anyone heard zu definition speakers?

I own both Zu Definitions and Zu Druids on two separate systems, and I am a former Quad owner. I can pretty much answer anything you want to ask about Zu speakers and am happy to. I'll start by saying that the Definition and Druids are the only dynamic speakers in existence that I think can satisfy a Quad owner, as they combine the speed, articulation and transparency a Quad leads you to continue to expect for an illusion of fidelity, along with tonal accuracy and adding the dynamic impact and bandwidth that Quads are unable to deliver. Definitions are the most convincing speakers in your price range, bar none, IMO.

Phil

Definitions are absolutely superior to Druids. Broader bandwidth, better power transfer, smoother and more extended top end, better treble dispersion for a broader sweet spot. Bass response flat to 16 Hz if the room is big enough to support that.

All the single-driver magic is present, but the speaker is less forgiving of an average amp. It's resolution is higher so assets and flaws of recordings and associated equipment are more transparently communicated. The Definition scales to big production music better as well. Also, because the driver arrangement of the Def allows the tweeter's acoustic performance to be partly managed acoustically, its high-pass network is simpler and the Definition excites fewer room effects, particularly diminishing the influence of ceiling and floor.

The Definition is tonally more accurate, and its very smooth impedance curve and low reactivity makes it a very easy load for an amplifier to drive.

The Def is 3X the price of the Druid, so you'd expect it to be better. But that's not to say the Druid doesn't have advantages over the Defintion. For one thing, the Druid, while a little more euphonically colored -- and I mean a little -- is the more intimate speaker. It can also be used in a relative near-field listening position, say 6.5' to 8' from the listener, whereas the Defintion is brought into focus when you're at least 10' away. The Druid has an extended shelf around -2db from about 4kHz and up, giving the Druid a slightly warmer character. And being a 12 ohm speaker, it makes a lot of SS amps sound cleaner than the Def's 6 ohm load.

If you like an intimate speaker and are willing to sacrifice a some soundstage scale and accept a smaller sweet spot, then you might enjoy and even prefer the Druid's focus and intimacy. Both speakers share the same transient incisiveness, dynamic consistency octave-to-octave, and with high efficiency plus high power handling, offer explosive aliveness with tonal accuracy.

All Zu speakers are notable for their lack of listening fatigue. I don't think the Definition sounds more similar to other box speakers, but it is a less idiosyncratic speaker so one more types of people instantly like.

I have both speakers in separate systems. Here's the thing: these speakers share common designers who imbued the same traits into both of them. When I am listening to one, I don't miss the other but I am always glad for having both. Despite the Definition's deeper bass and more linear tonal accuracy, and it's $9000/pr price, listening to both raises the question of whether Defintions with, say, $1500 in amplification are more satisfying than Druids with $9,000 in amp. There are some days you''d have real trouble resolving that one.

The Definition is the "better" speaker, superior on most worthwhile criteria. But there are people who will prefer the Druid and for certain if they must sit close, have a restricted space and wish to proceed economically. It's a big step to go from $2800/pr to $9000/pr for most people. If that's a concern you're not going to regret "settling" for Druids. But if you can afford Definitions and have one system only, you'd feel fine about reaching for the best.

Phil

I'm happy to help to the Zu guys, if writing here makes a difference. When you have a 30+ years perspective on hifi as I do, you realize how few new designs and products stand out; how few there are that change your agenda as an audiophile; how few expand the possibilities. Especially in speakers.

In speakers in the 1950s, before I was involved, the AR1 was transformative. In the '60s, the Quad ESL, the KLH Nine and Janzsen peeled back enough veils obscuring fidelity to make plywood, by making the electrostatic speaker viable in the home. In the 1970s, when I was getting familiar with the realm, the Dahlquist DQ10 showed you could get electrostatic-like detail and focus with much better dynamic range, through carefully networked dynamic drivers; and the BBC LS3/5a defined a surprising new paradigm for nearly 2 generations of compact monitors. The '80s had little to show for design advances, apart from the magnificent aberration of Apogee. Most of the energy was put into applying rapid advances in materials and manufacturing quality to derivative designs. In the '90s the slap upside the head in speakers was the revival of efficiency and full-range drivers, instigated by the rediscovery of the loveliness of SET amps. Not all of these developments are equally noteworthy.

Now we have Zu and the founders have channeled their dissatisfaction with shouty horns, wimpy FRDs, and music-strangling cross-overs into an honest investigation for how to do it all better. They dove back into dormant research already learned and forgotten, re-examined the physics of getting fidelity from transducers, innovated and brought us speakers that have it all. Not perfect, but clearly better than what came before, and a real advance for any kind of listener with nearly any music or amp preference.

Few have done such a thing, lately. And no, little balls or big colorful plastic horns don't count. Nor does a Frank Gehryesque stack of boxes in nice paint, for example.

New, small companies like this progress on the evangelism and energy of their early customers. And the fact that this is a company committed to manufacturing in the USA and...AND...is making money exporting to Asia, only makes it more worthwhile to spend a little time explaining Zu when I can. It's all stream-of-consciousness writing however and I only wish I had time to write it more concisely.

By the way, it is in the treble where a Druid owner upgrading to Definitions will find their first surprise. Everything from impedance curve to frequency response on the Definition is flatter. That means the Druid's trace of old-school warmth is mitigated. As wonderfully open as the Druid is, the Definition puts Tom Waits' and his cigarettes in your living room. So, get a can of Glade, before they show up at your door.

Phil

Tbg,

I know of speakers more expensive than Zu Definitions that are different and might be better in some environments. However, one thing I am learning about Zu speakers is that all the models are so good at their price that they shift the focus to the quality of the power amps. In fact, rather than spend any more on speakers, I think it is entirely sensible to end up with power amplification that is considerably more expensive than the Zu speakers are. I have both Druids and Definitions and on both I have amps considerably more expensive than the speakers. I have no doubt that in the case of Zu Defitions, it is better to put $9,000 in speakers and, say, $16,000 in qualified amps, than $20,000 on other speakers + $5,000 on amps. This principle applies to the Druid even more dramatically.

You cannot properly audition and evaluate Definitions unless you are in a room that allows the listener to sit AT LEAST 10' from the face of the speakers. Any closer and the tonal balance is disturbed, octave-to-octave tone no longer consistent. The Druid works wonderfully closer than 10' but the Defintion will not fully integrate closer. This was the foremost problem with Definitions at RMAF and yet many people heard through that.

I have heard Lowther-based horns and other architectures, and have not liked them. Very good dynamics, small windows of holography and strobe-like flashes of uncanny midrange tone but overall not natural, consistent or convincing to me. The Zu driver as implemented by Zu has broader truthful frequency range, more speed and impact where appropriate, is considerably more tonally accurate to me, and you get a more practical sweet spot. But look, I've never heard a Lowther-based speaker that to my brain has not been crippled by deeply distracting tonal anomalies. The Zu driver is convincing whereas Lowther, Fostex, etc., have not proven to be so, IME. Many other people obviously are hearing them differently.

Someone local to me who was at RMAF opined that the Bastani Apollo is better than the Definition, $15,000. I can't say as I haven't heard them, but....Dude can hear, so maybe he's right.

Phil