Phil, Luxman PD 444 not likely to be on my shopping list, but I'd like your thoughts on the high end tt market. Different designers seem to stress preeminence of one or two engineering principles over all others. So with SME and TW Acustic we have overengineered construction and overspecified motors; with Walker and Bergmann we have airbearing, vacuum hold down and linear tracking tonearms; with Brinkmann, Grand Prix Monaco and Inspire Monarch we have direct drive (latter based on Technics SL1200); with reconditioned Lenco L75 and Garrard 301/401, and Trans Fi we have idler drive (and linear tracking with Trans Fi).
My question is that as a direct drive advocate yourself, together with an ever increasing band of followers, do you feel that direct drive (or idler drive) if implemented correctly will always trump belt drive, or as belt drive advocates argue that it is a synergy of everything being well engineered, speed stability being important but not totally decisive over the whole package (materials, isolation, motor quality)?
Btw, I'll try to get back to Zu considerations on future posts, Marc. |
Phil,
It`s both refreshing and informative reading you contributions to this long but interesting thread. i found your exchanges with glory quite telling, you were coherent,reasoned and mature. You did`nt denirgrate his system as he did yours(he came off as loutish and childish). You gave your honest impression of the ASR Emitter without insulting him or questioning his judgement(it`s always to each their own). I`m glad that`s over.
Your preference for SET amplifiers mirrors my experiences and conclusions. There is no absolute best amplifier, all topologies and genres have some degree of trade offs(no exceptions). What the good SET amps do better(IMO)natural presentation(not canned), tone,harmonics/overtones and simply more convincing realism is most compelling and persuasive for me. SET amplifiers won`t please everyone. Others will be happier with solid state,OTL,class D or what ever.There`re numerous paths to excellent sound.SET just does it better for me.
Regarding balanced AC transformes,I use the BPT-BP 3.5 Signature Plus(over the last 3 years)and I`d give it the highest recommendation. My entire system is plugged into it without any downside, it will only improved your already excellent system.Phil are you familiar with the Takasuki 300b tubes? I replaced my Shuguang BT tubes(very good) with the japanese 300b, it`s a 'stunning' upgrade from an already high level tube.
Best Regards, |
Meant Takatsuki notTakasuki. |
Charles, its a little boorish of you to simultaneously celebrate Phil and denigrate Gary in the context of what is now old news. Furthermore, we are free to share our views without some pc overlord with his ruler and rulebook in hand. If you actually read through the thread more carefully, it is plain to see that they both expressed pointed sentiments about the issue at hand: how to get the most out of your Zus. Phil is more professorial and slightly tangential, and it is easy to miss the implied judgements. Gary said he had a Ford Focus front end and wire. Phil told him he had gone in the wrong direction in terms of amplification and had wandered away from the true.... I don't see any differences here.
Finally, as to the world of SETs and Zu: Gary and I both know a Zu owner who auditioned the Audion gear (based on Phil's advice) and felt it was noisy, overly colored, had loose bass and simply got in the way of the music. He now owns SS. Hmmm.
I referenced a British psychology study in Mike Lavigne's system thread and it is very apropo here: "British researchers found that wine tasting was influenced by ambient music. The adjectives used to describe the same wine changed based on music chosen." So, our opinions may speak more to our listening habits, age, and other intangibles rather than pure discernment on electronica.
|
Regarding power conditioning. . . Do you use power conditioning on your Def 4 plate amps as well as the front end electronics?
Thanks |
Marc,
>>...as a direct drive advocate yourself, together with an ever increasing band of followers, do you feel that direct drive (or idler drive) if implemented correctly will always trump belt drive, or as belt drive advocates argue that it is a synergy of everything being well engineered, speed stability being important but not totally decisive over the whole package (materials, isolation, motor quality)?<<
Keep in mind, I am not specifically an advocate of direct drive. There were plenty of bad DD TTs made; frankly most did not sound very good. It was easier to make a reasonably good sounding belt drive inexpensively than it was to make a good sounding cheap DD TT. I settled on a particular DD TT that was exceedingly well implemented. Each drive technology has attributes and sonic character that can be right and musically persuasive, if the TT is designed and built well. The cliche' characterizations that belt drive sounds relaxed (but lazy), direct drive sounds energetic but brittle and idler drive sounds vivid and dynamic but is noisy and erratic have some truths in their origins, but instances of each violate the generalizations, as the aging Luxman PD444 refutes standard criticism of DD.
Today, you can spend anywhere from a few hundred dollars to the price of a house on a turntable. It's hard to recommend without knowing where in that cost continuum your appetite to spend lies. The top end of the market, like so much of high-end hifi, is unmoored from a sense of proportion. After all, the vinyl LP medium itself is not only quite flawed, but even now, specialty production of vinyl LPs yields *highly* variable quality. So is it worth having a $150,000 turntable? Is it worth building a turntable foundation into your house, anchored to bedrock via caissons -- rendering your turntable in part a stethescope on the planet? Only someone who is prepared to allocate resources at that level to spin a vinyl disc guaranteed to not be flat or perfectly concentric can say whether its worth the spend to them. A lot of the five and six figures machine shop exhibitionist turntables I've heard don't convince me, but then the Continuum Caliburn proves a lot of cash can be well spent on spinning and tracking a $20 disc.
TW, Walker, DaVinci, Kuzma, many others have highly credible turntables that are departures from the decades-old AR/Linn/Thorens suspended chassis belt drive architecture. You can't possibly hear all of them comparatively, nor own even a representative sample today. Again, I prefer to keep thing simple. If I were buying today to replace my Luxmans, my short list:
Brinkmann Oasis -- no need to look further for DD. It's as perfectly implemented as it gets.
47 Labs Koma w/ Tsurube tonearm -- counterrotating twin platter is a terrific idea and the belt drive system is taut, dynamic.
Acoustic Solid Wood Reference -- massive platter riding on plastic-lined bearing for intimate fitting, in a thick multi-plex wood plinth and driven by a precision outboard motor via monofilament.
VPI Classic 3, for reasons mentioned previously, though it loses points for forcing its unipivot tonearm upon the buyer.
EAR -- the magnetic drive is intriguing, and Tim DiParavicini has yet to design anything inferior.
Then you have to solve the problem of what to place your turntable on. I could add others, like the Opera Droplet LP5.0, Tritium, vintage Micro-Seiki, on and on. But these that I've listed are investments of reasonable proportion (in the realm of high end audio) that won't disappoint. You'll just have to listen to some representative contenders from each drive technology and decide what's convincing to you in the differences of degree between them.
I'm not in favor of vacuum hold down. I was involved in the final development and productization of the Souther Linear Arm 30 years ago so I have a special appreciation for linear tracking tonearms, but I don't prefer the relatively massive current implementations nor their complexity. And anyway when you can get something as pure, simple and well-made as the Schick 12" tonearm today, a Tri-Planar, a Graham, or Brinkmann's 10.5" or even a Rega RB1000, know when to quit.
So, no -- DD won't always trump belt drive. Idler can be beautifully implemented but it won't always prevail either. There are excellent examples of all the primary drive systems -- even magnetic. But unless you're willing to buy blind, knowing any of these are going to sound good, you'll just have to listen and find out what characteristics are most convincing to you. Nothing, at any price, is going to be perfect.
Phil |
Charles,
I know about the Takatsuki 300B, but I haven't heard them. Construction details appear beyond reproach. I have Emission Labs, some older Vaic, KR Audio, Sophia mesh plates and some Chinese solid plate 300B tubes. When I got my Audion Golden Dream PSET monoblocks, the stock 300B tubes were Audion private label Chinese (appeared Shuguang) production. At the time, Audion's position was that the amps were optimized for readily-available mass production Chinese 300B tubes, so there was no need to buy high cost alternatives. I laughed about this at first, but several trials of higher-end tubes did not yield meaningful improvements, and in some case, more expensive tubes were setbacks. The Audion label Shuguang tubes were the most objective.
This changed after the amps' power supplies were recapped. Then, some of the higher end tubes that introduced colorations in the stock amps, instead sounded objective while their individual attributes still shone through. So, the Sophia mesh plate, which was previously euphonic and marred by its bass bloat, is now linear and has good bass discipline while its image-benefitting high frequency "spray" is still present. The KR Audio 300B, which was great for its fast, tight bass and punchy clarity, but not favored because of its "hardness" and glare, now sounds open, dimensional and defined without its former pugnacious aggression.
But thanks for the reminder, as it is my intent to seek and try the Takatsuki. I am not surprised you find it a clear upgrade from the Shuguang Treasure. I'm wondering how it will compare to the KR and Emission Labs in my Audions.
Phil |
Agear,
The less said about Gary's choices of expression in the prior inconsequential imbroglio the better. But there is a difference in civility of discussion between me declining to endorse Gary's amplification and cable choices (which is what he seemed to want) and his langugage, tone and the shop-worn "Ford Focus" analogy. I did plainly write several times that I had no quarrel with him believing his choices were right for him, and that it shouldn't matter to him what I think. My entire reason for debating the point was to refute the idea that buying an exceptional speaker like Definition 4 mandates a subsequent massive investment in state-of-the-art gear to realize their potential. That's a pernicious notion, IMO, that I resist no matter the brands involved.
On the matter of a Zu owner who auditioned Audion gear on my advice: I don't know who you are referring to nor the circumstances of their audition. There are only two people I know of in the US who actually bought Audion Black Shadow 845 monoblocks specifically, for Zu speakers. In one case, the gentleman was unhappy with very well regarded solid state amps many times the price of the $12,995/pr Audions. He bought the amps blind, on my advice, and his response was "this is the best sound I've ever heard from an amplifier" (I have the email). He did not keep them. The reason is, he is highly sensitive to and intolerant of noise in electronics. He doesn't even like to hear relays on turn-on. I had warned him as part of my recommendation that the Audions would not be noisy in an obvious sense but they would not be as quiet as his solid state amps, and if this was going to be a problem, we should consider other options. He wanted to try, having never owned a tube amp, let alone SET. Others who heard his system found the noise level of the Audion amps to be inconsequential, but it was his system, not theirs. He's now embarked on a search to get "that same Audion sound with solid state silence." So far, he's still searching and I'm searching with him.
In the second case, the Black Shadows are firmly ensconced in a two-systems household and the qualities of those amps are fully recognized and appreciated, with both Zu and two other brands of speakers. I know of several others in Europe and Latin America who bought these amps after reading my experience with them, and all of those owners are happy. Black Shadows, particularly tubed well, are not "overly colored." They do have middling SET noise (less than most, a little more than the quietest (Sophhia)) and while I plainly say that most push-pull tube and solid state amps will have greater bass discipline and precision, the Audion 845 produces well-defined bass that is convincing and easily within the realm of high-end sound. Still, others may disagree or simply prefer something else, and that's OK with me.
Phil |
>>Do you use power conditioning on your Def 4 plate amps as well as the front end electronics?<<
I simply power my Def4 subwoofer amps directly from the wall. I haven't heard any advantage to power conditioning there, and my balanced power transformer for the front end doesn't have the headroom to add them. When I get a higher-capacity balanced power isolation transformer for power amplification, I'll try the Def4 Hypex amps also powered balanced; perhaps that will prove better than directly from the wall.
Phil |
Agear,
If you can`t appreciate the difference in manner between Phil and glory, that speaks for it self. No one is acting as an"overlord" we`re all expressing opinions(that will differ) on an open forum. So someone with Zu speakers did`nt like a SET amp,big deal, choose what you like that`s all. I`m sure some have rejected SS amps with Zu or other brands, does that mean all SS amps
are substandard? If you prefer SS that`s your call,nothing more or less.I suspect it`s you who needs to read posts more carefully. |
So someone with Zu speakers did`nt like a SET amp,big deal, choose what you like that`s all
Hey Dad read the whole thread. Then report back with a more balanced responce on what I was trying to convey. |
Luckily, the UK is not an earthquake zone, so I don't feel the need to install an uber heavy (and uber $s) tt in my apartment. In fact I am v. taken by the newer breed of tt that are much sleeker in engineering/materials terms like the Brinkmann Bardo, Bergmann Sindre, Inspire Monarch, Trans Fi Salvation, Grand Prix Monaco 1.5.
The problem in the UK is that it is hard to get a handle on DD/idlers like the Steve Dobbins Beat, Wave Kinetics NVS, esp. when DD proponents say that it is impossible to go back to belt drive of ANY kind when DD/idler correctly implemented is heard.
My best bet is to choose between Brinkmann, Trans Fi, Inspire Monarch which will give me a good flavour of DD/idler, against belt drives like the terrific AC powered Palmer Audio 2.5 and Claro Audio Clarity Duo, despite these tts having few reviews, and minimal presence on the web. If my lottery win comes up, the $45000 wave Kinetics NVS looks the business; another day, maybe. |
Marc,
I haven't heard any one TT drive type make all others moot, in the way that SET + Zu has been transformative for me. And I know of no one who has directly compared everything credible. I have, btw, heard the Palmer but not comparatively. It's good. Whether, for instance, it's better than the Acoustic Solid Wood Reference which is also excellent, I can't say comparatively.
How people who have heard the Dobbins Beat would in direct comparison judge alternatives as different as the DD Brinkmann Oasis, the BD 47 Labs Koma and the EAR Disk Master with its no-contact drive system, would be interesting and, practically, anybody's guess. The difficulty of access for straight-up comparison points out the futility of seeking "best." In today's boutique world of TTs, you're buying flavors, not perfection. Have fun choosing!
Phil |
I am in the process of switching from top tier SS (Mac 601 monoblocks) to Sophia Electric 845 SET monos. Note- these aren't the Macs of old and are far from slow, sluggish, and dark.
I receive the new amps this week, so hope to have some impressions for you guys in a week.
I have owned or tried in my system:
BAT 300xSE
McIntosh MA6600
Shindo Haut Brion
Triode Labs 845 integrated
AudioValve Assistant
Vac Phi 200
Shindo Montille
McIntosh MC601s
MasterSound Due Venti
Onkyo 9555 integrated
Audion Black Shadows (though had a prob with the amp grounding---so were uncharacteristically noisy)
I decided to punt the MC601s as they don't do nuance well. I believe i can give up some slam (and there is no better amp I've tried for that, period) for some nuance and more texture. That said, the Macs are phenomenal amps and do the 3d thing that usually is reserved for tubes only.
The Shindo Haut Brion had my favorite mids---nothing plays strings better, period, that I've owned or demo'd. However it was dynamically lacking- and Shindo monos are pricy compared to many alternatives. I will probably pick up a used Cortese some day for fun.
KeithR |
>>Audion Black Shadows (though had a prob with the amp grounding---so were uncharacteristically noisy)<<
To update this: what we thought was a serious ground loop we didnt have the time or means to resolve was instead a failing bridge rectifier on one of the mono amp's filament circuit. Since repaired and quiet was restored. It was more than uncharcteristically noisy -- the hum was overwhelmingly intrusive. We'll be doing that demo again, this time against the like-minded Sophia.
Phil |
213 writes,
The less said about Gary's choices of expression in the prior inconsequential imbroglio the better
in·con·se·quen·tial  (n-kns-kwnshl, nkn-)
adj.
1. Lacking importance.
2. Not following from premises or evidence; illogical.
n.
A triviality.
in·conse·quenti·ali·ty (-kwnsh-l-t), in·conse·quential·ness (-shl-ns) n.
in·conse·quential·ly adv.
n. pl. im·bro·glios
1.
a. A difficult or intricate situation; an entanglement.
b. A confused or complicated disagreement.
2. A confused heap; a tangle.
Wow I guess if one has a different slant than what you preach you write such things. To bad you feel that way one one doesn't see it your way. |
Well, Gary, it was an entanglement. That's not perjorative; it's just descriptive. And isn't every disagreement in an interest like hifi a triviality? relative to the real problems of this world?
Well, for me it is. Don't take it personally, which has been my point.
Phil |
With the ( I believe permanent) world economic downturn, the new sustainable paradigm needs to be looking for excellence in engineering in real world priced packages.
Not looking for untenable 'bargains' and expecting longevity eg $40 dvd players and $200 plasma tvs, looking for bargains everywhere.
And in audio high end, repelled by $150000 uber speakers/amps/tts.
I SO agree with you Phil, as audio goes off on this dead end tangent, Wall Street brokers/hedge fund retirees/Swiss and Monaco tax exiles can keep their Magico/Kharma/Continuum/Wavac gear, the rest of the world will switch off audio even further.
So the point of this rant is to extol the virtues of newer companies like Zu who put so much innovative thought and quality into their product at prices most in this hobby can afford within a reasonable time frame. I'm sure this applies to Audion and Dave Berning etc. It certainly did with Hovland (RIP).
What's the point of Magico Q7 at $150000, even if trickle down benefits mean their cheapest speaker is twice as expensive as the Def4s with prob only a third ( I'm being generous) of the performance?
As this applies to tts, I'm going to look at well engineered models below $8000. This means the Palmer 2.5 belt drive, fantastic timing for a non DD/idler; Claro Audio Clarity Dual, superb build quality belt drive; Brinkmann Bardo, incisive and detailed DD; Inspire Monarch, excellent use/upgrade of time honoured Technics SL1200 DD technology; and biggest value for money of all, Trans Fi Salvation, idler dynamics/linear tracking neutrality.
Unfortunately 47Labs Koma, EAR Disc Master about twice my price limit, v.hard to get audition in UK, so non-starters. |
Hi Glory,
The obvious has been stated severl times in this thread,choose what you like best, plain and simple. Glory you`ve found ultimate satisfaction with theASR Emitter SS amplifier and prefer it(by a wide margin) over any tube(SET or OTL) amp in your system. Others would share your choice, that`s absolutely fine.
Phil auditioned the ASR Emitter and found it lacking compared to his SET amps in the qualities he considers vital. There are those who would reach the same conclusion as he. What on earth is the big deal with pure subjective preferences.
There are enough varieties of amplifer types available to please anyone, Pick what you find to be better and just be done with it. Why does it matter it others agree or not with your choice? |
Sorry if I have confused readers but may I recap my thoughts in this thread for those who have only read parts of my thoughts. This is not audio law but only MO.
Having the Def2 with upgraded drivers with SOTA gear from the wall to the speaker will outrun the Def4 with so so/average/good gear.
This is only a reversal of the thought that the Def4 with zip cord and a Sony 595 will outperform the Def2 with SOTA gear.
If I have caused you SET owners to wet your pants in anger because I hear them as colored/ loud with weak balls than please forgive me for I meant no harm. Enjoy them!
Name calling and angry writing with big words is reason for me to exit this thread.
|
Spiritofmusic, I agree with your sentiments about the need for transducers that transcends our current audio paradigm. I have experienced two. Roger Sanders panels are one. I heard them at Axpona last year, and despite very modest gear, wire and no conditioning, the sound was excellent. This was all for under 15K. The front end was a pro audio Tascam player. I also briefly owned the Emerald Physics CS 2.7s. They were relatively impervious to wire, amps, and the front end. To make a speaker that is truly impervious to upstream components would be an engineering marvel. I have yet to hear it.
The burning question is whether the Def 4s fit into this category? There is an inconsistent witness here. Telling people to drop 13K on a speaker and not to sweat the rest is a good sales pitch. I have no doubt they are excellent speakers. I previously owned Intuitive Design Gamma Summits. The owners of Dale's speakers are often fairly opinionated and felt most other offerings were lackluster. One of the most opinionated from that group felt that Zu was one of the few speakers he heard that was musically true. So bravo to Zu.
Phil, it is not a pernicious gesture on Gary's part to suggest that you can maximize the 4s potential with different gear. It is just his opinion and recent experience. He has not fully elaborated on the secret sauce in his system and maybe should. I am not sure. As for Audion, the person in question demoed them but did not buy. He is not pining away for Audion or some sonic surrogate as you suggested. Obviously we are talking about two different people. His SS has taken the Zus over the top. Phil, I hate to ask but are you a dealer/distributor for Audion? Knowing who bought what and going through the trouble to do repairs on a faulty unit certainly makes it look that way. If so, you need to a issue a disclaimer. If you are not, bravo to you for being a passionate and dedicated end user. We need more of that. I have grown very weary of all the colored testimony on Audiogon by three specific groups: 1) stealth dealers who are in the industry; 2) faux dealers who don't make a living through audio but simply use it as a mechanism to get 50 points off and then endlessly recycle gear at a whim; and 3) end users who get a "special price" on gear and then judiciously wave the companies flag on the forums. It is dishonest and unclean, and the only antidote is transparency. For those of you who don't fit into any of these categories, kudos to you! |
Agear,
It does seem that some Zu models could be very special speakers. The fact that the Definitions can please both SS and SET owners at the very least suggests exceptional versatility. At RMAF 2011 I wanted to hear the Zu but they were blasting the music'so loud' I just did`nt bother with their room. It would be nice to hear them in phil`s or glory`s system. |
>>The burning question is whether the Def 4s fit into this category? There is an inconsistent witness here. Telling people to drop 13K on a speaker and not to sweat the rest is a good sales pitch. I have no doubt they are excellent speakers.<<
This is a reasonable objection but it's not an accurate representation of my view. First, I am not telling anyone to drop $13K on a pair of loudspeakers unconditionally. Some people who already own Def2 should keep them. Some people who have a total spending ability only marginally above the price of Definition 4 should have a system built around Zu's Soul Superfly or Omen Def or some other speaker instead. But if any given individual appreciates Def4, can afford, and wishes to buy a pair, it's one of the speaker's strengths that more modestly-priced amplification and sources can successfully leverage the clarity and beauty of the speaker. As anyone who's read my various Zu-thread posts over the past several years knows, I advocate going heavy on emplifier quality with any Zu speaker, but I also hear many affordable integrated amps successfully used with Definitions, and more than a few high-end systems using the $995 Oppo BDP-95 universal disc player as the sole digital source. Prospective buyers should understand they can get very fine sound making one premium purchase with Def4, plus two moderate ones, if that's their choice.
>>Phil, it is not a pernicious gesture on Gary's part to suggest that you can maximize the 4s potential with different gear.<<
It's not "different" that I argue against. The pernicious notion is that Definitions can't be their best unless expensive "SOTA" gear is used with them, which Gary directly stated. People stay away from hifi in droves because of this elitism, and anyway it's wrong. This industry we buy from has many examples of spectacular cost and allegedly SOTA gear completely failing to deliver value or even good results at unreasonable cost. There is a further pattern of escalating cost gear only delivering another variant of coloration -- cables being a primary offender. Worse is the implied intolerance for the ideas of value and restraint. Glory's initial diatribe attacked the idea of building a balanced system of controlled budget, that might leave some of the speaker's potential hidden. Ignore our differences over ASR, for that was the sideshow. It's not unique to Glory. This attitude arises in many debates here and on other audiophile forums. His central theme was to denigrate balance and restraint in system building. I didn't agree that the choices I made result in lower fidelity but that wasn't elemental to the discussion. Glory was explicit: If you're not using a variety of more expensive gear with Definitions, in his analogy you're driving slowly in city traffic in a Ford Focus. The notion that you can't optimize and enjoy a $13k speaker unless you also add a $25,000 amp and $6,000 speaker cables is killing high-end audio faster than it can find new customers. But it is also incorrect.
>>I hate to ask but are you a dealer/distributor for Audion?<<
No. Not remotely. Not for Audion nor anyone else. I work in software/internet. The Black Shadow I had to repair was my own, and I only know who bought what when people who ask my advice then tell me what they did.
>>If I have caused you SET owners to wet your pants in anger because I hear them as colored/ loud with weak balls than please forgive me for I meant no harm.<<
No one is angry. The objection is the blanket dismissal of SET as weak, low resolution and noisy. Some SET amps are sonically colored and undynamic and in fact that was all too true for most throughout the 90s, during the first ten years of the SET revival in the US. It's why I was late to embrace them. But now there are SET amps that at least with a 101db/w/m speaker are not lacking assertiveness nor are they colored any more so than an ASR is colored in its specific way too. When you hear one, you'll understand. I would respond the same way to someone who said all transistor amps are grating and spatially flat because all the transistor amps they heard sounded as described.
Phil |
Glory,
your response is very strange,wetting pants? angry SET uwners? What are you talking about? It was 'clearly stated that we as listeners are going to have different opinions and taste. Why would your view of SET amps upset me(it does`nt) or other owners, or affect my joy with them(it does`nt). If you`re as happy with the ASR amp as I`m with my SET then you`re doing great. You do come off as a bit immature with your responses.Why does this have to be an either/or situation with something as simple as amplifier chioce,good lord! |
Hi Guys,
I don't mean to hijack this discussion (which I find both very informative, educational, and humorous at the same time), but does anyone actually have the mkiii's? I am considering the upgrade. My most recent Zu speaker was Omen Defs with upgraded Mundorf SIO Caps, internal silver wiring, and the HO Drivers (not the nano drivers).
Besides the obvious improvement in bass, what else can I expect different from the Omen Defs? I found the OD's to be spectacular with both SET and Solid State and they excelled with great recordings, especially with vocalists, jazz, and acoustics. However, rock, mediocre recordings, and anything over a moderate level was fatiguing to my sensitive ears (tinnitus).
What sort of change for good or bad would the Definition mkiii bring to the table? Would they be better with less than stellar recordings? Would they be better with rock? How about sound staging and imaging? As I said, I am very sensitive to high frequency etching due to tinnitus and the tweeter is the same in both speakers. I did find it a little harsh for me at moderate volumes with electric guitar, cymbals, etc.
As I had the Omen Defs with the same internals as the mkiii (same wiring and caps), the only difference is the Nano Driver and the Bass Modules. I would really love to hear all your thoughts on this as I want to make sure that I'm making the best decision or if I should just save up for a few years and get the mk iv?
Thanks alot guys. |
Morganc,
I don't have Def3 (I do have Def4 and I had Def2). What you really need given the hearing sensitivity you described, is Def4 with the Radian compression supertweeter. But if that's out of reach, you can expect rock at high SPLs to sound less fatiguing in Def2 or Def3 compared to OmenDef, because of the much better cabinet structure and materials in Definitions, and the resulting sharp reduction in cabinet talk. The glare you experience now with rock music in the OD's MDF and simpler cabinet will be gone from Def3. I expect mediocre recordings will be more acceptable becauce high frequency information up to about 12kHz is produced by the FRD, and the nano drivers deliver cleaner, smoother detail than the older FRD, including the whizzer's performance. The nano drivers are a relatively large improvement over the earlier gen Zu FRD in OD.
Further, if you buy Def3, you could discuss with Sean the possibility of wiring internally with Mission instead of Event, or he might suggest a custom cap choice for the high pass filter to the supertweeter. Last, with Def3 you get the B3 connector. If you use Zu speaker cables and have them terminated with Speakon, the B3 continuity all the way to the amp will further refine and smooth some of what irritates you on the top end. And there again, you might consider Mission instead of Event's silver content.
With the powered sub-bass array in Def2&3, you will get a further 1/3rd octave of bass, if your room supports it, and the tunability of sub output from Def4.
Phil |
I'm getting close to making a final decision to go up to the Def4s, hoping to have a buyer for my 2s sorted. Ironically the one aspect that has held me back from full satisfaction with the 2s ie bass integration has now been sorted out with the SpatialComputer Black Hole in my Def2 setup, so much so that I've really had to be convinced that the single down firing sub in the Def4s will take me a significant step beyond even this. Phil with his really cool in depth description/analysis really has boosted my confidence here, since I am likely to buy without audition first (sharp intake of breath all around!).
What I have found most illuminating is Phil's description of the greater spectrum of frequencies covered by the new nano impregnated FRDs; they seem to extend deeper into the bass and higher into the treble, which was not even a consideration of mine when trying to work out if the Def4s were likely to outperform my Def2s. The idea I get is that this takes further workload off the sub bass and supertweeter, but since these new drivers too are improved, integration esp. and outright performance are all lifted.
In conclusion, I was initially really worried that the Def4s may have turned out to be a dilution of the unique tone dense signature Zu sound which I (and plenty of followers here) am addicted to, but thankfully they appear to be a reinforcement and step beyond what I love already.
Phil, can I trouble you for a summary of what you're currently finding as the Def4s unwind (btw how fast does the sound open up, how many hours before they'll give of their best?) |
>>...can I trouble you for a summary of what you're currently finding as the Def4s unwind (btw how fast does the sound open up, how many hours before they'll give of their best?)<<
I've had my Def4s eight weeks. Prior experience with new Definitions has been that I'll notice improvements for months, maybe as far as eight to ten months from installation. But in this case I'll say that the tonal completeness has arrived much more quickly than prior new Zu speakers. Now it's a matter of how much more bloom and dynamic ease materializes, and I expect the LAB-12 sub to climb in output steadily, requiring trim to the sub amp's level. The Radian sounded smooth from the start. My specific speakers did have the benefit of additional use at CES (with my consent) before they were delivered to me. If you take delivery when shipping from cold Utah to a cold destination, break-in can take considerably longer. No matter how much factory break-in, cold weather shipping seems to set back the clock on new speakers. Mine were delivered to Los Angeles, via Las Vegas.
>>the greater spectrum of frequencies covered by the new nano impregnated FRDs; they seem to extend deeper into the bass and higher into the treble<<
I didn't actually claim this and if I wrote something that led you to believe I did, then let me correct the misperception, and be more precise: The nano driver actually does have the potential to go higher than the traditional Zu supertweeter roll-in point at 12.5kHz, but that hinge point isn't changed on Def4. But the articulation of the whizzer is certainly greater and more refined. Then the Radian takes over above the FRD's whizzer and it's much smoother, more nuanced, more beautiful and dispersive than the old Zu supertweet. All over, the nano driver is faster, more revealing. more agile. On the bottom end it's different in that you can now adjust the hinge frequency for the low pass filter on the 12" sub, and in part this is feasible because the FRD is capable of a bit more low range than before. Centrally, however, the Zu nano FRD is covering essentially the same acoustic range in Def4 as in Def2, but the sub and super complements are seriously upgraded.
Def4s will probably give their very best in about eight months, but unlike earlier Defs, you'll feel like you're just about there within a couple of weeks of daily use, and maybe as soon as 3 or 4 days depending on whether your speakers have taken an extended cold weather trip. But I'm only 8 weeks in, so I'll let you know if a lot of concealed potential unexpectedly emerges over the next several months.
Phil |
Hi Morgan. I have your kind of hearing issues, and highs that tend to the edgy, like produced by many "detailed" audiophile speakers, are hard on me. I got a bit of this when I heard the otherwise very nice Soul Superfly, and when I was seriously considering the Omen Def, Sean (who is very helpful), said he could address it with a modestly priced cap upgrade. I'm now very intrigued by the Def 4; I hope they bring them to RMAF.
John |
I agree with Phil about Def 4 vs Def 2 break-in. With the cavear that my Def 4s had more than the usual break-in and play time before I received them in October, they have changed very little since then. By contrast the Def 2s evolved over the course of 9-10 months. . . if not longer. |
Ok, now I'm convinced the Def4s are the way to go , a matter more serious than sound quality, which finish to choose - one must be happy, but ensure one's girlfriend is even happier!
Seriously, Sean and now Gerrit and Christian are on the case and will be sending me samples for ghost black, true matte black, charcoal, cosmic carbon and gloss black. Def4 (and other Zu owners) please pass comments - my Def2s are Nextel grey, but I fancy another grey or black finish this time around, so far I'm veering towards paying the premium for gloss black. |
Spiritofmusic,
Congratulations! I believe you are going to be very happy with them. |
I have the gloss black. To me it is the most sophisticated of the black finishes. You should also consider whether to leave the aluminum natural or have it anodized. |
Gsm18439, I tend to agree with you, want something a little more dramatic than my existing Nextel grey. Is this Gloss Black finish easy to maintain ie re fingerprints/smudges, static attraction of dust etc? I get the impression it's an automotive type finish, so pretty scuff resistant I hope?
Will stick with natural aluminium fittings, as contrast against the black. |
The gloss black is very easy to maintain. After almost 6 months, no issues. But I live alone - no kids or pets - and am careful with my things. |
>>I got a bit of this when I heard the otherwise very nice Soul Superfly, and when I was seriously considering the Omen Def, Sean (who is very helpful), said he could address it with a modestly priced cap upgrade.<<
There is a Zu tour stop in L.A. tomorrow evening. I had an exchange with Sean today regarding that and asked him about whether a simple cap change or cap + wiring change would suffice to address concerns of a Def3 buyer sensitive to high frequency aggression on mediocre recordings. He said he thinks it is best to do with with the capacitor change in the high pass filter, alone and that it would also fully address the problem. If the speaker ever changes hands or system components alter the nature of the problem, it's easy to revert to spec on the cap, and the full transparency of the Event internal cabling is preserved.
Phil |
Thanks Phil,
Tell Sean Hi and thanks and I will discuss with him the cap changes on the mk III. Btw I am debating between the gloss black and the Ferrari red gloss. Any thoughts? |
My Druids are Ferrari red gloss, and so were my Def2s. Strong. It fits my home's scheme. My Def1.5s were Maserati Blue Nettuno, and my new Def4 are a Cadillac metallic blue. Nice counterpoint to the red system. I'll say this:
One of my cars is black. No more black cars. They look great clean, but they're perfectly clean for about 37 minutes after washing. Zu speakers in gloss black look splendid but show every fingerprint, dust spec & clearcoat scratch, just like a black car. And personally, I think Defs are too big to be a pure black object domestically.
Gloss red shows very little routine dust & prints. All colors are equally easy to clean & polish with automotive products. If red is too vivid, I think deep metallic blues look less severe than black and the color is more forgiving between cleanings. Alternately, a friend here in LA had a pair of Defs in a BMW metallic charcoal, and that was also elegant & forgiving compared to black.
But if black is your thing, consider choosing a black with light metalflake. It makes a black paint less glaring of faults.
Phil |
Looking at True Matte Black, Cosmic Carbon, and Charcoal as alternatives to Gloss Black. For my decor (and mental state of my girlfriend), variations like Ferrari Red Gloss are out. My Def2s are Nextel Grey which has been functional but a little dull, so my dilemma is whether to go for a paler, possible metallic grey like Cosmic Carbon, darker Charcoal, or push for total black, Matte or Gloss.
Anyone with experience of these color schemes please help. Swatch samples from Zu are on their way to me. |
This is a matter of personal taste. Obviously. Given my decor, I never considered anything other than black. I love the elegance of gloss black including the surface reflections, but admit that it is very unforgiving. I deal with fingerprints and smudges by not touching the speakers. Other than a light dusting, no one has touched my Def 4s since Sean positioned them last October. |
I've had both Anthracite (metallic grey) and Maserati blue Zus---I prefer the dark blue with the Def4 aluminum bottoms as they are quite dark at night which adds interesting contrast.
If I was going black, I would do phantom black pearl (Audi) or something similar rather than a pure gloss black. |
Well...I've placed my order for the Mk.IV's. I've been using the Mk 1.9's for the last ~3.5 years. I've been using Atma-Sphere M60's and love the purity, speed and transparency. Hope the MkIV's take me even farther down the path to musical bliss?!
One area I haven't been able to get "right" in my current room is the truly 3D holographic effect. It's really the only remaining "high end attribute" that I'm missing. I've had this attribute in a couple of other systems/rooms (i.e. Avalon Eclipse/Manley Neo Classic and, not quite to same degree, Druids/Atma M60's). Do the Mk IV's improve upon the previous models regarding this attribute?
Nearly 10 years ago I heard a most amazing thing at a dealer in Indy. Speakers were Proac Response models ( not sure which model, around $7000), driven by Cary 805's. I swear I could make out the lips, neck, body, legs of musicians...it was so "dense, palpable, and 3D" that it really was hard to believe. Is this kind of experience possible with the Mk IV's and a proper SET?
I have tried a Melody 300B SET (~8w/ch) with my Def 1.5's before upgrading them to 1.9 and it was a huge disappointment. They really sounded like there were pillows blocking the speaker compared to my Atma-Sphere's. The Atma's were far better in every attribute...by a large margin. I do not intend to ever give up my M60's, but am curious if an 845 SET with the Def Mk IV's has the potential to duplicate what I heard with the Proac/Cary 805?
Audio language seems to be fairly inadequate to describe how each of us hears/feels the music. I apologize if my ramble is unclear...mostly just excited to hear what the MkIV's can do and wonder if that last unfulfilled audio attribute can be integrated with all the others fully sated by my current Definition system? I refuse to trade any of the strengths of my current system though!
Thanks for any guidance! |
Phil,
It`s been very interesting and informative reading your detailed description of the DEF. MK IV. Have you heard the 12" PHY driver in the Tonian Classic12.1 or say the Ocellia speakers, are they similar(minimal/no crossover design) in sound?
Thanks, |
Germanboxers, what you are asking for is the holy grail of audio IMO. Room and power are important elements beyond simply amp and speaker interactions. What people lost in the dust flying around Glory's contrarian testimony is that his own personal achievement of this very goal was realized largely through power and not simply amps, cables, sources, etc. You two should chat. |
Power and room acoustics are really really important.
After years of listening direct from the mains in an area with a highly corrupted electrical supply I installed a c.$6000 power conditioner which opened up the soundstage and lowered the noise floor, but as with all conditioners, there was some pinching of dynamics due to restrictions in current supplied to power amp during peak passages. I recently progressed onto installing a standard $600 (small fraction of cost of conditioner) balanced power transformer; soundstage expanded a little further, but now unlimited dynamics.
This change has NOT been subtle, so my advice is go for a cheap 4kV (at least) transformer to give your system totally balanced power and you will not be disappointed.
On the subject of room acoustics, I really object to dedicated listening rooms. Great if you have the real estate, but most of us have to live and listen in the same space, and you want to welcome, not banish the family.
So for me the SpatialComputer Black Hole anti-wave generator has been a Godsend.
With my current Zu Def2's they'd always sounded great except for bass node/standing wave issues esp. around the 27Hz region. Rather than redesign the room or load it with obtrusive traps etc., I gave the Black Hole a whirl.
It has really tamed these bass excesses so the whole musical spectrum shines. On acquiring the Def4's I am even considering one or two more units to totally subjugate this acoustic issue for good.
Happy to expand further on these issues, but total cost of c.$2000 has transformed my system, taking it to a level that spending 10x this amount wouldn't have acheived. |
Spirit - did you eliminate the power conditioner in favor of the balanced power transformer, or are both employed? Also, do you plug all of your equipment into the balanced power transformer, or just some pieces? |
Rockadanny, I've eliminated the conditioner completely, although one possible variation might be to plug the power amp into the balanced transformer, and the sources/pre into the conditioner.
From what I gather, most people run one or the other.
Main caveat with the transformer is that the copper windings (my industrial unit is 60 lb) take time to bed in, so treble was hard for about a month, sweetened after that time, now I would never go back.
I am also looking at a pro based unit that supplies 8kV (possible overkill here) weighs 180lb! and is in the same price territory as my previous conditioner.
My $600 unit is the biggest bang per buck upgrade in my system, and that's in the context of a $60000 system. |
Agear, I'm fully aware that I'm seeking the "Holy Grail"...aren't we all? I've been on the merry-go-round for 25 years, chasing one more elusive "attribute", usually at the expense of another. With the Zu's, however, I don't feel any desire to risk all the wonderful, music-serving attributes for the "possibility" of acquiring that last one. If this comes across as unnecessarily cautious, it's because my audio journey has highlighted how easy it is to find myself back on that "merry-go-round".
I would love to hear Glory's experience regarding that final attribute. Why has Audiogon eliminated the ability to e-mail a fellow member?
I do remain skeptical that my path lies through solid state amplication for a variety of reasons, but I'm cautiously open-minded to it. Keeping the hyperbole to a minimum, more often than not (though not always), tube amplication has brought me closer to my music-serving attributes, whereas quality solid state more often required the sacrifice of at least one music-serving attribute to gain another.
A recent example: I purchased a pair of Clayton M200's (pure class A, 200w/ch) to use as a "change up". It's certainly overkill from a power standpoint with the Definitions, but by most accounts the Clayton amps are truly outstanding SS amps. There is no grain that I'm overtly aware of, harmonics are very good, bass control and impact is impressive, highs are open and extended. Yet as good as the Claytons are and given the clearly superior and visceral bass, I "feel" that I'm giving something up in comparison to the Atma's. It could be (and probably is) simply that the Atma's are a better match for THIS speaker, but I've had many more experiences similar to this over the years.
Agree that room and setup are critical and have had mixed results via better PC's and cables. I currently use PS Audio Premier for all but amps, though sometimes plug the M60's into it as well with no noticeable deleterious effects. |
>>One area I haven't been able to get "right" in my current room is the truly 3D holographic effect....Do the Mk IV's improve upon the previous models regarding this attribute?<<
I've never had any trouble getting multi-axial dimensioning from any generation Definition in my room, but for anyone who has, I have to say that Def4 will improve your chances considerably. It's unity of presentation and the greater precision of projection off the nano FRDs have yielded better spatial presentation for me. Take some time to get toe-in right for your room and listening position and you should be able to snap into focus a nicely dimensioned soundstage.
>> I swear I could make out the lips, neck, body, legs of musicians...it was so "dense, palpable, and 3D" that it really was hard to believe. Is this kind of experience possible with the Mk IV's and a proper SET? <<
Normally I'd say to someone who seeks this but has never heard it that they have to question whether they are able to hear this way. Not everyone processess the sonic cues that register on their eardrums. But since you have heard it prior, then I say yes, and in fact well-executed SET (wideband, fast, good unity) gets you closer than push-pull topology, generally. But sloppy SET won't.
>>...but am curious if an 845 SET with the Def Mk IV's has the potential to duplicate what I heard with the Proac/Cary 805?<<
Yes, but again it depends upon specific amp choice, and then you can usually improve all aspects via careful replacement of stock tubes. Generally, 300B amps don't have the bass discipline to be effectively paired with Definitions of any version. There are exceptions, but they usually aren't cheap. The Audion Golden Dream, Coincident Frankenstein and Audion Silver Night are in the realm of Def-compatible. Also, 300B push-pull amps. But the 845 and 211 big-glass tubes are much better mates to Definitions, if part of very well designed and executed circuits.
>>I refuse to trade any of the strengths of my current system though!<<
Start with your Atmasphere and draw your own conclusions. It's a great combination to begin knowing your next move, if one is warranted.
Phil |
Charles,
I've heard various PHY-based speakers, including some Tonian, Ocelia and DIY, but not with my own room or gear. I'll say that PHY speakers haven't shown me the same combination of efficiency, shove and tonal neutrality that Zu has achieved in recent years (Druid 4-08, Superfly, Def4) but the essential elements of holistic character, good-to-great tone density, speed and phase-coherence are quite audible in PHY-based speakers. And, I'd understand someone either subjectively preferring their euphonics, or in the absense of having heard a Def4, preferring a PHY full ranger or coax "1-1/2 way" over *any* passive crossover multi-driver speaker. PHY speakers don't have the same power handling as Zu, nor that sense of ability to convey both voices and violence that Zu does well. But that driver is fast and articulate and Ocelia instances of PHY in particular produce beautiful sound. I'm much less endorsing of the ribbon tweeter Tonian uses in most of its speakers, but others may disagree.
At two price ranges in the current line, Zu has achieved truly exceptional balance and holistic presentation in Superfly and Def4, by any standard, with the rest of the line representing really well-engineered and chosen compromises for reasons of market-expanding cost and I expect more of both are coming. With all these full-range-driver based speakers, the power amplification takes on a disproportionately large role in defining the character of the system.
Phil |
