>>>The major problem I had with the Omen Defs was the high frequencies which I thought was related to the tweeter. However with the same tweeter in the Def iii's, this problem is completely gone and everything sounds better. I think it must be that the improvement is from the new Nano Drivers.....detail, top end air, staging, imaging, etc. are all world class........<<<
It's not just drivers. Quite a lot of the upper midrange and treble glare on Omen Def that also blurs detail a bit is coming from the comparatively excitable cabinet. In the Def2, Def3 and Def4 cabinets, you get to hear the drivers much closer to their intrinsic performance than in the lower end Zu speakers. This isn't a knock on the less expensive Zu speakers but instead is intended to spotlight the cabinet as elemental to Definition's overall sound. If it were only drivers and internals, then Omen Defs could sound much closer to Definitions than they do.
The cabinet and baffle engineering and build decisions in the upper end Zu speakers are often overlooked but they are hugely influential to the improvements you are hearing when moving up from the simpler cabs.
Phil |
Spirit,
It is not that they're poor, but they sound better with more gain. As Phil notes I have the early drivers with the pointy phase cones in my Def 2s--can't wait for the nanos I ordered to come in. Gerrit told me it would be towards the end of this month.
Phil,
Great to read! I do recall your analysis as to the aliveness of the earlier models vs. my 'darker' definitions, but I didn't recall it in the context of low level listening. Very cool that it will further improve things for those late night hours when i don't want to go to bed, but do want my family to remain sleeping.
Morgan,
Awesome to read. I had the same issues you did with my Superflys--when placement wasn't locked in perfectly the top end could present kinda hot and fatiguing and everywhere else didn't really fill in as it should. I do think this was a result of the FRD and its finickyiness to placement in our prior models as that is a memory now and the Defs are very easy to make sound good (though I need to spend time getting the most from them).
Are you still using the AN211 with them? I should have mine ordered next week. |
Hey Morgan, did you ever get that other PX25? |
Hi Guys,
Just a quick update.....I hosted Sean on his trip to San Francisco last week the night before I left town on vacation (where I am now). I spontaneously called him last week after reading this thread and he told me that not only was he visiting SF but he would deliver a pair for me and that was an offer I could not refuse considering the in home trial and all of your feedback......So, Thursday Sean delivered and set up a new pair of Def mk iii's in a textured Matte Black finish (FYI gorgeous), so I not had about two hours of listening before my flight as Sean arrived very late at night.....
First impressions were......Stunning! They are a major upgrade over the Omen Defs I had which had the HO Drivers, the Mundorf Caps, and the Event wiring.......I thought that the Defs would be a 5% improvement or so over the Omen Defs but boy was I wrong......they are Killer! The new drivers make everything just better. If anyone is on the fence, you better order a pair of the mk iii's while you still can!
The major problem I had with the Omen Defs was the high frequencies which I thought was related to the tweeter. However with the same tweeter in the Def iii's, this problem is completely gone and everything sounds better. I think it must be that the improvement is from the new Nano Drivers.....detail, top end air, staging, imaging, etc. are all world class........I'm quite happy I came back to Zu and all of you waiting, Gopher included, are in for more than a few smiles! |
Phil, that's great news. Mine arrive in late Sep after their review period, and I'm really looking fwd to a major last piece of the jigsaw for my final system revision falling into place.
In other words, tt/cd/amps all pretty much where I want them to be, lingering HF extension reservations re Defs being put right by 4s, so not looking to update beyond these.
Just looking at system wide issues ie better balanced power/room nodes attenuation/cabling/vibration control.
Your comments Phil are really filling me with confidence I will totally relax into my music when they arrive.
REALLY need to get off the upgrade merry-go-round after this purchase! |
Spirit,
Why do you need others to say hiphiphooray for your chosen color/speakers and gear? And my I ask why has a reviewer got your new speakers before you? Very strange playing the pro reviewer game. Who cares what he thinks unless there is a $$$ discount for you and that puts $$$ in your pocket.
You screwed up you should have picked the glossy black LOL.
By the way you chaps have done a grand job over there on the Olympics. The UK is a special place indeed and I have toured London and Wales. Murray put on a great show. |
Hi Gopher, actually one of the big selling points of the Def2s when I bought them in 2007 was their coherence at low levels. This I believe is a big function of the high sensitivity and lack of crossover so less energy sucked out of the presentation.
In a major way this was a pivotal reason to buy them, to be able to enjoy my music more intimately between 10pm and midnight.
It's a shame if you haven't had this in your experience.
Phil, can you inform us about low level listening, thank you. |
Gopher,
As I wrote in a much earlier post, compared to Def1.5, Def2 had a little less snap, in exchange for which it delivered a more relaxed presentation than the excitable MDF cabinet in the v1 speaker. First the HO drivers from 2010 and now the nano drivers even further restore the snap of v1 without reintroducing the cabinet talk and glare. One of the by products is more apparent aliveness at low volumes. With nano drivers, this is elevated further by the greater definition, agility and resolution intrinsic to the nano across its range. My move to Def4 improved low volume listening over Def2, but I can also say that upgrading to the older HO drivers in Def2 had similar benefits on Defs I heard so equipped. The nano drivers in your Def2 will help your late night listening at low SPL.
Phil |
A question for the Def 2 owners who moved to Def 3/4--did you guys notice a change in performance for low level listening for the better with the newer speakers?
I love these Def 2s, but I feel they like a little volume to really fill out. I'll be getting the nanotech drivers later this month and 'm curious if thats another likely improvement. Speakers are on the opposite wall of the master bedroom and my wife is usually in bed by 10, while I like to stay up and listen late into the night... |
I am with Gopher on this one. . . shiny, gloss, piano black. Somehow when paired with the aluminum trim, it seems elegant rather than "common." |
Gopher, actually I'm quite smitten by your Cosmic Carbon Superflys. I really wanted something a little more unique than the ubiquitous black, but also wanted to stay colour neutral. I think I'm going to be happy with how they look, and sound. |
And how are you liking the sound of those shiny Def 2s? Have I missed impressions that you've posted? |
I had cosmic carbon Superflys and now piano black Def 2s. The Cosmic isn't bad, like everything it comes down to taste. I really like the contrast of the silver hardware on the glossy black finish--looks classy to me... Classier then the room they're sitting in now, but will be worthy of displaying when I move. |
Just a thought on finish; I didn't go for piano black gloss or true black matte, but Cosmic Carbon. Such a different choice. It's never looked appealing in photos, but on a swatch VERY nice.
Any Zu-philes out there familiar with it in the flesh please tell me I made a good choice.
Anyone checking out uber spkr high end prices? Now we've got the Tidal Agoria at 65000 Euros, and that's not even a special edition!
Thank God for Sean and the Zu Crew for keeping things real, and enabling a high end sound to be had for an amount very respectable in comparison. |
Another reason that I nixed Dominance is that I have a single pair of speaker wires that run under my floor - down one wall, through the cellar and up the opposite wall. The electronics are on the opposite side of the room from the speakers. It would be almost impossible to set up Dominance with this arrangement. |
Gentlemen, some v. good news. I am to take delivery of my Def4s later this month, they are currently in the hands of a reviewer which will hopefully lead to a positive professional review.
I'm actually suprised there have been no other formal reviews, bar comments of the sound at various shows.
Re the Dominance; I live in a converted loft, listening space 22' x 27' x 13', spkrs 10' apart, 12' from listening position, free space behind, close on 8000 cubic feet listening volume. The acoustic is v. live and can support bass pretty far down (esp. with the help of SpatialComputer Black Hole bass node correction). In other words, my room could certainly support these uber spkrs.
I do believe that their aluminium standard finish is too much for any enviroment, but speciality finish in black anodised to incl. driver rings and base would allow them to fit in much more easily.
There are plenty of high end spkrs as, or more, imposing eg Magico Q7, Rockport Arrakis, Wilson Alexandria, Kharma Grand Exquisite, Evolution Acoustics MM3 and 7.
For obvious reasons $50000 is a bit of a stretch, heightened by the fact that, unlike the Def4s, there is no onboard sub amp, so the cost of this plus bass filter management would have to be found.
So, a lottery win day one purchase, and an interesting parallel dimension alternative to the Def4s, but I think I'm going to be PRETTY content when my new babies arrive in a few weeks! |
My Def 4s sit only a couple of inches from the back wall - closer to the back wall than my previous Def 2s that were out about a foot. (Zu positioned both pairs without my input.) Given a 12" square footprint and a near wall position, Def 4s are as room-friendly as I could want. |
Gsm- I totally agree about the Dominance looking (and apparently in reality) super imposing. Seems like a speaker for a dedicated room compared to your Arch Digest styled room.
That said, several of us in SoCal have discussed the Experience...it would be bigger than the Def, but not as imposing as the Dominance. Although it's 19" deep, so still quite a bit larger. I personally don't think I would move beyond that---I would be in a Magico at any higher price point, which I believe is the best xover-based speaker on the planet by quite a large margin.
|
I briefly (very briefly!) flirted with the idea of Dominance before my upgrade to Def 4s. However, Dominance was too visually imposing, the size was simply unacceptable, and I am not that committed to "domestic high fidelity music reproduction." Conversely, the Def 4s look right, are properly sized for a normal living environment, have a look and finish that are excellent and perfect for my decor, and I am more than satisfied with the sound. Plus there is this black and white photograph that I covet . . . |
>>...twice the footprint, 25% taller, and 250% the volume of the Def 4s. Not insignificant for real-world applications.<<
When Zu says Definition offers the maximum loudspeaker performance available in about 1 square-foot of floor space regardless of price, I think they are right and that footprint happens to be practical even for many customers at least in the US who don't have extravagent digs. You really must have an extraordinary commitment to domestic high-fidelity music reproduction to go further in a loudspeaker. But of course in a pursuit like this, there's a lot of elasticity to where any two individuals would place the boundary demarcating the threshold of "extraordinary commitment." In a market sense, is Dominance worth its size and price? Yes, but only a relative handful of people will think so.
Phil |
Although I have neither seen nor heard the Dominance, it is twice the footprint, 25% taller, and 250% the volume of the Def 4s. Not insignificant for real-world applications. |
Phil, thanks for your thoughts on that. I have enough justification to make spending the cash on the Def4s without running to a bill 3x + their cost to consider the Dominances!
My guess with Sean, is that they might be the ultimate testing board to refine ideas for spkrs like the Def4s they're likely to sell many more of.
Anyhow, within 4-6 weeks I'll be providing a home for a new pair of Def4s, can I just take this moment to thank you for your really informed, enthusiastic comments on the 4s. It is primarily these positive descriptions (and those of others eg GSM) of the quality differences between the 4s and 2s which gave me so much confidence to make the upgrade without prior audition. In effect Sean should be thanking you too, lol! |
Definition 4 overperforms at its price, relative to the market. It can be a "last speaker" for many people and is far better than most audiophiles or musicophiles will own.
If you hear Dominance, you leave mentally rummaging through your house looking for all the things you can sell to pay for them but when you return home listening to Definition 4s, you aren't left feeling deprived and wearing a permanent frown.
I already prefer Definition 4 to any Magico I've heard, though the Magico Q5 is certainly quite good.
Phil |
Well from your description Phil, one to look fwd to. Despite it's hefty price tag, a relative bargain in the high end wrt models like Magico, Wilson, Rockport, YG. It's in that big bucks league at a third of the entry ticket.
You feel that the Def4s, despite not scaling the absolute lofty heights of the Dominance, doesn't give too much away in performance terms comparison I hope? |
>>firstly the baffle is v. wide, surely there may be diffraction effects esp. since surfaces are flat and not curved?<<
Narrow and wide baffles simply present different advantages and liabilities. You'll notice that the trend for many full-range small driver speakers is for very wide baffles to move the edges further from the waves-source. Here, the wider baffle is a net asset and it shows in the speaker's increased precision and clarity. I mean for you to understand that *everything* is clearer with Dominance than Definition. It should be at about 4X the price!
>>Secondly, even though I know 90%+ of the output into the treble comes from the FRDs and 3 of these should be v. positive, are there not beaming effects from having separated tweeters above and below these pointing towards the listener?<<
As others have noted, off-axis listening is broadly improved by the nano drivers and the Radian compression supertweeter in Def4 over Def2 and other Zu speakers not equipped the same. There is more sonic focus from the listening positions -- notice plural. The lateral range of useful listening positions for Dominance is as wide or wider than Def4, as and where I heard them. If the tweeter doesn't particularly beam in the first place, this design doesn't introduce beaming. It does introduce greater focus anywhere in the lateral listening window of optimum soundstaging.
>>by creating more of a hotspot type listening experience, one of the things I hate about a lot of high end spkrs (Magico, Martin Logan come to mind)?<<
The off-axis listening isn't compromised and the sonic focus of the Dominance's 3D baffle does not create a spikey hot spot. You don't hear selective spike in spectrum energy that characterizes "hot-spot" errors. Dominance is on the contrary, even smoother and more relaxed sounding than Definition 4, and however it measures for efficiency, its perceived behaivor is that it's more dynamic, burstier and capable of convincing performance without losing tone, on even less power than is Definition.
What else can I say? Dominance is the best speaker in overall music terms that I know of and the best loudspeaker I've heard in over 40 years of hearing music through hifi gear, including the industry's proclaimed "best" for that whole span and earlier. Dominance is the best speaker I've ever heard. Period. And yet eventually Zu will make it better still.
Phil |
Phil, short of a lottery win I'm never going to be a Zu Dominance spkrs owner, but since you've heard them, can you relay further impressions?
A few things concern me about their design: firstly the baffle is v. wide, surely there may be diffraction effects esp. since surfaces are flat and not curved? Secondly, even though I know 90%+ of the output into the treble comes from the FRDs and 3 of these should be v. positive, are there not beaming effects from having separated tweeters above and below these pointing towards the listener?
Since the Def 4 seems to have cracked off axis listening, won't this positive aspect be negated in the Dominance, by creating more of a hotspot type listening experience, one of the things I hate about a lot of high end spkrs (Magico, Martin Logan come to mind)? |
Beyond what Phil mentions (and, admitedly, this may be peculiar to my set-up) is that off-axis listening is markedly better with Def 4s. Plus they can be placed closer to the back wall. |
After all, the loudspeaker -- even a good one -- is the most egregious contributor of distortion of all the gear in the chain, and it functions into an acoustic space interface that further influences it. Absolutely true. That's why so few speaker manufacturers offer "distortion" specs like other components. |
Phil, your analysis is a very clear explanation of what I think is going on. It's quite a surreal experience to have all the positives of digital (stable timing and consequent lack of time "smear", image stability) with all the advantages of analogue that even the best cd replay can't approach (tonal density, soundstage transparency, microdynamics etc) in record replay for the v. first time.
Your detailed comments on the Def4s are really giving me confidence that cd, tt and spkrs will be performing as of their best, esp. the idea that all the drivers will be of a greater holistic match providing a greater dynamic seamlessness to the sound produced. |
Spirit,
If your location did not change since you've introduced system alterations circa 2007 and continuing, then I would have expected you to have distinctly different preferences as your combination of gear progressed.
A key point here is that you started with a preference for analog with a Michell Orbe in place and the change introduced being ProAc to Zu Definition 2 speakers. With the Michell being a suspended sub-chassis turntable and belt drive and the Definitions capable of putting more deep bass energy into the room compared to the ProAcs, it's possible (even likely) that the colorations introduced by the turntable were exacerbated by switching to Def2s. Meanwhile, moving from the unsettled tweeter in the ProAc to Zu, going crossoverless and upgrading your optical disc player allowed your ranking of relative objectivity to change.
Now, once again you've introduced a large change in sources and the design differences alone will alter perceptions. You've moved from a very fine suspended subchassis turntable with "relaxed" drive characteristics to a slate-plinthed suspensionless turtable with the urgent pacing of direct-rim-drive. That's a pretty radical change and once again, it's possible that in your installation not only does the TransFi prove less pervious to structurally-transmitted bass energy, I would expect its timing to sound more correct, and that it will deliver more of the dynamic burstiness that is also natural for Zu. In other words, the Salvation will be more like digital in its good aspects, while being solidly analog in tone, finesse and musicality.
Now, if your question is, "Are the Def2s obscuring some of the information the Salvation sends down the pipe?" Sure. But so does any speaker. After all, the loudspeaker -- even a good one -- is the most egregious contributor of distortion of all the gear in the chain, and it functions into an acoustic space interface that further influences it. Will Def4 resolve more of what your TT is feeding it? Yes, and I have no doubt you will recognize this within 13 seconds of dropping the stylus on wax through your new speakers. As I've written before: I can't think of a single way in which Definition 2 is equal to or better than Definition 4, other than used 2s being cheaper!
But it's not going to be just what else Def4 resolves that Def2 doesn't. That's appreciated and valuable. But for me the two most beneficial improvements are in the audibly tighter unity behaviors of the drivers working together, and that very much applies to the 12" downfiring sub compared to the 4x10" rear-firing line array in Def2. The second thing is that while Def4 doesn't extend any higher than Def2, it sounds like it does because the nano FRDs are so much more agile up to 13kHz and the Radian 850 compression tweeter is as beautiful as it gets above there. I haven't heard anything in a tweeter even remotely as listenable in supertweeter duty as this Radian.
And yet, the human brain is a hungry beast. You could buy $500,000 speakers and if that Salvation is delivering information as well as you say, then even a half-mil will eventually leave you feeling you're not getting something you paid for in the source. Definition 4 will be a leap in musical realism for you. Enjoy your Def2s while you have them and have complete confidence in Def4. In the meantime, none of this is worth worrying over.
Phil |
Phil, before about 2007, I really felt analogue was far in advance of digital. At the time I was running my Michell Orbe/SME V/Transfiguration Temper Supreme tt front end, and Marantz SA1 cd/sacd, into ProAc spkrs. My tt was warm and tonal, the cd thin and sterile. But even at that time I was aware of euphonic colouration from my tt, that even though v. attractive, definitely meant my tt was not truthfully neutral.
Then in 2007 I replaced cd with EMM Labs CDSA SE, and spkrs with Zu Definitions Mk 2. Suddenly my preferences changed 180 degrees: I so preferred to listen to digital, which had a natural analogue warmth, and my tt became a source of frustration as artificial warmth became highlighted by the Zus-still v.enjoyable, but I knew a change was needed.
Then 3 months ago I installed the Trans Fi Audio direct rim drive Salvation tt with it's Terminator T3Pro air bearing linear tracking arm. OMG! Real precision and neutrality demonstrated by digital was now present in spades on the new tt, with all the tonal warmth and transparency which is a hallmark of great analogue.
I just feel that the tt performance envelope esp in treble transparency is challenging the Def2s and the 4s will be a perfect match.
Btw, i have a separate thread recounting my experiences with the new tt in the Analog Forum entitled 'Trans Fi Audio Salvation Direct Rim Drive Turntable'. |
>>Now my direct rim drive tt/air bearing linear arm is overtaking digital again and the 2s are struggling to perform of their best.<<
Spirit,
I think you have to explain what you mean by this, for context.
Phil |
Hey, hope this thread isn't losing priority because Def 4 owners are bored with them? Hopefully it's because you're all glued to your seats listening to them!
So I'm due to have mine installed by early Sep after they've gone out for professional review.
Interestingly, I've got my tt sounding really sweet. While still in the belt drive fold I always felt sound thru the Def2s was lagging behind the example set my my digital. Now my direct rim drive tt/air bearing linear arm is overtaking digital again and the 2s are struggling to perform of their best.
All you happy Def4 owners out there, tell me more how I'm going to be bowled over in the next couple of months. |
I just purchased a pair of the Def III's. I was informed that mine started life as Def II's that were traded in by someone for the Def IV. All I can add to Morganc's description of the Def III modifications is a rebuild of the tweeter (as per Zu's website). I also understand that this transformation is on a limited time only and will seize by the end of this summer.
By the way Morganc, I am driving these Def III's with that wonderful PX25 you sold me. Loving it! |
I have demoed 2 different ST's on my Def2 speakers. One was a 6.5K ST that upgraded my Def2 to Def3.78. It was an all directional ST that I felt made a huge upgrade in sound to the speakers overall performance. The $$$ for the ST in the end was just to much to pay. |
Hi Gopher,
Def mk Iii is an upgrade for all prior Definition models to get them as close to the mk iv status as possible in the prior enclosures. So no it is not a built from scratch speaker, but more of a recycling of prior Def models. And I think they are sold as they become available, I.e as a Def mk ii owner ships them back in exchange for a credit for the mk IV's. If I understand correctly, they add extra cabinet bracing, upgrade the Drivers and put new amps in the subs.
There maybe a few details that I am missing, but the biggest difference is that the prior enclosures do not work for the new upgraded tweeter and therefore the mk III uses the older tweeter which is the same as the prior definitions as well as the Superfly, Omen Defs, etc.. I do believe that the mk iv also has the new base that is not included in the mk III.
|
Could someone clarify:
Is the MK3 an actual speaker for sale or is it JUST an upgrade path for owners of prior defs? If it is a standalone speaker they build and ship for $7500, doesn't that kinda kill resale of prior Definitions as well as call into question the current price structure? |
Keithr,
I do understand your overall point and it makes sense.
Looking at your system page the room is quite tidy and attractive. I imagine your sound is very good and inviting(especially with the simple circuit tubed Quad driving the Def IV).
Regards, |
I just find a lot of made up excuses when it comes to treatments. Most people spend leagues of time worrying about the wrong things--when room/speaker makes by far makes the biggest difference in sound. Even 213Cobra has never tried an external piece of room treatment in his room, so until then all of his opinion is really just pure speculation. agreed.... Could it be improved by room treatments? Perhaps. But these room treatments would necessarily affect the visual appeal of the room; and this is a compromise that is not acceptable - to me, at least. Gsm18439, looking at your space, I can understand your reluctance. Stellar aesthetically. DSP or digital domain correction is still a potential option for many and is obviously the future.... |
I think that my Def 4s in piano black with the "silver" trim are perfect for the aesthetics of my living room. On another note, even though I have had my Def 4s since October, they continue to evolve; and the recent changes are substantial. Sean says that "they" have similar observations back in Ogden - which is why Zu has increased the in-house break-in period to 600 hours. |
>>The contention that just because a room has treatments that it interferes with a living space is erroneous as well. I have architecturally interesting diffusers and ceiling tiles (vs. hidden) and host a variety of events during the year. I did art panels that turned out great in the back of the room with top of the line photography. I would have my reflections panels hidden as well if it were a more permanent installation- but as a result I have 3 grey panels that blend in with my wall paint color, but are somewhat obtrusive. I can take them down for any party if I'm that particular. And yes, I have a coffee table.<<
Every room that has treatments is compromised for someone who is visually driven about their environment and has specific aesthetic biases. There are no truly "invisible" room treatments. The debate isn't about whether acoustic treatment to a room can or will improve sonics. The issue is entirely one of whether the intrusiveness is acceptable to the owner, in the full balance of factors that affect livability. This is subjective. I don't resist the idea that my room can be mitigated. Doing so is just too intrusive to the aesthetic environment I want to maintain. To an art collector, no panel with art applied to it is going to be acceptable in the same space. Put another way, treating my first reflection point will either force me to move a prominent piece of art or visually crowd it. If you could put one treatment at that spot in my room and magically transform it into the acoustics of Symphony Hall, that's still not going to be allowed. On the other hand, dedicated listening rooms have less social considerations, and you listen in low light anyway. They aren't general purpose rooms, so people can knock themselves out. I just won't ever put a hifi in a dedicated listening room, and most other people won't either. Even Keith hasn't(which I think is good).
>>Even 213Cobra has never tried an external piece of room treatment in his room, so until then all of his opinion is really just pure speculation. <<
This is not quite correct. I have in other dwellings I've lived in, assented to friends in the business bringing room treatments in for demo. The differences were clear. So were the visual compromises. I know what room treatment will do; I just don't want to accept the price to my environment. Simple as that. I'm into hifi for music, not into music for hifi.
>>when room/speaker makes by far makes the biggest difference in sound.<<
I think this is not fully correct. The room/speaker interface is highly influential to a class of differences in a system's sound. But gear is equally influential in other ways that room improvemtns can't influence very well. There is a lot that doesn't overlap. Point is, one can improve room or system independently, and achieve big advances in quality of music reproduction. It's not mandatory to do both, and improving gear is easier to manage, typically. The idea that getting the room right makes everything else right has clear limits. In that "perfect" room in Arlington, MA, I could make any gear sound good, but not make anything satisfying. It was very easy to get far more satisfying sound from better gear in an inferior room. A room doesn't correct for crossover artifacts, crossover notch distortion in push-pull amps, honky horns or hashy DACs, for instance.
>>They think I'm a whack job right when they come in the door!<<
Yup. This is what we really ought to be concerned about. The mere existence of a hifi with 12"x12"x49" speakers in your living room has become notable for being rare and therefore strange, compared to 40 years ago. When it's turned on, they begin to understand, but it takes a LOT of exposure to it for the ono-initiated to begin to relate to high end hifi as something they could own for themselves. This is among the reasons I maintain the no-cave policy in my household, which leads to other biases against the visual pollution of room treatments.
Phil |
Charles1dad-
Hard not to like your own speakers in any room, so yes of course I enjoy sound at Phil's. But yes, I think it's a compromise and there is room for substantive improvement.
The contention that just because a room has treatments that it interferes with a living space is erroneous as well. I have architecturally interesting diffusers and ceiling tiles (vs. hidden) and host a variety of events during the year. I did art panels that turned out great in the back of the room with top of the line photography. I would have my reflections panels hidden as well if it were a more permanent installation- but as a result I have 3 grey panels that blend in with my wall paint color, but are somewhat obtrusive. I can take them down for any party if I'm that particular. And yes, I have a coffee table.
I just find a lot of made up excuses when it comes to treatments. Most people spend leagues of time worrying about the wrong things--when room/speaker makes by far makes the biggest difference in sound. Even 213Cobra has never tried an external piece of room treatment in his room, so until then all of his opinion is really just pure speculation.
One last thing- the thing people notice the most coming into my room isn't treatment, but the Zus themselves. So if you want gear that is hidden and unobtrusive, please look to a traditional looking speaker. They think I'm a whack job right when they come in the door! |
Yea the 23 is mandatory to open up the SS and cut down on the hum coming from the 845 ! |
Really, if anyone *ever* visits my home and doesn't enjoy the music I'm playing (or they asked for) because I have a bass rise, some acoustic bounce and only a 14' x 21' space with a coffee table and a flat screen.....well.....they aren't getting the Pappy Van Winkle's 23 either, and they will be welcome to depart disappointed. Pappy Van Winkle's 23 should be added to your system page under tweaks. Along with tubes (http://www.stereophile.com/content/god-nuances), the 23 may make your more laissez faire about room acoustics. Not a bad thing.... |
Keithr,
The question I asked you about enjoying music in phil`s room is relevant. Either you do or you don`t enjoy listening there. If you do then in spite of the acoustical flaws you mentioned previously, the music communication is intact thus allowing an emotional connection.
Yes the room could be further improved(I`m certain) but the fact that his room satifies on an engaging level is significant.I`d imagine you`ve been in 'some' treated rooms that were`nt enjoyable as well as those that were very well done.Should`nt the music be inviting and draw people in ?
Regards, |
Wow 213 so full of yourself. Me/I/mine/my. You got the self loud button on full blast. |
One last thing- people with dedicated rooms and lavish treatment have the potential to go overboard and try and remove every frequency anomoly and Rives in particular has taken some flack on boards and ended up with some unhappy folks. (I did a L1 existing room, so mine was incremental by nature).
But that doesn't mean the basic concepts of reducing slap echo and early reflections isn't a worthy cause.
Also, just like anything in this hobby--people become very picky and have high demands from acoustic companies. These audiophiles are just as bad as the "cables changed my life" crowd that put new cables on a cooker once a week and spend 10k on a system worth of copper.
Room treatment, just like speaker placement, can be changed and variable to tailor to likes/needs. Start easy and see what you like.
|
Of course I enjoy listening at Phil's place. That's not the real question at all. I'm going over there soon for a vinyl evening in fact...something that I decide year after year to not pursue in my own system, yet still enjoy.
Funny, the thing I most dislike in Phil's Zu Definition-based system is the 845B tube, as is well documented on these pages/forums.
But there is always potential for better sound and I feel the improvement in his room if he decides to pursue it would be much larger than expected.
I think the easiest way for folks to begin is to buy a pair of GIK tri-traps for cheap and stick them in the corners. They are removable when company arrives. If they do nothing for you, return them. |
Phil,
My suspicion was that keithr 'does' enjoy listening to your system.This is really the whole point of assembling a system in the first place;'enjoyment' and the 'emotional' involvement it is capable of. I`d love to hear your system and music selections one day.I believe room treatment applied judiciously can be very useful given certain conditions.Like anything audio however it can be a hit or miss proposition.This is an area of audio where the obsessive concern can 'potentially' run amuck if one is`nt careful.
Regards, |
>>Despite the compromises you`ve noted with phil`s room do you enjoy the music when listening there?<<
If someone comes to my house and can't enjoy the music here, it's their defect, not mine. Seriously; no one has ever not enjoyed listening to music in my house regardless which house, which gear, or what the power grid was doing that day. Keith will answer for himself. Ask Danny Kaey, reviewer for Positive Feedback. Ask Sean Casey, founder of Zu or his front guy, Gerritt. Ask anyone who has been to a Zu party at my house. Ask Gary Alpern, importer of Audion, Human Audio and several other lines. Ask the many people who bring CDs and LPs to my house because they want to hear it here. You've all had the same experience!
When we banter here about room differences we are not referring to impediments to the enjoyment of music! Keith an I are nearly 25 years apart. Our disagreements on politics and economics are much wider than over anything audio. He tunes his system against some of my preferences and his room is difficult even corrected. But none of this has anything to do with whether I enjoy music at his residence, especially when he has something that's new to me. For cryin' out loud -- we have both put ourselves in the same realm by building systems around the same speaker -- Zu. That makes us far more similar than different in what we're seeking, in the grand scheme of hifi alternatives. We both use tube amps as a preference. He sidelined my first amp recommendation (SET) for my third one: Quad push-pull.
This whole hifi discussion goes off track radically when people begin to wonder whether music is enjoyable on two systems and rooms that have more in common than in difference. We are discussing relatively arcane deltas that emphasize and exaggerate differences beyond which most people even in our community would consider actionable. There are no emergencies in hifi, other than your system not working at all.
I remember how much I despised the sound of Cerwin Vega and JBL in the '70s. Awful aural assault & battery but when the stylus dropped on The Band or Gregg Allman or David Bromberg or Neville Marriner & the Academy at St. Martin in the Fields in a friend's apartment playing through those awful speakers, enjoyment of the music was never in doubt.
Give me a square -- even cubic -- room and I'll still find a way to mitigate its problems non-exotically, and however much I can or can't normalize the acoustics, I'll still find familiar bliss in the music I play in that space.
Really, if anyone *ever* visits my home and doesn't enjoy the music I'm playing (or they asked for) because I have a bass rise, some acoustic bounce and only a 14' x 21' space with a coffee table and a flat screen.....well.....they aren't getting the Pappy Van Winkle's 23 either, and they will be welcome to depart disappointed.
Phil |
