KeithR's "Dream Speaker" Search

spiritofmusic

Well-Known Member
Jun 13, 2013
14,605
5,413
1,278
E. England
Keith, what is the new Druid VI that's better or different than before? I've got my Defs really pushing hard at being way more neutral and transparent, but as always in this game, one can't have enough see thruness.

Does the new Druid VI really do the disappearing act yet maintain the famed Zu tone density and shove?
 

DaveC

Industry Expert
Nov 16, 2014
3,899
2,141
495
IMO Zu is far better in the last few years vs 10 years ago.

They have managed to get rid of most or all of the coloration/edginess that made them have that "PA" sound. So tone is far better, they still have the same high SPL abilities and impact.
 
  • Like
Reactions: jeff1225

jeff1225

Well-Known Member
Jan 29, 2012
3,007
3,249
1,410
51
As Keith has mentioned, I had the great pleasure of visiting Phil's system on Saturday. Phil has two very interesting Zu based systems. He also has several different SET and push/pull amps to try out with the Zu speakers. All of our listening was analog, on a vintage direct drive turntable using a Ortofon SPU (Silver Meister).

I really enjoyed my listening session and think that the latest Zu Druid VI is a quantum leap forward for the brand. I've always enjoyed Zu speakers for folk and rock, I also think their full range driver is very convincing with human voice. This listening session was the first time I've heard the Zu's deliver the presence and impact that I'm looking for on jazz recordings. I brought some hard bop (Maxx Roach) and spiritual jazz (Herbie Handcock' Mwandishi ). Both albums played back with a convincing tone and sound stage.

I'm convinced that the new Definitions with Druid VI technology will truly be a force to be reckoned with.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Al M. and KeithR

bonzo75

Member Sponsor
Feb 26, 2014
22,443
13,473
2,710
London
Guys, just yesterday blue58 said Marc finally got his system going, and today you are telling him there is a better Zu out there
 
  • Like
Reactions: jeff1225

spiritofmusic

Well-Known Member
Jun 13, 2013
14,605
5,413
1,278
E. England
Ked, I've wrung every last drop out of my Zus, and indeed where I've maxxed things out is exactly where the new Zus will excel even more.

Jeff's positive thumbs up means a lot, he's a casual listener to Zu, has a truly excellent system for jazz (maybe one of the best), and so can readily ascertain if the new Zu cuts the mustard here.

And extrapolating how good my Zus are now on classical, these are reliable data points to Zu designer Sean's evolution of materials and tech taking Zu into exactly the right areas.
 
  • Like
Reactions: jeff1225

christoph

Well-Known Member
Dec 11, 2015
4,660
4,058
825
Principality of Liechtenstein
Something that sounded really good that didn't cost so much was the new open baffle speaker from Supravox. It is 10K Euro and a LOT of speaker for the money.
Is this the one we also heard last year in the ground floor small booth?
They played a narrow, conventional speaker and a bigger wide, open baffle one.
Is that the one you are speaking of?
 

morricab

Well-Known Member
Apr 25, 2014
9,391
4,988
978
Switzerland
Yes. these are John Blue supertweeters. He feels they add top to bottom improvements - not just air/space.
I heard MuRata super tweeters once on B&w 800 signatures and it also made top to bottom improvements...proof that we hear in ways that are quite complex and in pattern recognition...
 
  • Like
Reactions: thomask

morricab

Well-Known Member
Apr 25, 2014
9,391
4,988
978
Switzerland
Is this the one we also heard last year in the ground floor small booth?
They played a narrow, conventional speaker and a bigger wide, open baffle one.
Is that the one you are speaking of?
More or less. Last year they played a full range TQWT loaded speaker (Bahia), which is totally awesome for like 3.5k new and the wide open baffle (now called Zelia and you can find it on their website).
 
  • Like
Reactions: christoph

DaveC

Industry Expert
Nov 16, 2014
3,899
2,141
495
I heard MuRata super tweeters once on B&w 800 signatures and it also made top to bottom improvements...proof that we hear in ways that are quite complex and in pattern recognition...

Yup, especially noticeable on instruments with full frequency response like the kick drum. A super tweeter can make a kick drum sound faster and more realistic.

What I've also noticed is having full frequency extension on the top end only sounds right if the bottom end is also full range, otherwise it can sound tipped up.
 

christoph

Well-Known Member
Dec 11, 2015
4,660
4,058
825
Principality of Liechtenstein
If we all agree to buy Avatons maybe Manolis will sell them to us for a quantity discount price equal to the price of the Animas, and we can solve several problems in one go?
If I would be offered Avatons and Animas for the same price and would have to keep them, I would definitely go for the Animas :rolleyes:
 
  • Like
Reactions: morricab

Al M.

VIP/Donor
Sep 10, 2013
8,684
4,473
963
Greater Boston
I think Al is referring to two people who listen to a lot of live unamplified music and then disagree on whether or not some particular reproduced music or system then sounds natural. Correct me if I'm wrong, Al.

You are right, Peter, that is what I was referring to.
 

213Cobra

Well-Known Member
Aug 27, 2018
328
344
148
69
Los Angeles, CA
How true supertweeters influence musical perception from a given speaker is not fully understood. Lots of postulates and some even get to theory. But most of the prevailing insight is that supertweeters operating above 20kHz affect one's perception of a full-spectrum speaker's performance primarily by improving phase coherence. Ultrasonic harmonic content may have other effects too. I have toyed with supertweeters off and on over the last 45 years, and the interesting thing is that if the primary speaker has 16kHz - 22kHz top response, you don't first notice benefit to the top end. It's cleaner, more impactful bass, more seamless spatial imaging, more midrange dynamic slam, better representation of spatial depth. The JohnBlue supertweeters I have on my Druid 6 speakers are set to roll in above 17kHz (the highest high pass setting) and their top end roll-off begins at 45kHz. That's not super high for a true supertweeter but it's enough. I have to make (or get Sean Casey to do it) a compound adapter for my Definitions to pass through the Speakon connector while paralleling a pair of bananas to connect supertweeters on my Definitions. I will have my Def 6 pair built to accommodate the Speakon necessary to preserve Zu's cable geometry from amp to drivers along with built in binding posts as Druid 6 is equipped. And then I think I will try the Tannoy supertweeter, which IIRC extends to 90kHz.

I have a couple more weeks before I will be able to finish the listening for my amps survey. Right now, Definition 4 and Druid 6 are two different experiences within the realm of both being unmistakably Zu. Def4 can certainly energize a room to a higher level due to its dual-FRDs and active sub. The basic split between the two -- Def for weight & scale; Druid for tone & intimacy still pertains. Druid 6 is now the higher resolution speaker in an ultimate sense, but Jeff and Keith listened to Druid 6 for a couple of hours, and to Def4 for one or two cuts. If equal time had been spent on both I could have demonstrated Definition's still-remaining advantage in delivering spatial resolution along with its advantage in sonic scale. There are also some significant room differences. The Druid 6 system is closer to a near field environment where the listener's ears are 6.5-7 feet from the Druid baffle, and the system is on the short wall of a roughly 12' x 22' semi-bounded space in an open plan house. The Definitions system, on the other hand, is on the broad wall of a roughly 21'x14' semi-bounded room, and the center couch position has the listener's ears about 11 feet from the Definitions' baffles.

The room differences and setups by themselves drive some perceptions of their relative qualities. But either way, Druid 6, as I wrote in my original post about it, is *vivid.* In every respect, and more than Definition. Plus you immediately notice that Druid 6 now generates a true bass foundation. It's always been a speaker with impressive jump factor, but that's been amped to 11 too. Efficiency rating is the same but the 6 rises to crescendo so quickly and with so much transient discipline that it makes the impression of an even more efficient speaker. It's dynamically more agile than Definition 4 as is the transient behavior of the newer driver. The driver improvements are important, but the energy management of the complete structure is the bigger reason for this. More of the available acoustic energy can excite the room, and less is wasted to spurious resonance, cabinet talk, component interfaces, etc. Druid 6 is damned punchy. I exaggerate but Def4 is cool and Druid 6 is hot. Still I prefer to listen to a full orchestra symphonic music on Definitions. But I have to admit that Druid 6 is the first Druid that does symphony right.

We listened to Druid 6 on 10w and 13w amps. The 2a3 push-pull amps (13w) delivered triode tonality and density with great bass and a forgiving sound. The Klangfilm KLV-204 clone (10w) is SE-Tetrode, a vintage era studio and theater amp of very high resolution -- it and Druid 6 reveal without remorse everything wrong with modern multi-track, over-processed recording. More about that when I finish my amps survey. It was distinctly different on pre-1962, tube console, tube-mics, musicians-in-the-same-room recordings. The triode amp manages to ease modern recordings at only a small step-back in resolution. Having owned Druid 5 prior, and sometimes using 15w Quad II amps on them, it's easy to hear and feel how much more of the Zu driver's energy is channeled into acoustic projection with the newer speaker. 10 and 13 watt amplifiers on Druid 6 easily outscale the Quad II on the Druid 5, as does Quad II on Druid 6. The last time Keith heard my Druid 6s was the 2nd day I owned them. And it was a Zu party. Now he's heard them broken in with fewer people around. Druid 6 is a great leap forward and Definition 6 will inherit all the materials and construction elements that make this true. Druid 5 caught up to Definition 4 to a degree not possible on the old Druid 1 foundation that was iterated to v4-08. Now Definition has to catch up to Druid due to the large improvements that define Druid 6. But when it gets here, the old truths will return: Definition will outscale Druid impressively; Druid will out-tone Definition by some -- enough to notice. And both will be spectacular speakers as well as outstanding values at their respective prices.

Phil
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: jeff1225

spiritofmusic

Well-Known Member
Jun 13, 2013
14,605
5,413
1,278
E. England
Phil, can you elaborate a bit more about the intimacy v scale dichotomy in Druids v Definitions?

Does one actually choose one spkr over the other depending on which you value more?

So, if I'm listening to LZ3, I'd prefer Immigrant Song on Definitions and Tangerine on Druids?

If I'm into vocals or small string quartet I'd go Druids, but Definitions on big band or sturm und drang orchestral?

And is this a function of the Druids being smaller w the single full range driver dictating the need to sit closer in, the Definitions being bigger w twin drivers necessitating sitting further back.

Tbh, surely at our level we want it all, scale AND intimacy. I don't see larger models of eg Magicos or Wilsons proclaiming this dichotomy in their ad blurb over their smaller models.
 

bonzo75

Member Sponsor
Feb 26, 2014
22,443
13,473
2,710
London
Phil, can you elaborate a bit more about the intimacy v scale dichotomy in Druids v Definitions?

Does one actually choose one spkr over the other depending on which you value more?

So, if I'm listening to LZ3, I'd prefer Immigrant Song on Definitions and Tangerine on Druids?

If I'm into vocals or small string quartet I'd go Druids, but Definitions on big band or sturm und drang orchestral?

And is this a function of the Druids being smaller w the single full range driver dictating the need to sit closer in, the Definitions being bigger w twin drivers necessitating sitting further back.

Tbh, surely at our level we want it all, scale AND intimacy. I don't see larger models of eg Magicos or Wilsons proclaiming this dichotomy in their ad blurb over their smaller models.

That's because when most people choose those other speakers they do so based on cuddly coo Stockfisch music. But valid question, you can have definitions at one end of the room and druids at the other and a swivel chair with wheels in between
 

Ron Resnick

Site Co-Owner, Administrator
Jan 24, 2015
16,017
13,347
2,665
Beverly Hills, CA
If I would be offered Avatons and Animas for the same price and would have to keep them, I would definitely go for the Animas :rolleyes:

That is very interesting, Christoph. Would you please explain, in detail, why you prefer the Anima over the Avaton?
 

213Cobra

Well-Known Member
Aug 27, 2018
328
344
148
69
Los Angeles, CA
IMO Zu is far better in the last few years vs 10 years ago.

They have managed to get rid of most or all of the coloration/edginess that made them have that "PA" sound. So tone is far better, they still have the same high SPL abilities and impact.
What worthwhile isn't better today than 10 years ago?

Lots are not. Zu has been on a non-stop 19 years improvement push since 2000 -- every model -- with the singular misstep of the ribbon-tweetered Essence. It tells you everything you need to know about what's wrong with established hi-fi press that Zu had to make their least authentic speaker to get the cover of Stereophile. Of course misunderstood and misrepresented by most ever since.

Nevertheless, Druid 1 was a revelation in FRD-based speakers in 2000 and it steadily improved through version 4-08. Definition was a scale, agility and, space & tonal sensation in its original version in 2004. These speakers have to be considered in the context of what else was available at given points in time.

Phil
 
Last edited:

213Cobra

Well-Known Member
Aug 27, 2018
328
344
148
69
Los Angeles, CA
That's because when most people choose those other speakers they do so based on cuddly coo Stockfisch music. But valid question, you can have definitions at one end of the room and druids at the other and a swivel chair with wheels in between

If you were to come to my house you'd see I have but a variation on that theme.

It's not strictly a dichotomy, just a difference of tilt. The FRD-Tweeter-FRD arrangement of the Definition (note: it's not strictly a D'Appolito arrangement) gives it characteristics the single-FRD Druid can't possibly duplicate. The Definition's dual FRD limits floor and ceiling effects; the Druid does not. The Definition gains intrinsically broader horizontal dispersion that the single FRD Druid can't match. The Definition has an available bass foundation down to 16 Hz if content has it, and depending where you set the Definition's sub controls the deep bass is a product of a 12" downfiring driver controlled by a high-grip Class D amp. The Definition's dual FRDs are working only about half as hard for a given volume level as Druid's single FRD. On the other hand, in Druid the amp sees the single FRD's voice coil directly. In Definition the amp sees a pair along with two filters -- not a dividing crossover but the amp sees more than one copper coil.

Druid, with one 10" FRD + Greiwe acoustic room impedance scheme + hi-pass filter (to ST) @ nominal 16 ohms is always going to have a difference in tilt of attributes compared to Definition with two 10" FRD in sealed box + hi-pass filter to ST + low pass filter to *powered* sub-bass module good to 16 Hz @ 6 ohms. They are both together wholly in the Zu family of loudspeaker attributes. Compared to all loudspeakers these two sound more alike than different. They share a roughly 1 square foot footprint and a 10" FRD-based design. but beyond that as long as Druids and Definitions are evolved and made, the single FRD speaker is going to have the unity and pure tone advantage, and the dual FRD speaker will have the advantage in scale, bombast, room pressurization and shove, within a given SPL.There will also be rooms that are too small for Definitions, and those which are too large for Druids, though the latter has a lot more elasticity.

Not Magico and Wilson, nor anyone else, proactively address this despite the fact that they have differences on the scale <--> intimacy axis in their lines. But those differences are truncated and obscured by crossover-intensive architectures and they don't introduce a variation comparable to Druid and Definition. Their simplest aren't particularly intimate nor tone-dense; they only scale in their pressurization and bass depth. These other companies just give you a taller stack with more drivers assigned narrower operating bands allocated by increasingly compound crossovers. You get deeper bass but less unity. What they start to screw up with a two-way crossover, they double-down on with 3, 4, 5 way crossovers and the attendant driver specialization and incoherence. You still get differences of scale but the quality differences tend to be inversely related to complexity and cost. Same is true for companies who do the conventional thing better, like Spendor or even Devore.

The Zu multi-FRD models (Omen Def, Definition, Dominance) explicitly provide musical scale with unity, more than unity with scale. Druid's evolution has maintained unity while steadily boosting scale within the limits of a single FRD. Definition's evolution has maintained and increased its scale while inexorably improving its unity within the intimacy and coherence limits of dual FRDs. But they are all Zu.

Phil
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Al M. and bonzo75

spiritofmusic

Well-Known Member
Jun 13, 2013
14,605
5,413
1,278
E. England
Sure Phil, maybe choice comes down to room size and musical tastes, Druids suiting the smaller space, and vocals, small group etc.

In my large space and tastes extending to orchestral, electric jazz, prog, fusion, electronica, Definitions choose themselves.

This is a bit OT for Keith's thread, maybe take this to my Zu one.
 

About us

  • What’s Best Forum is THE forum for high end audio, product reviews, advice and sharing experiences on the best of everything else. This is THE place where audiophiles and audio companies discuss vintage, contemporary and new audio products, music servers, music streamers, computer audio, digital-to-analog converters, turntables, phono stages, cartridges, reel-to-reel tape machines, speakers, headphones and tube and solid-state amplification. Founded in 2010 What’s Best Forum invites intelligent and courteous people of all interests and backgrounds to describe and discuss the best of everything. From beginners to life-long hobbyists to industry professionals, we enjoy learning about new things and meeting new people, and participating in spirited debates.

Quick Navigation

User Menu

Steve Williams
Site Founder | Site Owner | Administrator
Ron Resnick
Site Co-Owner | Administrator
Julian (The Fixer)
Website Build | Marketing Managersing