my assessment, there will be people for whom Druid 6 is too much. Too energetic. Too resolved. Too transparent. Too real. Resolution will not be a shortfall in Definition 6. It will take more care in mating the right amp. Remember, the design of Definition is intrinsically more resolving than Druid, hence the name. Plus the sealed cabinet offers an even better structure for energy management. You will have to find something else to worry about; resolution will be crossed off your worry list.
Phil
Last edited:
It is not the recommendations, it is mainly the sound level at which I find myself comfortable for a long time.
Anyway, long ago Harry Pearson reported in TAS that he carried a sound meter to a local concert hall and maximum peak levels at symphonic music around row H were around 85 dB. Literature reports these values for peak values (not average) . So unless you sit very close to the orchestra you can go to as many concerts as you want!
It looks some people like it really loud - perhaps it is why they prefer horns!
This rivulet is really about crossover vs. crossoverless. Zu is just an instance. Anyway, I volunteered earlier to leave the thread and was asked not to. There's always someone to object to anything.
Phil
That depends very much on the concert hall. Some halls carry the sound very loudly to the middle. Row H is not even in the middle, unless it's a small hall. I once sat at the Boston Symphony in row K (or was it J?) for Shostakovich's 11th Symphony and measured peaks of 105 dBA, about 110 dB. And indeed, it sounded *really, really* loud! (It was also some of the most powerful orchestral sound I have ever heard.) But it also depends on the music played. The fourth piano concerto by Beethoven, played prior to the Shostakovich by less musicians of the orchestra, sounded much softer and also measured much lower, I don't remember the exact value. The piano itself also was anything but loud.
That has been my suspicion for a long time! Glad to hear you make that connection too.
Also this depends on hall acoustics, where you sit in the hall, quality of playing etc. I have heard live such outrageous transparency, separation of instruments and timbral micro detail (different forms of resolution) that there cannot be too much of it. When on the other hand you talk about artificial detail from tipped up upper midrange and highs, I agree with you.
85 dBA average at listening position? IMHO this is really loud. Most people report around 75-80 dBA for comfortable listening. I often go for average 73 dBA - I see now why our opinions are often 12 dB apart!
Reporting from the net "If a sound reaches 85 dB or stronger, it can cause permanent damage to your hearing. With extended exposure, noises that reach a decibel level of 85 can cause permanent damage to the hair cells in the inner ear, leading to hearing loss. " https://www.nexflow.com/blog/what-does-dba-mean/
I don't listen daily. Listening at 73 shouldn't change my opinions. Also, the disagreements you refer to come because you are just not willing to go out and try some approaches, not because we have heard both and disagree which is better.
Also, there is a difference between what listening levels should be when people voice their opinion in a joint discussion, and when they choose it for an attribute for their own specific needs. E.g. "i think component X is a great component but due to budget/waf/i am retired and listen 8 hours a day/etc it is not suited for me and Y is better"
It is quite obvious people who listen daily for long hours will have different requirements. Not only sound level wise, but possibly also for valve use and cartridge wear
Last edited:
I have heard a YG as dynamic as a Zu, although to be fair I have only heard Zu at shows, and to be totally unfair, the YGs are my Sonja XVs.
Is your reference for music the live and unamplified sort?And we're back to exactly what I said: people hear differently, and have different thresholds for things like coherence (and dynamics, and harshness and so on...)
I have no reason to doubt when a friend like Keith says he hears incoherence in a given speaker. If that's what he hears, it's a valid data point. If I can't hear it, so be it, and perhaps I'm better off for it
Actually, those posters believe there are some speakers which do it very wrong, which is different from saying one speaker does it for everybody.
Live, unamplified music doesn’t have harshness or hardness...these are reproduction traits...an instrument can make a wide range of sounds including unpleasant ones but it is the real thing still and cannot be compared to the hifi terms of “hard” or “harsh”, which are distortion superimposed on the original signal.
Exactly. There is never hardness or harshness live, because there is no distortion on top. Violins and brass are never harsh live. I won't be surprised if some of the guys here say live sound is "Rolled off" (and tonally colored)
I do understand a difference between the acoustic recording of an orchestra in a hall where the musicians are playing together under a conductor and most rock which is not a recording of a band in a room or on a stage. (Live being an exception.) I"m not a recording expert but my sense is that most rock (various genres) is a produced or packaged aggregate from various elements that may or not be in the same studio.
I don't understand the difference between classical bass and slam and rock bass and slam in terms of conal excursion and open baffle. The speaker doesn't know anything about the music it's playing. A better explanation of the difference, if there is one, between this bass and that bass. (I find no value in the word 'slam'.) I don't know that I buy that difference, but for you, what is it?
But you like higher distortion stereos....
I disagree about brass, brass can hurt my ears sometimes.
No, your assumption, due to lack of experience, is that SETs and valves cause distortion as compared to that tonally grey gear you like
Brass in a professionally played concert in my chosen seats doesn't. The one played sometimes on the London underground (subway) does
Yes, in studio, rock can be packaged from an aggregate of various elements. But I have also watched GnR, deep purple, Iron maiden, Eric Clapton, ACDC, led zep cover bands, black Sabbath, soundgarden, and some others live. While playing live these guys don't care about acoustics. Open stadiums are the worst. They may or may not have good sounding bass. It also comes out of PA type big speakers. If you are closer to the speakers, it can be quite loud.
The best amplified concerts are at Royal Albert Hall, where I watched Eric Clapton 4 times. This is also the worst venue for classical and that's why I avoid the proms despite the great performers and pieces played there.
I think at the end rock bass is how you want it to be. Someone might want a higher emphasis on the power chords, or want the drums to sound fatter, some not. But since out of the PA speaker, it has a closed baffle sound to classical bass, which is very open, across the width and height of the stage, decays well at the concert hall, and has more details.
While listening to hifi, I can more easily accept a closed cone woofer below, mids on top kind of style while listening to rock than while listening to classical. MTMs can deal with this aspect of bass
Last edited:
Real life is quite loud...distortion in playback makes things seem much louder than they really are. Horns relatively less so and thus you can listen closer to live sounds without "sounding" like it. The fatigue from listening comes more from the distortion and not just listening loud. When I recorded my ex (playing a real, honest to goodness Strad) in my apartment the pressure waves from that made my ears pulsate! It was loud but clear and amazing!
It's a well known fact around the world that they exhibit distortion. People like it, and that's just fine.
Who said I like tonally grey? You? You wouldn't know.
Similar threads
Members online
- TomAus
- Legolas
- mtemur
- Rico25
- bibicul
- Ugc
- kodomo
- takacs75
- andromedaaudio
- Gregm
- Raypok
- moby2004
- nirodha
- hopkins
- Luckyr
- Manni
- Birdwatcher
- the sound of Tao
- exupgh12
- Uk Paul
- Akari
- analogsa
- Juiced
- SeagoatLeo
- haicobak
- Ligriv
- Geoffkait
- justubes
- SlapEcho
- bonzo75
- esperance
- simorag
- thekong
- J007B
- Nick B
- Sablon Audio
- MortenB
- agencal
- LarryK
- pjwd
- miniguy
- QuantumWave
- mageak
- itay123
- VinylSavor
 | Steve Williams Site Founder | Site Owner | Administrator |  | Ron Resnick Site Co-Owner | Administrator |  | Julian (The Fixer) Website Build | Marketing Managersing |