Zu Druid 6


TL; DR: VIVID! Sean finally built one for himself.

In amateur astronomy, we have orthoscopic eyepieces. Orthoscopic optics are designed for absence or near absence of dimensional distortions in the optical view, and they use relatively few glass elements for high light transmission, scant aberrations and low-to-no light scatter. Orthoscopic eyepieces are the standard for critical visual astronomy of planets, due to the undistorted detail, minimal glass and resulting contrast rendering fine details observable at high magnifications. Newer optical designs emphasize other characteristics, particularly wide fields of view for a more immersive experience in observing the night sky, but designing for wide fields trades away some orthoscopic properties to gain something more spectacular and useful in a different way, to the point where intentional spatial distortions are introduced or accepted in order to tame worse ones when field of view goes very wide.

Not wanting to go all the way down another hobby’s wormhole here, I’ll leave the matter of orthoscopics at that as a way of shifting your mindset to orthosonics for a similar agenda to design for authentic sound in hifi audio. It’s more difficult than it seems.

Last year marked 50 years elapsed since I spent my first dollar of my own money on gear to replay music. 2018 also marked 50 years elapsed since I spent the first dollar of my own money on guitars. I’ve been buying recordings longer than both. I mention this because one thing has remained absolutely consistent in all this time, and counting: at any given time, and for any given category of products, there are only a small handful that are worth buying. There’s always lots of choice, but choice isn’t the same as worth. I am aware of the full panoply of audio gear but am undistracted by most of it, because….well…..most of it at any price isn’t compelling.

Especially loudspeakers, which mostly remain very far away from representing music and the instruments (including the human one) that produce the sounds of music. If mid-to-high-end hifi buyers were primarily driven by music concerns rather than gear, or what’s cool, or whatever makes the best success statement, or whatever else you’ve got that isn’t strictly endorsing of objective music replay, the entire market could be served by just two speaker makers: Audience with their ClairAudient line, and Zu Audio. I wish I could say otherwise, but these are the only makers of speakers fully delivering authentic music fidelity today, i.e. replaying music orthosonically. There are a few additional contenders who nearly get it right, at various price strata: JohnBlue, Voxativ, 47 Labs’ Lens, Quad with their electrostatics, and Konus are some who cover between 270° and 330° of the full 360° circle of fidelity. Which is great, and that much completion of the circle can deliver beautiful sound. But only Zu and Audience have mastered making speakers that can effortlessly deliver altogether holistic music fidelity, authentically.

Send your Magicos, YGs and KEF Blades to the smelter. Torch everything Wilson, Focal, Devore, Maarten, Revel and Dynaudio, let alone those horrible JBL Century 100 reissues we see rising from the dead now. Throw every crossover-intensive speaker into the woodchipper and send the ground-up mulch to your local toxic waste facility. Fake news is mostly a trumped-up distraction, but fake fidelity – that’s real. The orthoscopic authenticity cornered by Zu and Audience is rooted in both companies having developed, within any practical considerations, uncompromised full-range drivers coupled to insightfully-engineered cabinets. In loudspeakers, adroitly-chosen materials, along with astute mechanical, resonance, acoustical, structural and construction decisions, preserve the essential simplicity of a full-range driver design, emitting music without exaggeration.

And that’s the whole distinction, because let’s face it -- most of the supply side of the hifi realm is in the exaggeration business. Moreover, much of the consuming public likes it that way! For every “hungry-ear” buyer who seeks the artificiality of being in the band or inside the piano, or gulped down by the singer to be a swallowed resident inside the body’s resonant cavity, there is a designer and manufacturer willing and eager to tilt the ratio of transient-to-tone, or the inverse, away from real and aggressively toward spectacle. It’s endemic, and buyers are as much at fault as the designers & sellers in the industry. For people who want more transient detail than is actually present in a performance or from an instrument, orthosonic speakers aren’t for them. If you want a Fender guitar amp running 6V6 tubes to sound like a Marshall stack, or if you think Johnny Cash sounding 12 feet tall is authentic, you don’t want a true-sound, orthosonic, hifi speaker.

If you need or want a surprisingly convincing speaker that can be held in one hand, buy a pair of ClairAudients. But if you want something with room-filling shove, you want Zu. So, I will leave Audience behind here, since this commentary is about Zu, particularly the Druid 6.

This year marks my 15th year of continual Zu in my hifi systems. I started with a pair of used Druids that had been updated by Zu to 2004 configuration. They turned out to be one of the first ten pair of Druids made back in 2000. Those Druids were the first convincing find in my then 30+ years quest for a convincing crossoverless speaker. The 2004-spec Druid was certainly not perfect, but it was a revelation. Imperfect because it was a bit of a narrowcaster, and was soft on the top end. A revelation for its completely coherent presentation, octave-to-octave balance, consistent transient behavior, striking intimacy, pinpoint imaging, absence of crossover-point pinching, plus it was a tone monster. Druid was effectively a dynamic driver Quad ESL-57 but with dynamic range, energy and willingness to be abused. It was the first speaker to ever pass my test for reproducing specific electric guitar/amp combinations with true fidelity. I immediately added an early pair of Definitions to another hifi system but kept those Druids on my secondary system until Druid 5 was introduced, along the way getting periodic upgrades installed, culminating in Druid 4-08.

In parallel, I made the Definition > Definition 2 > Definition 4 migration, yet the Druid never lost relevance. Definitions favored scale; Druids favored intimacy and they both overlapped on tone, coherence, speed, holistic transient and tonal behaviors and both excelled in delivering shove – that quality of musical dynamism that gives music projection and reach. In Zu’s case you get shove without gobs of power.

Druid 5 updated and expanded on the core Druid proposition but extended the top end for more harmonic completeness (courtesy of the Radian compression supertweeter replacing the older Zu tweet), deepened bass response, added greater agility and speed to the main driver, upped transparency, broadened the spatial presentation, boosted shove and put the Druid form factor in league with Definition by further killing cabinet talk. Druid 5 was the first Druid that had sufficient scale to double as a movie speaker, if the room wasn’t too big. Frankly, when Druid 5 debuted, it struck me as nearly perfect in practical terms, and about as much as one could expect from that form factor. Beyond Druid 5 lay incrementalism.

Or so I thought, then.

Enter Druid 6. Why has it taken me seven months to write this commentary? Because Druid 6 may as well be ground zero for a new vector of Zu. It completely unshackles the single-FRD / no-sub form factor of the Griewe – Druid configuration from the physical limits of its original form. Definition 1 had scale and a lot of cabinet talk. Definition 2 sacrificed some spatial scale to slay the cabinet talk. Definition 4 restored the spatial scale and tamed the cabinet talk to deliver a notably more objective speaker. Druid 6 has the spatial scale of Definition 1, which original Druids couldn’t come close to. It has the tone density trademark of all Druids and beyond what any Definition delivers. Snap and dynamic shove set a new Zu standard. Nuance and transparency Windex the entire presentation. Druid 6 is unbelievably quick, with the dynamic agility of Tiny Archibald confusing basketball opponents in his prime. And there is a fairly dramatic improvement in bass depth, character, impact and texture. I never had a real impulse to add subwoofers to any of my Druids, but then I had another system with Definitions and their powered sub-bass modules to satisfy deep bass cravings. Still, it just seemed counter to the simplicity and elegance of Druid to clutter the room with more boxes or towers to get bass fundamentals few recordings actually include. It’s probably only a half-octave further bass extension over Druid 5 but it sounds so convincing and fundamental that a sub is really only called for by a bass fetishist. All this adds up to a speaker that is a larger improvement over Druid 5 than Druid 5 was over v4-08. Which is saying quite a lot.

If you’ve traipsed through the Druids sequence as I have, that might not be your first conclusion, because on everything most obvious – high frequency response, neutrality, greater shove and improved bass, Druid 4-08 was left behind and there wasn’t a single aspect in which Druid 4-08 was better than Druid 5, other than you could buy a pair for much less cash. Druid 6 improves all these particular aspects over Druid 5 somewhat less so than the last generational shift, but that all sums, along with a specific and new Druid quality, to a new speaker that makes the greater leap over its predecessor. The new quality is “vividity." “ Yeah, that’s not a word, but I’m using it here. My TL;DR for this assessment is “Vivid.” And that is what slams your mind when you wire up Druid 6, especially after the 100 – 200 hours burn-in period needed when new.

Basil Hayden bourbon is 80 proof. Technically, that’s a little short for the category. But if I’m having whiskey before the sun is down, I often start there. It’s easygoing and doesn’t front load you for the evening. Druid 5 was like Basil Hayden. Forgiving, convincing, mellow. Works with almost any mood, music, room, aesthetic, amplification. Druid 6 is more like a 137 proof George T. Stagg bourbon. You need to be ready for it, and it’s going to seem a little loud on your palate. If you leave everything the same and just wire ‘em up, a pair of Druid 6 will hit you like a hot whiskey. Burning, flavorful….vivid. And unfailingly revealing. Druid 6 is a deity’s-honest truth of music presentation. So much so, some of you Druid aficionados out there might (will) prefer Druid 5. Depending on what you have today, Druid 6 will force upgrades, or at least changes in your system, upstream of the speakers. The most likely change Druid 6 will force is in amplification. Depending on how your DAC is voiced (don’t kid yourself, they’re all voiced) you’ll be contemplating a change there too. Phono cartridge? Could be, but less likely than DAC. Preamp, least likely to require a change unless a change in power amp argues for it. In my case, Druid 6 brought to a halt 15 years of Audion SET amplification with Druids, and really a total of 20 years of continuous SET listening in my secondary system. Why? Because the extra half octave or so of bass response is just a bridge too far for really clean, bloat-free bass from any zero-feedback SET amp I know of. SET works well with the deeper-plunging the Definition series because in the Def, a solid-state plate amp has a grip on the sub-woofer driver(s). The tonal qualities of the sub bass are derived from the power amp outputs (and characteristics) but the actual sub driver control is a product of the plate amp’s damping and grip. In Druid 5, the ~34 Hz bottom limit doesn’t reveal the limitations of low-damping factor, SET bass. My Audion Black Shadow 845 amps have excellent bass on Definitions and Druid 5. On Druid 6, bass extension is just enough further to bring SET deep bass control deficiencies to the forefront. Same with SET & PSET 300B.

So, I have to replace my beloved Audion Golden Dream monoblocks (300B PSET) to enjoy Druid 6 without distracting and illusion-undermining, zero-negative-feedback bass bloat. More on that near the end of this commentary.

But, if you’re forced into an electronics revision once in 15 years because of a significant loudspeaker advance, one can’t really complain. For the first time since first exposure to Zu Druid, I recommend alternatives to single ended triode amplification. As I will outline in a topical addendum at the end of this, I recommend single-ended pentode/tetrode, push-pull triode and some high-coherence push-pull tetrode and pentode amplifiers. Or if you’re tube-phobic, some solid-state amps one might want to consider include, Pass, First Watt, 47 Labs Gaincard, M2Tech Crosby, etc.

Druid 6 is the first Druid to serve as a convincing transducer for symphonic music. With the right amplification it will even play viciously intense metal without choking like you’re trying to squeeze toothpaste from its tube too quickly, forcing the tube itself to burst. No prior Druid could quite do that. On the other hand, Druid 6 loses nothing to prior Druids in the lone-performer-with-guitar genre, in fact drawing you into closer intimacy with the tone and textures of expression while maintaining the right spatial distance. It doesn’t exaggerate like the bulk of this industry’s loudspeaker offerings, inflating definition like you’re inside the instrument to feign intimacy.

Druid 6 is also easier to set up than any prior Druid. It might be more demanding of amplifier matching but the formerly-fussy floor-to-plinth gap height adjustment is much less hyper-critical now, for attaining correct bass. Because of its dispersive scale, getting a convincing soundstage is a less obsessive proposition in placement and toe-in. There will be rewards for taking the obsessive route, but you don’t have to. And one of the best small touches is that Druid 6 default footers are flat discs, layered with a thin polymer, and attached via a ball-mount that threads into the plinth. You can spec the plinth to be drilled through so the height of the feet can be adjusted from above with a hex wrench! Fantabulous. But the big advantage sonically is that the ball mount acts as a bearing for resonance dissipation. You can get spikes to anchor the speakers to a firm flooring under thick carpet, but for hard floors the default ball-mounted, top-adjustment, polymer-interfacing flat-disc footer is the bee’s knees, sonically and ergonomically. And it’s kind to your floors.

The design and execution emphasis on Druid 6 was the cabinet. The full range driver is improved and I won’t say that’s not important, but the complete revision to the cabinet materials, construction and the mounting of the drivers (including the FRD’s torque-tensioned anchoring to the rear of the cabinet, complementing the baffle attachment and its beefier surround), and the massive plinth are collectively a major advance in Druid resonance control, energy channeling and, by extension a murderous spree annihilating cabinet talk.

Figuratively Druid 6 wastes nothing from the signal in its transducing obligations. Of course it does waste something, but compared to what’s come before, it sounds like it doesn’t. Druid 6 is direct, declarative, clear, orthosonic. It snaps and crackles like real life sounds. Instruments and people have body and breath in correct proportion. Vocal fry sounds exactly like its coming from the Millennial voice behind it. Real acoustic guitar (if amplified, microphoned, not piezo-electric) sounds authentic in tone and in attack : resonance proportion. Voices, instruments and people are sized realistically. Everything is in high resolution in a natural way, without faked detail. Presentation is bursty and serene, strong and laid back, as is authentic to the performance.

It sounds perfect, but there’s a backside to the coin. Druid 6 is not forgiving of bad recordings, cheesy mixes, idiotic mastering. It lays bares faults in performance, recording decisions by the engineer, mastering, pressings (if vinyl). It is intolerant of runaway digititis. The manic sawing of digital compression loses the loincloth producers try to cover it with. The nasty bits of degraded fidelity traded away for expense reduction are naked for all to see.

You can ameliorate the relentless truthfulness of Druid 6 by choices upstream. A more forgiving phono cartridge or more sonically elastic phone preamp or DAC. Get the right tubes for your new configuration. Back off sheer resolution a trace with Zu Mission cables instead of Event 2. Or not. Go for the unmitigated, all-nude, vivid Druid 6 experience. Hear the beauty and the beast in modern recordings. You’ll thrill to music recorded in the pre-multi-track, pre-all-solid-state studio era. Recordings from the days of vacuum tube consoles and mics, with performers in the same room, have a holistic, tuneful sound mostly lost today, except for recordings from a few performers. Those recordings have a vividness perfectly transduced by Druid 6 and projected into your domestic space. With Druid 6, a modern, congested, over-processed, excessively-compressed assault is revealed for the noisefest it is. If you can’t handle that, you need Druid 5 or you need an obfuscating amp for poor recordings, and another amp for great ones.

Which means Druid 6 isn’t for everybody, and that’s a good thing. Because Zu can’t make as many of them as it can build Druid 5 in the same period of time. And Druid 6 costs about twice as much as its esteemed predecessor. Hence both are in the line concurrently. And this makes sense. In my TL;DR I noted “Sean built one for himself.” Sean has visited me often enough that I’ve had many hours of listening with him present. I’ve seen Sean spin vinyl of music he loves irrespective of recording or pressing quality, able to note the sonic offenses and still set them aside to let himself be infused by the tunes. And when the worst disk is done playing, he thinks about how to get more out of it.

This makes Druid 6 its own contradiction. It is the least forgiving Zu speaker ever, and yet the most fun. It’s seductive and off-putting in equal measure, depending on the quality of the source material. And yet its uncanny PRaT pulls you in to ignore what’s wrong with the source and revel in what’s right.

Zu’s finish quality is higher than ever, running with the best. The jewelry adorning the cabinetry is all functionally mandated, designed to look fab and is perfectly machined. While it sounds like this is as good as Druid can get, there’s no doubt Sean will take Druid further in coming years, but Druid 6 is a high plateau on which it can be parked, bought, enjoyed and admired while another speaker in the Zu line gets the new foundation of materials and build techniques laid down by Druid 6. In the meantime, in Druid 6, Sean Casey is making the one, true, full-range, orthosonic speaker. It doesn’t exaggerate, nor does it shade the truth. It neither spotlights nor romanticizes. It doesn’t make rough, wooly music silken, and it won’t make velvet sounds abrasive. Druid 6 presents Tom Waits and Maria Callas with equal authenticity. Yo Yo Ma and Joe Satriani are equally convincing. Frank Sinatra and Hound Dog Taylor are nothing but themselves.

A (lengthy) note on amplifiers for Zu.

If you’ve read anything prior I’ve posted here about Zu, you know I regard the amp-speaker interface and combination the fulcrum of fidelity for any Zu-based system. As I referenced earlier in having to abandon SET amps with Druid 6, buying this speaker requires careful consideration about the mated amplification. In the past 18 months another development required a complete revision to my power amplification in my Definition 4 system as well, so I have put extended effort into surveying alternate amps for both Zu systems over the past year or so.

In 2017 I had solar panels installed on my roof, and then later that year added Tesla Powerwall batteries. The panels were installed on the area of the roof directly over my living room where the Zu Definition 4 system lives. It’s a one-story rancher, wood construction house, so not much other than air, wood and sheetrock umbrellas my Definition 4 system from the shower of solar RFI. Apart from any RF emissions from the panels, the system has two wireless internet connections: a Wi-Fi connection to my mesh network by the Tesla Powerwall controller, and a cellular connection by the solar system inverter. At the same time, to accommodate the exterior Wi-Fi needs as well as prepare for wireless Roon endpoints to two separate systems, I changed my house Wi-Fi from a Google wireless router to an Eero mesh network.

The result was that my SET amps in the Definition 4 system proved perfect antennas for the shower of RFI bathing my living room, and no tactic for quieting that worked. The first step was to get an active preamp out of the system, so I sold off my crazy-good Melody p2688 tube preamp, which removed about half the problem. It was replaced by the splendid Luxman AT-3000 TVC from the early 1990s – a real work of magnetic art. Once that was added, I had quiet with push-pull tube and solid-state amps. At the time, I still had Druid 5 on the other system, and its location sharply contained the new RFI problem, so my Audion SET amps could still be used there. Then Druid 6 arrived to undermine my commitment to Audion SET. So, now what, for amplifiers?

About a year ago, after years of great difficulty finding a phono preamp that can make an Allnic Puritas phono cartridge sound correct (Allnic’s own phono preamps do not), I ventured a radical experiment to try the M2Tech Joplin Mk2 phono ADC, which I mated to the M2Tech Young Mk3 DAC, both powered by the Van der Graaf linear power supply. For this signal, The ADC converts analog to 24/192 digital and the DAC converts the processed phono analog digital signal to analog at 24/192 decoding. With RIAA done in the digital realm, and gain adjustable by 1 db increments, and a good range of options for cartridge loading, I finally got the Puritas to sound musically convincing. This led me to take a flyer on the M2Tech Crosby power amplifiers as a temporary fix to my Definition 4 power problem so I’d have something good to listen to while I took my time trying alternate tube amps. I bought two Crosby to run as bridged monoblocks. These are Class D amps using ICE modules with an M2Tech proprietary input section for better sound than most ICE-based amps. Into 8 ohms, one Crosby outputs 60w/channel. Run as a bridged monoblock, Crosby outputs 180w. Into the Def4’s 6-ohm load, Crosby should be good for ~270w each.

With a pair of Crosby amps and the Luxman TVC in the Def4 system, I had a quiet system again. In fact, dead-quiet. Quieter than ever! Without the RFI-induced gurgling, sputtering, spitting and whirring coming through my RF-antenna SET amps, I could listen in peace and embark on a tube amp odyssey as I had time.

Chalk up the M2Tech Crosby Class D amp as wonderfully-Zu compatible. This is the best Class D sound I’ve heard, period. Maybe only rivalled by the 47 Labs Gaincard, which has much less power. I prefer these to most bi-polar solid-state amps, only a few of which have somewhat better musicality, usually at less output. Such amps are generally associated with Nelson Pass. So if you are tube phobic or have any other reason to need or prefer a smooth, bursty, dynamic, musically-convincing, high-definition, solid state amplifier for Zu, consider the relatively affordable M2Tech Crosby.

Back to tube amps. At the same time I was considering tube amp alternatives to my long-time Audion SET amplifiers, I also have to note that I regularly am contacted for advice on affordable tube amps for Zu speakers as well. Now, I have a pair of Quad II Jubilee monoblocks, which were the last edition of Quad II amps produced in the UK. They sound quite good on any Zu speaker, so when I got Druid 6 and found them not ideal for SET in the bass region, it was easy to slip them in the Druid 6 system, or to move them over to Definition 4 when I wanted some tube-amplified music. The Quad II pair are always a great backup amp for me, and the closest-to-SET seamlessness I’ve heard in a push-pull amplifier, simple circuit and all that.

But Quad II is built for KT66, with 6L6 an alternative. I had mine pretty tweaked through tube selection: Tubestore Preferred Series 274B rectifier, Mullard mesh plate EF86, Sylvania NOS 6L6 long ago sourced from Mesa Boogie in the form of their legendary STR-415 power pentode. As an alternative I also used cryo’d Tube Doctor KT66. The Quad II sound seriously good but still only 12-15w and the pair could be more elastic. I would love them to have more of the Plasticman kaPow! reach & slam that my Audion Black Shadow 845 SET amps muster.

My system racks are setup for monoblocks, so all stereo amps are ruled out. Meanwhile, as I started my tube amps odyssey, more requests for affordable amp recommendations trickled into my email. Which is why I want to let you know about Ling Xiao Nan and his hand-built, affordable, amplifiers. Xiao Nan designs and builds his amps in the Guangzhou region of China. He is self-taught on the subject of vacuum tubes and amplification, and been building amps for over a decade. He’s also a guitar player, but he’s proud to point out that he is a “full-time amp builder.” You can find Xiao Nan offering amplifiers on eBay under his Tube Fantasy brand, but that’s only a fraction of what’s possible with him.

Online, Xiao Nan generally sells clones of vintage circuits, particularly pre-war and post-war German cinema amplifiers, the Quad II and the Williamson designs. The circuits are faithful with only a few component value deviations for modern speakers, particularly in cathode capacitors. When he is cloning an amp circuit, he builds his transformers to the original electrical spec but uses his own preferred winding techniques. Xiao Nan machine-winds his transformers on his least expensive amps, and hand-winds them in everything else not-very-much-more expensive. He keeps cost down first by building in China, but also by keeping to a Quad II-sized chassis for most of what he offers, in black or natural aluminum, or a similarly-proportioned upsize for designs with larger transformers. Ling Xiao Nan builds monoblocks.

I first learned about Tube Fantasy when I was out on my patio on a cold-for-Los-Angeles night in December with a glass of Corbin Cash Rye, Tidal on my iPhone through my i.am+ Buttons, idly flipping through tube amps on eBay. A listing for a Quad II clone pair at a ridiculously low price stopped me cold, especially since I had gotten a request to recommend a cheap tube amp for Zu earlier that day. They were so inexpensive I decided to do the Zu community a public service to evaluate them. If someone was selling a pair of Quad II clones for a few hundred bucks, I had to hear them, for better or worse.

I’m going to comment on those Quad II clones shortly, but in email correspondence about the sale and in asking some questions I had about the amps, I quickly got to know Xiao Nan beyond the usual eBay transaction, and in doing so I learned about other amps he makes. Perfect. I now had a custom amp builder to let me affordably tour circuits and tube types to bracket myself and zero in on where to finally land in replacing my Audion SET amplifiers. This led to me acquiring the following monoblock pairs in the span of 3-1/2 months: Quad II clone, Williamson push-pull, 2a3 triode push-pull, Klangfilm KLV-204 clone (F2a beam power tetrode-based) single-ended tetrode, LS50/GU50 single-ended pentode, 300B-or-2a3 push-pull. And I am considering getting a pair of Telefunken V69 clones.

At some point, some of these amp pairs will be sold, but the luxury of auditioning a range of circuits and tube types on a relatively modest cash outlay is considerable. And you know what? Xiao Nan might make you a pair of stepping-stone amps, or he might make you the last pair you need. He certainly can. Xiao Nan tends toward simpler circuits, high quality parts, emphasis on transformers and pentode/tetrode designs, though he builds triode push-pull anytime you want. He is quick to build, his soldering is clean and careful. Nothing is needlessly bulked up for faux masculine appeal.

Ling Xiao Nan and Tube Fantasy are in many respects the Sean Casey and Zu Audio of tube amps. Both represent strong points of view, are music-driven and constantly tinkering for better sound, and delivered value is high.

Here’s a sampling of Ling Xiao Nan / Tube Fantasy prices, monoblock pairs, shipped to USA (DHL), amps only, no tubes:

QUAD II Clone (18w), $499

Williamson Clone (25w wired triode / 45w wired pentode), $688

2A3 push pull triode (13w), $688

Klangfilm KLV204 Clone, single-ended-tetrode (10w), $688

LS50/GU50 Direct Coupled, Single-ended Pentode (13w), $1000

In cases where Xiao Nan supplies any of the tubes, he specifies so. Otherwise, you source tubes and stuff the amps when you get them. Every amp Xiao Nan builds gets burned in and listened to for five hours before shipping. All my amps have arrived trouble-free electrically. One had stripped transformer cover threads due to customs overtightening during disassembly-reassembly under inspection, and they also damaged a faceplate. Xiao Nan immediately ordered replacements for me.

Xiao Nan does not pot his transformers both for maintainability and because potting compromises high frequency performance. You may hear a trace more mechanical hum up close than from, say, a true Quad II. But music-on, this is irrelevant. The amps are quiet electrically. Common to all of Xiao Nan’s amplifiers is exceptional transparency, very high definition, fast transient speed, exceptional soundstaging and depth. For whatever reason, with any of his amplifiers, I am getting more spatial depth in the soundstage than with any amplifiers I’ve had connected to my Zu systems, regardless of price, and that includes the many amps visitors have brought to audition on Zu speakers. That fast, transparent, dynamic, tuneful sound I valued particularly in Audion SET is here. Further, in the push-pull amps, crossover notch grunge is vanishingly low. Some notes on specific amps:

Quad II Clone: Fast, open, dynamic sound. Because Xiao Nan winds the output transformer differently than Quad did, this also changes the feedback behavior somewhat. The result is greater audible difference between KT66, 6L6 and EL34 in the clone compared to genuine Quad II. With EL34, the clone is relentlessly revealing, hi-def and blindingly fast, which is great for excellent recordings/masters/pressings, but not forgiving of flawed wax or digitalis-digital. With KT66 the clone is closest to the original Quad II sound, which was not strictly romanticized but does possess some vintage warmth. The perfect balance is found with the NOS 6L6. With this power tube, the clone is smooth, defined, dynamic; delivering Druid-like tone density and lots of dynamic punch for its power. The amp takes some time to burn in and bloom. About 120 hours will do it. It will sound thin in the bass region until then, but progressively less so.

Williamson (Triode-Mode): Dynamically stronger than the Quad II or its clone. Refined, smooth, high definition, solid deep bass on Definition 4 or Druid 6. Same basic sonic difference between EL34, 6L6, KT66, as in the Quad Clone. Again, I settled on NOS 6L6. In the Williamson, the Quad II and QII Clone, my preferred rectifier is the Tubestore Preferred Series 274B. It gets the most tone, space, definition and dynamic punch from all three amplifiers. This is an exceptional tube amp, that lives up to the Williamson amp legend from shortly after WWII. In fact, it’s the best Williamson implementation I’ve heard and easily walks over a Marantz 8B.

2a3 Push-Pull: Inexplicably bursty and elastic for its 13 watts. And my pair have only 8 ohms windings. On 16-ohm Druid 6 they sound dynamically huge. Excellent bass discipline compared to any SET amp, while retaining all the triode magic, though still quite objective. No slow, lazy, old-school triode amp sluggishness. This amp, Xiao Nan’s custom circuit at my request, gives up nothing in definition, speed and punch to the tetrode and pentodes in his other push-pull amps. The rectifier you want is NOS 5v4.

Klangfilm KLV-204: This is an early post-war German cinema and studio amp. It was used as a monitoring amp in recording studios (so high definition required) and as a reserve amp for cinemas using the larger KLV-402 & 502 amplifiers. It lives up to its high definition requirements. I have known about the F2a tetrode tube for decades and never managed to get my hands on any of the Klangfilm or Telefunken amps that used it. I was excited to get a chance to hear the Shindo Cortese, which promptly disappointed me like most other Shindo amps I’ve heard. But this KLV-204 clone is exciting to listen to! Only 10 watts (I had my pair wound for 16 ohms to use with Druids), it sounds dynamic beyond its means. No detail gets past it. Midrange is tone-dense like a great triode but burstier. Among the quickest, most agile amps I’ve heard at any price. Like Druid 6, this KlangClone is vivid, tonally, dynamically, and spatially. With Druid 6 it is musically amazing on an excellent recording, but the x-ray truth of the combination can render a poor recording too distracting to listen to. Badly recorded or mastered bass, particularly, shunts the illusion of musicality. This is one of my favorite amps ever heard, but it is a specialist and Xiao Nan builds it affordably enough to use it selectively. The F2a tube, btw, is a German Post power tetrode built for 10,000 hours of life. They often go longer. As NOS and vintage tubes go, they aren’t cheap, but they aren’t ridiculously expensive, either, given how long they last.

LS50/GU50 Single-ended Pentode: More like the sound of the Klangfilm KLV-204 than any of the others. Crisp, clear, fast and transparent. Also dynamic beyond what’s expected from its mere 13 watts output. Clean top-to-bottom. A little bass shy compared to the push-pull amps but there’s a remedy. In most tube amps, particularly those with cathode bypass caps, there is a trade-off between ultimate bass performance, and ultimate top end. When faced with this, Xiao Nan prioritizes top end linearity over bass linearity. But making adjustments to the chosen values for cathode bypass caps can land you in your zone. You can do this after getting the amps or if you communicate to Xiao Nan your general preferences, he can reliably adjust for the right value. You just have to communicate effectively. Overall, Xiao Nan’s LS50/GU50 single-ended pentode monoblocks are sonically in the same realm as the F2a-based Klangfilm KLV-204 clones, but not quite so MRI in unsparing revelation. The LS50 has more latitude in acceptable recording quality than the KlangClone. Given the Definition 4 sub-bass extension, Xiao Nan suggest snipping the cathode bypass cap on the E180F driver tube to bring bass performance into better balance with the speaker. But I have to say before doing that, the intrinsic bass from this amp on Def4 maybe a little light, but it is very well presented in terms of character, definition and attack.

300B/2a3 Push-Pull: I commissioned Xiao Nan to build for me a pair of monoblocks that can use either 300B or 2a3 output tubes, in push-pull configuration. I have a quad of KR 300B Balloon tubes held back from my recent sale of my Audion Golden Dream 300B monoblock amps, which I wanted to use in push-pull configuration with either my Druid 6 or Definition 4 system to make continuing use of those magnificent tubes. Xiao Nan indulged me with a custom design. Those amps are arriving in the next day or two. Comments pending if anyone is interested.

Telefunken V69 Clone: Probably last in my series of bracketing amps from Xiao Nan will be a pair of clones of the legendary Telefunken V69 Cinema amp. This is a full Class A, push-pull, tetrode amplifier using a pair of the F2a tetrode tubes in each monoblock. Like the Klangfilm KLV-204, input and driver tubes are the equally-revered EF-12 small-signal pentode. Class A output is 25 watts per monoblock. I will decide in the next day or two whether I will order these, put them in the mix and then vet the whole shebang for what stays and what goes.

You can find Ling Xiao Nan on eBay as seller “fatkit83-8.” If you private message me, I can offer his direct contact information for amp inquiries.

Of course the genuine Quad II remains a highly-viable tube amp for any Zu speaker. It is coherent, musical and also delivers more dynamic shove than its diminutive specifications might lead you to expect. Ling Xiao Nan gives you alternatives, and plenty of them, for less cash. And similar to like-minded Asian originators like mhdt (DACs), Jasmine Audio (phono preamps and amplifiers), and Melody (preamps and amps), all of Ling Xiao Nan’s implementations are informed by music listening and in-depth inquisitiveness seeking more fidelity than he previously delivered at any given time. Just like Sean Casey.

Ask questions if you have them.

Phil


213cobra

Hi John,

 

I haven't heard version 5. My wife has been ill for most of the past year so I've been less in circulation. I want to hear it, as each version has improved in scale, tone, projection and perceived bandwidth.

A speaker like the CA 1+1 will have difficulty appealing to people who haven't heard it, believe they know "rational reasons" it can't work, and who have little or no experience with crossoverless loudspeakers. The industry has taught people for generations that the phase-compromised, sliced-and-diced sound of crossover-intensive, multi-driver speakers is the sound of "hi-fi." You just have to chip away at it and let your more vocal customers help you.

I got your PM, and will respond separately there.

Phil

Phil,

By the way, thank you for expressing your opinion about the ClairAudient 1+1. It's hard for some people to accept it because of its small size and price as if they are judging by dollars per square inch, not by sonic result. 

The other thing I have to mention is that Zu lets you order speakers, get them delivered, and have 60 days to evaluate whether you want to keep them. Yup, it's work to ship speakers that size back, but it is an honest way to know.

Phil
So does mine.

The answer to this depends heavily on your PoV about what constitutes sonic fidelity and natural sound. I don't consider The B&W 800 Series listenable speakers for any music content compared to Zu but especially for symphonic orchestra. These are 88db - 90 db efficient multi-way loudspeakers. They force you into a restricted range of either relatively high-power solid state amps, or ganged tetrode or pentode push-pull tube amps. Tone-bleached, dynamically-clumsy engines for sound. Until you live with 101db/w/m Zu, crossoverless, you won't grasp how much of a burden the B&W and Revel approach imposes on amplifiers and compromises symphonic acuity.

If you think the B&W crossover-mangled sound is right, you won't cotton to Zu unless you use Zu's full 60 days eval period as a cold-turkey divorce from conventional "hifi" sound gaining you phase linear sonics. Otherwise stop reading now. Keep up? It's the other way around. Can the B&W and Revel keep up with Druid 6? Not really. They lack the agility, dynamic linearity and dynamic burstiness that preserves the life of a full orchestra performance. Listen to a B&W or Revel *after* a Zu, and you will be bothered by the crossover choke points and generally non-linear dynamics. But that's what most hifi consumers have been conditioned to hear as "hifi" in the modern, linearity-at-expense-of-everything-else era.

If full scale symphonic music is your raison d'etre for owning a hifi, in Zu, the Definition and Omen Def (at two distinctly dissimilar price points) are your first bets. The dual FRD architecture limits floor and ceiling effects, and spreads the horizontal scale. Prior Druids were biased to intimate or directly-channeled music, intentional or not. But Druid 6 broke this open so it does a good job of scaling for classical in most domestic rooms, in all dimensions.

From a resolution standpoint, Druid 6 does quite well. I think most speakers like B&W with their over-engineered crossovers and diamond tweeter, and Revel ,are actually *over-resolved* relative to what you will hear real-time in an audience-seat performance hall.  I have had dozens of correspondences with Zu owners who thought it isn't a "classical speaker," return after some coaching to say, "no, it's actually quite fabulous." Generally, when Zu owners claim compromised orchestral resolution, serious spelunking reveals the problem is other limitations in their system that Zu is actually resolving. Most of the time, mainstream hifi listeners are hearing in-your-face resolution hosing and event isolation you'd never experience hearing a performance live. It's ear-porn that has nothing to do with real music. I'll go so far as to say that Zu Definition 4 and Druid 6 have me listening to more recorded symphonic music than ever over the past 10 years. Before Zu, I'd just wait until I could attend symphonic to listen to orchestral music.

As I kid I regularly attended Philadelphia Orchestra concerts with Eugene Ormandy conducting. In college it was the Pittsburgh Symphony under Wm Steinberg. As I started my career in Boston, it was a subscription to the BSO under Seiji Ozawa for 10 years, and then the last 32 years in Los Angeles. I know vividly how an orchestra sounds and should sounc. For most of my 50+ years of hifi life I eschewed symphonic music via hifi because it wasn't convincing compared to my rich, live experiences. I revived my symphonic music listening via domestic hifi only after I found Zu, and I can do it on 25w amps.

Phil




I’m interested in the Druid 6, but have no way of listening to them.
Zu’s tend to be associated with rock music, but my taste in music is eclectic and includes classical as well.
Phil mentioned Druid 6 to be the first Druids that ’serve as a convincing transducer for symphonic music’.
But how would their resolution compare to say the B&W 800 series or Revel Performa.. can they keep up?
Phil, I suspected you might say that. It's taken me longer to dial my Defs 4 sub bass in, mainly because for the first four years, my Zus were in a hugely challenging room where I had to overcompensate harsh reflections on main sound by turning up the bass. And then scuppered by coloured wooly lack of speed.

Things much better and holistic in the new room. And I have no fears Defs 6 will slot in here nicely. For my own part, I've toiled for seven long years to get my Defs 4 to sound as stellar as they now do, from a fortune spent on my new room, to care on footers, cables, mains treatments and spkrs plus tt optimisation, I'm gonna enjoy them as is for a good while longer before diving into Defs 6 ownership.
For a variety of reasons, doing a point release on Druid 6 with the concentric supertweeter FRD isn't just a matter of slapping the driver in a Druid cabinet where the hole for the Radian hasn't been cut out. So no comment yet on whether than can or should happen before a Druid 7.

In your expansive room, Marc, and given your music preferences, I don't think you will be happy with Druid over Definition. Druid 6 certainly has a much smaller delta in scale compared to Definition, than in prior Druids, but it's not a gap that's closed. Druid still tilts to focus. Definition tilts to scale, both dynamically and in terms of spatial projection. Plus, getting Definition sub-bass right is...well...just a matter of getting it right. Def6 will leverage all the tonal, speed, attack, resolution and dynamic factors present in the Druid6 driver, but in a Definition config that will still have it prevailing in scale, foundation and definition.

Phil
I wonder if there's gonna be an amended Druids 6 (maybe Druids 6.1) w the concentric supertweeter as in the Dominances 2 and soon to be released Definitions 6?

There's no doubt that Definitions pwrd subs are a boon, but can be a bitch to get right too. If Druids 6 really extends to a genuine mid 30'sHz, maybe this should be my move from Definitions 4.
So a lot of significant and meaningful data has been revealed. I’d just like to add some points. 
1, I have the Druid IV, V and VI and each one has been a significant leap over the previous generation. Didn’t think it would be possible, but it’s true. Zu doesn’t just release new models for the money. They are always serious improvements over the past. 
2, I had heard the original Dominance next to the Druid VI and the general consensus was the VI was superior in all aspects, except the bass. And this was the Dominance set up and optimized for the room and the gear versus the VI which was just plopped down next to it and connected to the system. 
3, I also heard the Dominance and the Dominance II with thotguy aka cottguy (he’s a Zu ho like me, haha). Although the D2 needed some warm up and break in (it was moved indoors in 30 degree temps), it did sound better than the originals. And this was with some of the bass drivers turned off. 
4, I can’t determine for others what some might deem worth it and others don’t. I couldn’t tell someone, “buy the Definition VI or the Dominance II.” Yes there is a hierarchy and they are at the top. And yes, as awesome as the original Dominance was, it’s left behind, performance wise. But at this point, to me, it’s serious money. So while I heartily recommend the new models, ultimately it’s up to the buyer to determine if it’s “worth it.” As is, the Druid VI is amazing and offers the best bang for the buck compared to these upper models. 
Cottguy, if you're up for emailing me re thoughts on s6 line of Zus, would appreciate it. 

[email protected] 
Thanks Cottguy. I'm in quite a bit of contact w Phil, but additional informed opinions always relevant, thanks.

Good news indeed, and the move to greater transparency always welcome. You're obviously aware of the change going Druids 5 to 6. Not subtle it seems. And now Definitions 6 offers yr uptick plus this new concentric supertweeters change, to 30kHz.

I'm hooked to say the least. Nothing at this price point promises so much.
Spiritofmusic,

So I feel qualified to answer some of your questions.  I think Phil might be better equipped as he is currently living with the Definition 4 and Druid 6 if I remember correctly.  Oddly enough, the Definition 4 is one of two Zu speakers I have never heard. 

The Druid 6 is a break though in cabinet construction in the Zu lineup.    The 6 obviously uses the single range driver and Radian tweeter and in my opinion the new coax diver exceeds it in every way.  As Phil stated, "these speakers exceed the advances in transparency, dynamic punch, speed and vividity evident in Druid 6 over Druid 5."  

In my opinion, it is very unfair to compare Druid 6 to Dominance 2 simply because you are talking about 1 driver and a super tweeter compared to a massive speaker with 3 coax drivers, 4 10 inch subs and 2 12 inch subs.  Sean took what he learned with Druid 6 and went it to the next level with Dominance.  The one parallel that I can draw is the speed of the driver and the strength of the cabinet designs.  Quite honestly, if the new coax driver is used with the new cabinet build method, Definition 6 should be a game changer and at under $20,000 an absolute bargain for what you'll be getting.

I'd start saving my money if I were you.  

    
 

Cottguy, you have the Druid 6, yes?
Is there a clear demonstration of the superiority of the new Series 6 iteration changes, from drivers to cabinet construction?

Ie can you hear in Dominance 2 the Series 6 DNA that you hear in yr new Druids?

And how would you sum that up? I'm on the fence re moving from Definitions 4 to 6. Partly funds, partly I've  wrangled way more transparency and linearity after endless finagling and tweaking over six years of 4's ownership, and need convincing to go the extra yard.

What are you hearing in yr new Druids, that you also hear in the Dominances 2?

And what was SO great about what you heard?
Since the cat is out of the bag, I can confirm that Dominance 2 is a huge leap forward from Dominance 1. I was able to hear them back to back in the owner’s home and was absolutely blown away. If you can make it to Los Angeles for Phil’s listening event, I’d highly recommend it!
Phil, great news from you. And Sean. I'm especially pleased the hum issue is being sorted, I'm awaiting a time window from Zu to sort my Defs 6.

Dominances 2 will be the big time for Zu, swimming w the sharks. No more will I be able to say top Zus cost less than the paint finish elsewhere in Utah (ie Wilson) Lol.

Since Zu Definition has come up in this thread, I am posting an update here, also including notes about a new Dominance, as the two are closely related. I may start a new thread on Definition 6 and Dominance II, as well, but let's start here.

Zu Definition 6 was to have been introduced at RMAF in Denver, in September. In a late-breaking development, that did not happen and it turns out there were some good reasons for the delay. The small, practical consideration was difficulty getting the Hypex sub amp working hum-free, worldwide. This was particularly troublesome in Singapore and the UK, but also sporadically in the US, without much rhyme nor reason. So, some more time had to be spent resolving the power amp choice for the sub. That was the minor reason for missing RMAF. The major reason was convergence of design thinking pertaining to a new Dominance as well as Definition 6. In a spasm of activity late summer, Sean crystallized his thinking about a new Dominance and built a pair for the owner of the original Dom.

The original Dominance from a decade ago was an imposing, 360 lbs. speaker with a vast, aluminum monocoque, faceted baffle. The speaker used three Zu FRDs with two Radian compression supertweeters, and IIRC two 15" sub drivers. The faceted baffle gave Dominance the combined focus and tonal purity of a Druid, with the scale (well, even more) and dynamic bloom of Definition (again, even more so). And deep bass performance beyond both. It was the best speaker I ever heard. At the time, it sold for $60,000 / pair.

As the audio business made its slow recovery from the Crash, an updated Dominance took a back seat to designs for two new Druids (5 & 6), along with steady improvements to the bread-and-butter lines. And a successor to Definition 4 was inadvertently put on a meandering design and delivery path. Now both are nearing resolution.

First, the common theme: Both Dominance II and Definition 6 will be missing the Radian 850 supertweeter. Instead, both speakers will use the latest Zu FRD with a new supertweeter in coax configuration, ala the diminutive Zu Cube, but with a much better supertweeter. This has sonic and packaging advantages, and requires a new level of custom assembly of the combined coax FRD. Sonically, combing in the existing Definition dual FRD design and larger original Dominance, is reduced, and the new supertweeter is flat out to 30kHz, whereas the smooth Radian's rolloff begins below 20kHz. Sean believes the new supertweeter is smoother still. The coax drivers can also be spaced more closely than in the past.

I think this is highly encouraging. If you've never heard nor seen the Zu Cube it is a 10"x10"x10" sealed box speaker with a basic Zu FRD stuffed with a coax supertweeter. It is a distinctly higher resolution speaker than the more popular Omen and Dirty Weekend speakers in its price realm, but one thing that cuts into its popularity compared to the others is that its resolving power demands a better amplifier than the more forgiving, easygoing Omen. The Cube also shows rapid falloff in low end response, below 60 Hz. But when you strap Cubes to, say, a Druid 6-worthy amp, they sing. This new coax Zu is crafting is far beyond Cube's.

Dominance II dispenses with the faceted baffle in favor of a flat front, to eliminate the original Dominance's too-tight sweet spot. The coax drivers and spacing achieve the Druid-like focus without faceting the baffle or fixing the sweet spot too narrowly. Dominance II retains the three-front-facing FRDs of the original, which means now three supertweeters. Powered sub duties are now split. 60Hz - 20Hz range is handled by four 10" drivers, side-mounted, two per side. Range below 20Hz is by two 12" drivers, side mounted, one per side. The 10" sub array will be on a low pass filter as in the past. Then the 12" array below 20 Hz will simply have an acoustic roll-off on its top end, to match the low end of the 10" array. So, 12 drivers per speaker, still sans crossovers. The Zu FRD shoulders the ~40Hz - 12kHz zone. Dominance II is about 13" wide in front, with the sides splayed 15° out from the front panel. Depth is 26 inches. The canted sides make the sub arrays visible from the face-on-view. I don't have a final height yet but it will be taller than Definition's 49" and somewhat shorter than original Dominance. The new speaker weighs 110-120 lbs. less than the original for around 240 lbs net. This will be a six figures speaker. Some final cosmetics are still being noodled, particularly wrt how the side mounted drivers are presented or masked, but the first pair have been built and are installed and in use in a home listening setting. That owner reports (as does Sean) the new Dominance is a serious leap forward from the original, which I would expect given what's happened to Druid now twice in the intervening decade. I am sure same will apply to Definition 6.

Definition 6 will keep its form factor, in the interest of keeping its product-brand proposition of "most performance possible in one-square foot of floorspace." It will gain all the cabinet construction advances in Druid 6, and the various noise and gain problems that cropped up in the powered sub module in Definition 4 are now eliminated in 6. Drivers will be the same 10" coax as in the new Dominance, so two supertweeters per speaker now instead of one with main drivers mounted more closely together. In another change, the high pass filter for the supertweeters will use a Jupiter oil capacitor instead of the long-standard Clarity cap. Definition may creep up in price a bit, but will remain under $20,000.

You can expect both of these speakers to gain (well, exceed) the advances in transparency, dynamic punch, speed and vividity evident in Druid 6 over Druid 5. The new extended-range supertweeter will also bring some of the benefits of true ultrasonic supertweeters. Dominance will likely have default wiring for 16 ohms impedance, as this will expand the population of amps that will sound good with it, compared to the alternative 4 ohms load. Sean is considering offering switchable impedance if he can find an appropriate rotary switch that isn't degrading to sound.

First availability of both speakers in final form is expected for April/May of this year, which I am reasonably confident of given that all the design and execution issues have been resolved, and an initial pair of Dominance II have already been built. I will be hosting a Zu listening event for both to be heard in a home environment in Los Angeles, around that time. All for now. More to come.

Phil


Phil,

looking forward to your findings.

especially with the Def4’s

keep us posted

thanks, Scott
The Hong Kong shipping fiasco seems unsolvable, so I am getting replacements in the next two or three weeks. Then I'll be done with my survey:

300B/2a3 push-pull (interchangeable power tubes)
Quad II Clone
Klangfilm KLV-203 clone (F2a SE)
Klangfilm KLV-403 clone (F2a p-p)
Williamson p-p
LS-50 SE
2a3 push-pull
EL-156 SE

Almost there. I should have the last few almost exactly a year after I started this mission.

Notwithstanding my amps that got hung up in Hong Kong last May, Xiao Nan is getting amps out to US customers from the mainland.

Phil
My remaining amps are alleged to get sprung from chaotic Hong Kong shipping Oct 31st or thereabouts. Xiao Nan can ship reliably now through the mainlaing. So I should be able to complete commentary within a few weeks. But in the next few days I'll update conclusions thus far, including v69.

Phil
Really interesting where this thread went.. I have always been curious about the V69 design as well.. Phil any updates?

Also guys, public service announcement.. there is a pair of used Druid 6 up for sale elsewhere. Not currently something I can do right now but figured I would pass it along. 
Sean just contacted me to say Defintions subs amps issue solved, no charge other than carriage despite me being way out of warranty. More reasons I'm glad I pinned my flag on the Zu wagon.
Sure Phil, my post is not to knock you for not liking 211s, just that my experience is that the decision to move from Black Shadows has never been regretted by me. And that's even after turbocharging the Shadows w Elrog 845s. Bendix I did try, no to Siemens. I also had the Audio Quattro 4 box dual mono pre and Townshend Allegri passive pre plus my Hovland HP200 tubed pre, but no combination w the Audions beat the insistent texture driven sound of my Nat 211s.
Marc,

I did not have the same experience with 211 tubes as you describe, having listened for six or eight of various origin over the 15 years I've had various Definitions in my systems. I got what you describe through changes of caps and changes to the tubes in the input and driver positions in Black Shadows, as well as other 845s that passed through. The combination of the input and driver have interactive effects as well. For instance, did you ever try a NOS Siemens CCa in the input and Bendix 6900 in the driver? There are too many variables in play to know via forum or email why you prefer your NAT 211 and I prefer tweaked Audion 845 but in both cases we made conscious choices.

Phil
Phil, too bad you never connected to 211 tubes on Zu. That's what I've settled on w Nat amps. Maybe I've given up "on the swings" some transparency and air leaving my Audion Black Shadows w Elrog 845s. But have gained "on the roundabouts" more texture, mids density, pertinent bass and an all round more grounded sound. Obviously 211s are not for you.
Telefunken V69 Clones arrived today. Listening now. Two more amps overdue and coming to complete the survey.

Phil
The Druid 6 reworked and improved every component in the Druid design, so the next Definition will leverage everything learned and developed in Druid 6. So expect the next Definition to be a "6" defining a common plane new generation for Zu's upper tier speakers. Druid 5 will remain in the line, but Definition 4 - now a ten year old design - will be superseded.

Phil
Its 4 to 6, bypassing 5
Something to do w Druid 6 meaning 6 is the new current range, first the Druids and then the Defs and Souls (Supreme).

Maybe Defs 5 will be a partial upgrade to the 4?
Phil, what makes you think I have any more money after 22 years of spending in this hobby LOL?
Marc,

I'll talk with Sean tomorrow or over the weekend. It's a simple procedure. You send him your Def sub electronics module + some money, he returns them upgraded. I speak with him. More on Def6 coming.

Phil
Before you commit to Takatsuki 300B in your Golden Dreams, I encourage you to listen to the KR 300B globe glass. The standard tube is half the price of the Takatsuki and in my view twice as good. There's a newer premium KR 300B for the US market only that is still cheaper than the Tak but more than the std KR - I haven't heard it. I tried the Takatsuki. I found it smooth but totally lackluster compared the the KR, especially in view of the price. The KR bass is far more disciplined and defined. The amps have more slam than with the Takatsuki and more spatial information. Top end is more extended, too. I got the same comparative results in the Luxman Anniversary 300B (true 70s-style Luxman audio art). The Takatsuki sounded quite old school triode to me. The advantages were magnified by Druid 6 compared to Druid 5 and very much laid bare by Definition 4. Having already been using KR for almost 10 years, I was not impressed with the Takatsuki at all. But given the native sound of many Japanese triode amps, I understand its sound, which is very well regarded there. It is a materially and structurally well-made tube. But then, feel and examine a KR!

The supertweeters I have atop my Druids are a JohnBlue model since superseded. They have multiple roll-in frequencies and extend to 45kHz. I have them set up to roll in at the highest point, 17kHz. I am probably going to try a pair of Townshends on my Defs, which extend out to 90kHz or thereabouts, but I may wait until I get my Definition 6s. The point of the supertweeter is not to duplicate the Radian's work but to extend the speaker ultrasonically. For me it's a one way street -- once the improvement is heard, you can't unhear it. It's subtle at first, then the longer you live with it, the more obvious are the penalties of removing them.

Sounds like you did a good job integrating the Undertone with your D6s. There is no right answer about running the Undertone line-in vs. speaker-in. Yes, you can run a second set of speaker cables from the Golden Dreams to the Undertone, or if Undertones are near the Druids just run a short speaker cable from the Druid speaker posts to Undertone. It's clean if you are using the Speakon connector with Zu cable to get from amps to Druids. There are good reason to expect the preamp line out to Undertone line-in to be better, but not always, and a lot depends on your pre.

Good news today: My Telefunken V69 clones popped out of DHL Hong Kong, to arrive Monday. Now he has to get them to shove the LS50 PSEP and EL156 SEP out the door, and I can get writing.

Phil
Phil, I honestly am super pumped at the research you’re doing. You totally had me at Klangfilm! He certainly sounds like an awesome "find" and I look forward to hearing his amp(s) at some point. I certainly will be watching for your continued findings.

As for my Undertone connection, I’ve ONLY tried it with the second line out, so I haven’t tried it the other way running off the amps (which I know is how many prefer it). I will try to figure out how to do that and let you know which I prefer (is it as simple as a second set of speaker cables?).

As for the mix, I’m not limiting the 6’s bass output at all, but I used a mic and REW and did sweeps over and over manually adjusting the PEQ, phase and levels on the Undertone to where it only barely overlapped with the 6 (as best I could from the graphs). It sounded awesome when I was done, and better than with Druid 6s alone. I’ve repeated that test many times with many amps and prefer it with the Undertone for all. I am also certain that I am not as skilled at listening for realistic bass as you, and it’s highly likely you would not be as satisfied with the bass my system is producing given your ear.

I didn’t think the 845 SET (many brands, 2 different amps) was the perfect match for the 6s. I’m just now trying different 300bs on my Audions, preferring Gold Lions over EML XLs, and just literally got 2 Takatsukis to put in 1 side (PSET obviously) and I might be in love (dang, may have to buy a second set). My two 45 amps were very good on the 6s, filling the room MUCH more than I expected for that low of a WPC. The Yamamoto does not have the range of my Radu Tarta 45 with NOS 45s, and so really only the Radu 45 and the Golden Dreams with Taks that are fitting the bill for me as top sounding with the 6s. I will be able to try a 71a SET in a few weeks when it gets delivered. I suspect it may not have the guts in this particular room.

I was sorely tempted to ask you about the super tweeters I saw in one of your Druid 6 photos a while back. My speaker side projects are strongly suggesting the benefits of super tweeter over top of a full range as well. Does the pair you tried have a higher range that what’s in the Druids?
Phil, any more concrete news on Defs 6? Could I ask you once more to ask you to get Sean to contact me. I've tried twice thru Gerrit to no avail. It appears Sean has sorted one customer's subs hum issue. I'd like to be next. 
Xiao Nan doesn't just wind his transformers. He builds the cores too. Materials are very inexpensive, even copper, where he lives, compared to the West. He uses premium parts but on the other hand he is not going for overkill where it's not material. He also sells most of his amps tubeless unless a customer wants him to supply, so that cost isn't in his standard pricing. And he's using a spectrum of basic commodity chasses for his various amps and preamps. He tends toward simpler designs, but compared to his triode p-p and the Klangfilm klv204 clone, the Williamson and the Telefunken v69 are not so simple. They cost more but are still low by US standards, keeping in mind he also has no middlemen margin in his pricing, and he is acutely aware that he has no pricing power intrinsic to his brand so he prices to make a living but still get people who are music-first to take a chance.

My comments on SET compatibility with Druid 6 bass are not inclusive of using Undertone with them. I actually don't think Druid 6 is best with subs. Not that there's any harm in it, but doing so somewhat degrades the orthosonic character of the speaker and using a pair with D6 costs as much as Definitions. That's an aside. More to the point, Undertone works with SET for the same reason SET works with Definition: The SET amp is not controlling the driver. That's handled by the built-in solid state subwoofer amp, which maintains an electrical and dynamic grip on the driver that the scant-damping factor SET amp cannot. If you are feeding the Undertone from the output of the main SET amplifiers, you are getting the tonal and transient character of the main amp's bass input to the solid state sub amp, but the actual driver motor control is a product of that directly-connected Class D amp. Obviously, your AS M60s work equally well with Undertone for this reason, even though they would outperform the SET amp on bass discipline if driving a deep bass-capable driver directly.

If your preamp has dual outputs, have you tried driving the Undertone via line-level inputs so you are getting only the preamp's + Undertone amp's character in the sub output? I wonder which you'd prefer?

Now, the question then is, what are you doing to limit the Druid 6's bass response to 50 Hz or so when you tap the SET main amp for the sub input? Nothing? Then you are getting the Druid 6's lowest bass characteristics layered into or onto the the Undertone's output. Unless you set up the Undertone to roll in at or slightly below the Druid 6 roll-off, all you are doing with the Undertone is extending bass response deeper than the Druid 6 will go alone. You'll still have the Druid 6 bass / SET problem between about 45 to 28 Hz. Now, this isn't a problem in Definition because in that speaker, the lower response of the Zu main drivers are limited by the sealed chamber implementation. Turn off a Def's sub and you will hear that the Zu FRD as implemented there will not match the lower extension of the Zu FRD in Druid 6 with its Greiwe loading. I suppose you could limit the lower extension of the Druid 6 by closing off the bottom cabinet outlet and adjust Undertone upward accordingly, and that might actually be the best way to use the two together, seamlessly. I have to think about that.

I generally agree that moving a tube amp from D5 > D6 may require a change of one or more tubes. I have a wide selection of 845s for my Audion Black Shadows but in that case, I did not find a change to be useful. The two most objective 845 tubes in my stash have the same value to both speakers. What I did do is revert the driver tube from the very assertive Bendix 6900 to Tung-Sol NOS 5687 and that put the amps and speakers in the zone. Except for that portion of the D6's lowest response that extends beyond D5's.

As I wrote earlier, I fully accept that some people may like and prefer the sound of a good SET amp's bass with Druid 6. But I'm not advising it when anyone asks what will give them the most natural sound, and am hence on a trek to trial alternative topologies. So far, single-ended tetrode/pentode and push-pull triode are leading.

BTW, there's a price to every choice. I love great & objective SET amps but they give up some discipline that's natural to tetrodes, pentodes and triode-push-pull. So wherever I end up, I am not likely to contend that any of these alternate topologies will replicate every favorable SET trait. But I expect to make the holistic presentation better, regardless what I lose. I'll also say that using supertweeters with Druids (5 or 6) makes a broader spectrum of amps more suitable with the speaker, including right down to the bottom of bass performance.

Phil
Phil, I get it.  I'm doing somewhat the same with a few other guys (although likely a tad more expensive per hour than the gent you've found).  I'm very intrigued by your findings so far.  Xiao Nan's amps are insanely low priced even if using simple schematics, so his parts list must also be extremely modest.  Even inexpensive transformers add up, but if he's winding his own that certainly helps cost-wise.  If these have the promise of beating high-end SET, at least on these speakers, I'm game for the science of it and look forward to being able to hear for myself and learn from your experiments.  Great stuff and thank you.

After re-reading your write-up again, I must admit I don't think I feel the same regarding that last 1/2 octave of bass being an issue with SET, although I understand your argument.  I am using an Undertone, and I feel that properly configuring it with each amp, while a tad painful the first time, is more than adequate to be additive to the 6s and allows a great SET to do all those things a great SET can do.  I even use the Undertone successfully with the Atma-Sphere M60s--amps that probably don't need it--but still seem to work well with the Undertone to go even lower than the 6s can muster and improve the overall presentation.

Also, I might suggest that the tube selection for the Druid 5s/Soul Supremes might be too much of a good thing when moving from the 5 (or in my case, Soul Supreme) to the 6.  I think a more "laid back" tube in the same family might reveal the softer details through the 6 that might otherwise come off as too "in your face" with the extra transparency and speed and detail offered in this speaker vs. the previous.  In a couple of my SET amps, some NOS beauties provided some real nuance that some of the bigger bully modern tubes ended up stomping on a little on the 6s.  But these same tube selections may have been too laid back and not as exciting and emotionally alive on the Soul Supremes.  Similarly, I think my Decware SEP and SET amps to be phenomenal with the 6s, but maybe are a little too chill sometimes on the Supremes.
My essential point is that I am listening to circuits now, not brands; deciding on final implementations as a result. It just happens that I found (stumbled upon) an amp builder who can build inexpensively at quality execution to let me try many circuit options. 40 years ago I would have built these variants myself, but I no longer have the time. So I have a partner to accelerate this investigation and can experiment with some circuits not common in North America, among others. Xiao Nan's amps, if supplied by Euro or US companies. would cost much more but his executions are pure. So I am prototyping alternatives where high end SET is not longer ideal.

It's a journey; not quite yet a destination.

Phil
Phil, thanks. I really didn’t mean to imply "cheap" or "less impressive" when I typed "less expensive." I just merely noted that I think most of your current findings are, in fact, less expensive (much?) than your previous recommended amps over the years. Please do correct me if I’m wrong. That’s awesome if true. I would like to try some regardless. Like you, I’m searching for the "best." That’s how I read your previous posts.

As I tried to state, I’m merely offering a complimentary "other person’s real world amp testing with these Zu’s" to give others the same data points I would have wanted if in the position of searching for real experience with amp pairings for these speakers.
Parsons,

My amp observations weren't limited to less expensive push-pull examples. I started with Audion Golden Dreams and Audion Black Shadows, a Luxman Anniversary 300B SET and a host of others. What led to the amp circuits exploration was that I came to the conclusion that SET, even high end, is not ideal for Druid 6, notwithstanding the excellent synergy between SET and all prior Druid models. Now, certainly there will be Druid 6 owners who like what SET sounds like on Druid 6. And I suppose that if someone asked me, "What's the best amp for euphonic bass emphasis on Druid 6?" my answer might be "try a good SET amp."

In single ended, I think SE-Tetrode or SE-Pentode are more successful *with this speaker.* As soon as my remaining amps can thread the twin needles of the (ill-considered) trade war and the Hong Kong protests, I'll have a survey view of LS50 SEP, LS50 PSEP, Klangfilm klv204 SEP, 300B p-p, 2 different 2a3 p-p implementations, EL156 SEP, Williamson p-p, Quad II, Quad II Clone. From that I'll bracket a destination for myself that could even involve none of the above.

Phil
The V69 clones are rumored to have made it out of Hong Kong yesterday but I haven't yet gotten DHL notice or tracking. Xiao Nan took my batch of amps to Hong Kong to ship just as the protests were getting started back in late April and they've been trapped there. He's shipping others' amps from the mainland since. If the v69 got out, that leaves a pair of custom LS-50 PSEP and an EL156 SEP still to pry loose from DHL in Hong Kong. Expecting the v69 sometime in the next 5 days.

Phil
Ralph, thank you.  I'm probably going to get around to sending them in to you for those last upgrades.  As I said I really love them already and I know they've got more to give with the vcaps.  It goes without saying that your amps have endless power and should be in anyone's short list of great, emotional sounding amps, especially if you don't have the luxury of insanely efficient speakers.  There are also SET and SEP amps that have been in my system that I do NOT prefer even in my current dedicated space over the M60s.
@parsons  The V-Caps are the most popular option with the M-60s. They do make the amps more involving- they just sound more real that way.
Take my feedback as one opinion only please. I would argue that the "best" amp for Zu Druid 6s is completely dependent on your preferences for what you’re looking for from a high-efficiency speaker, what room and room characteristics you have, and what tubes choices you have. Of course the quality of both the design and the parts and build of the amp matter too, but I would argue that when speaking of a particular amp brand and model, all 3 of these other factors play a giant role in whether you’re going to prefer any of the amps mentioned here over any others on the Zus.

I’ve got Zu Druid 6s and own 3 other pairs of Zus for reference (Soul Supreme, Unions and Cubes) and still own them all. I would have considered myself a Zu fanboy in some circles merely because I feel they offer a really high value and great high efficiency solution with a family sound that I enjoy a lot. To offset my fandom, I am currently having 2 custom sets of speakers made based off of some custom field coils and I am confident they will compete with Druid 6s if not beat them given early testing and comparisons with Druid 5s (yes, I believe Druid 6s are better than 5s). So I am confident that the Zus can be beaten for my preferences (having a similar sound to Zu with more musical detail and magic) in spite of my being a huge fan of the brand...I will know soon enough and confirm my own opinion there. Just want to state my biases from my own point of view.

You can read my previous posts regarding amp pairings with Zu speakers as I think I’m probably close to personally owning and trying roughly 20 different amp combos with them over the last 5 years or so. I still own many of the amps I’ve compared (I don’t seem to sell things as often as I should). One thing for sure is the Zus all do a phenomenal job reflecting the amp choices in front of them in the chain...and more so the further up the line you go with the Zus (the Druid 6s being the best at doing so of the 4 pairs I own).


Here’s my belabored point...

I’ve had my Druid 6s in 3 different listening rooms now since I’ve owned them. One was a smaller room with 9’ ceilings, the second in a medium sized room with vaulted ceilings, and the third a large room with 8’ ceilings. I’ve tried 7-8 of the same amps in each of the rooms with them. In every case, there were different strengths and weaknesses in the designs, albeit subtle in some cases, and my preferred "winning" amp changed. But the subtle differences are everything in this business.

In my current very wide listening space with the 8’ ceilings my preference pretty clearly floats to SET (PSET in the Audion case), with my Radu Tarta 45 having probably the most magic, followed closely by my Audion Golden Dreams. But the tubes used in these 2 SET amps make a TON of difference. With EML tubes in both, I didn’t prefer EITHER SET amp over the M60s in any of the 3 rooms. The Atma-Spheres are very very good (outstanding probably), but the SET amps eek out even more magic in this room, with these tubes (I’m using Gold Lion 300Bs in the Audions and NOS 45s in the Radu Tarta, so it’s not a matter of more expensive tubes).

I love Ralph and his Atma-Sphere amps and I can concur with their strengths. They are particularly strong when mated using great balanced cables to his MP-1 pre-amp which I own and have in my main system. My Atma-Sphere equipment is used, and both my pre and my amps have been upgraded by Ralph to his 3.3 versions, and the pre-amp has all available upgrades I’m aware of including the vcaps--my M60s do not have the vcaps. I’m sure the vcaps would make the M60s even better, but I don’t think it would change my opinion in this room. SET is beating them for emotional sound quality.

I consider the Prima Luna HP with KT150s a great push-pull amp, and while it also sounds phenomenal on the Druid 6s, I would put it just slightly behind the M60s in terms of my preferences.

I value front-to-back soundstage presence, sweet super-realistic vocal and tone, and string and piano percussive details and proper decay over the deepest bass control. So for me in this room, with these tube choices, the SETs still trump the higher-power Atmas and PrimaLuna push-pulls. I have the luxury of being VERY picky here, and as I stated, the results may differ for you in your room with your system and your preferences. I simply don’t think it can be cut and dry and universal for any amp recommendations here.

I don’t doubt Phil’s findings on some less expensive push pulls and maybe some day I will try one or two of those recommendations.
My opinion --- Tektone is number one in High End speakers
  number 2   is Zu audio. number 3- is Triton by GoldenEar Technology.
All other brands need to move to garage or flee market . Period
Spirit, that sounds pretty awesome but the Nats are out of my price range. Good to hear that they work well at lower levels too. I’ll keep them on my radar. Maybe a lower model or a used one might pop up. 

Phil, well said. That’s a good point. Thanks. 
GloriousUnicorns, we all have different requirements/preferences when it comes to amps, and spkrs.

I actually now look at the whole amps/spkrs/room package as a concept.

I've always listened in large rooms, this one and my previous one being 800 ft*2 (current volume 5500 ft*3, last one 10500 ft*3).

So for me I needed more power in my tube amps than my previous 25W Audion Black Shadow 845s provided. Got this w my current 80W Nat SE2SE 211s.

Both were preferable to the Hovland tube pre/SS pwr I ran previously.

My Nats have really enhanced the tone density Zu presentation, energising my room even at lower volume levels, maybe with a slight trade off in treble energy and speed.

It's a compromise that is very easy to live with.