Zu Druid MK IVs vs. Essences


I'm trying to decide between these two speakers and, after reading lots of reviews and impressions on-line, I'm more confused than ever. I'd like to hear what differences Audiogoners have experienced between the two. Of course, I'm not looking for the final word, or consensus - just folks' subjective impressions.

I won't get to audition either speakers, because I'm in northwest Wisconsin and a bit isolated. But I've bought a fair number of speakers without hearing them, so that doesn't worry me. I like revealing speakers that are a bit upfront and I'd rather have scintillating highs and great mids than thundering bass. I even like a little thin-ness in the bass.

Thanks in advance for any impressions you can offer.
128x128klein_rogge
Hi,
Docks which particular Zu models have you listened to and with what amplifier? Did the audition take place in your system, dealer showroom or was it at a show? What did you think?
Thanks Much,
>>The floor excuse just doesn't cut it.<<

If you don't understand how Zu's proprietary acoustic impedance model works, and how their full range driver is affected by it, then your assessment of the "floor excuse" is invalid. This isn't a multi-way speaker with a cardboard tube port we're discussing, so it doesn't behave like one. Hear it properly installed and you'll also hear that the speaker doesn't sound like the graph. And certainly no speaker/room combination in normal domestic construction has flat response. The speaker and the room cannot be divorced from one another. Attempts to measure speaker response in a non-interactive room are irrelevant to what you'll hear if the test is conducted with the speaker in a position where one of its critical working elements is removed.

More important, no current production Zu speaker has so completely an unmitigated dependency on being placed on a floor to perform well, though to varying degrees some kind of resting surface is advised.

Phil
docks - your claims on the druid response are equivalent to removing the tube port in a 'conventional' speaker, measuring it, then mocking the speaker's response.

Zu complained to soundstage about those measurements BEFORE they were performed, or at least released. Soundstage responded that all their measurements were done according to the same protocols. Nearly a decade and several iterations later, the misleading graphs still haunt the speaker, and I'd argue the entire line.

I owned the Druids and enjoyed them quite a bit, then the Definition 1.5's, Pros, and now the 2's. I'm off the merry-go-round. I hope you can be so lucky some day.
The impedance and frequency plot shows that the Zu Druid is a Paul Voight type design.The notches in the bass are caused by line harmonics cancelling the output from the drivers front. The distance from the floor will make a 3 dB difference at certain frequencies but noway nohow can this explain a 20 dB notch. The erratic response in the midrange is likely due to the whizzer cone.
I've owned them both and think they suck. Sold the Essence to a frequent poster here who claims they are not very good and moved on.

I've heard the latter models and they are okay but still are not that great especially when compared to slightly higher end gear.

I think the drama comes in when Zu claims to offer world class performance. World class is a very high standard and they are far from it.

Maybe market very good and affordable or something. Buy these instead of a mountain bike....

Get out and listen more and you will find your answer. They are a good value but an if you listen to enough speakers I doubt you will end up with Zu.