Anyone listen to Zu Audio's Definition Mk3?

>>Sounds like you are pissed about something here 23.<<

Nope. I'm sorry if I gave you reason to infer that.

>>Remember I live in FL 23? HOT here.<<

I live in Los Angeles, and not on the beach. It's hot here too. I never understood the hot weather amps phenomenon. It just doesn't make that much difference, and certainly not enough to affect an amplification decision -- for me.

We disagree on the "...plenty more out there to champion..." I think there are very few exceptional hifi products in any category worth seriously considering at any given time, such being the deleterious influences of rampant groupthink.

Phil

>>Your writings and hypocrisy has destroyed your credibility with my circle of friends and myself.<<

As I wrote, it's not a popularity contest. You don't have to read what I write, and you don't have to be influenced by it. This is a discussion; not an election. You draw your conclusions and decide what's actionable. I never mind holding a minority point of view. You posted twice more after writing that I "lost your attention." Fascinating. Please, feel free to ignore me.

Phil

2,

Spin Doctor.

Weasel writing.

You can have the last word and the last word after that and finally the very last of the last word.

Goodby

Fellow A'goners, audio really doesn't merit this amount of hot temperedness. Worlwide economic mismanagement yes, Third World poverty yes, global warming yes, but differences in opinions in audio NO!
The problem is that cool disageements on the merits or otherwise of a piece of equipment, which if made face to face wouldn't raise anyone's blood pressure, if put down in text form only, seems to get misinterpreted as a personal attack on one's deeply held convictions.
So shouldn't we all take a step back, and realise everyone holds their views with true conviction, and realise that we can all agree to disagree. Otherwise we'd all have the same expectations from audio replay and all buy the same equipment.
And in the grand scheme of things, Zu, ASR, Audion etc. are pretty small players in a pretty small marketplace, surely we can have a small slice of happiness from different approaches to nirvana. Ie these companies all produce excellent near state of the art gear and deserve to survive.
Just my 2 cents' worth.

Spritofmusic,
Your 2 cents worth is well said and true. My point all along is due do our different preferences and goals, just choose what sounds best to 'you' and leave it at that.
Regards,

Charles1dad- that's my opinion as well. and why I've personally tried like 13 amps in my system.

Guys, is it possible to bring this discussion back to the subject of this thread? Namely the Def4s.
How intuitive are the 5 way controls on the backs of the speakers? Is it fairly easy to find the best settings, set and forget? Or do they lend themselves to endless tweaking?
I can imagine this might be the case since setting one parameter might be altered by the setting of the second etc etc.

My point all along is due do our different preferences and goals, just choose what sounds best to 'you' and leave it at that.

An overused and tired fallback position, and one that, if you or anyone else here really believed it, Audiogon would not exist. Most of the verbiage generated is the derivative of debate (and subtle and not-so-subtle insults). Glory caught cobra with his pants down. Cobra has gotten the better of Glory too. So what. Don't go to the Asylum anytime soon.

Not everything is created equal. This is true of most things in life, and audio is no exception. A Yugo would never be confused for a Porsche, nor would a Audion Black Shadow for an ASR.....

Agear,
It seems you feel your taste/opinion have more validity than those who don`t agree with you. Plain fact is you should simply buy what you feel is best and not extrapolate beyond your own system experiences. No one got caught with their pants down(sigh).You prefer the ASR and that`s good(for you and others who also prefer it).I don`t know you personaaly but based on reading your posts you come off as dogmatic and somewhat childish, as if what you prefer 'has' to be better than someone else`s choice,Come on my friend grow up.Spiritformusic nailed it with his earlier post.
Regards,

Well, I just got my Def 4s a couple of weeks ago and I must say I am a bit shocked how much better these are than my Def 1.9s. Not that I didn't expect improvements, but as Phil has already laid out, these are a significant leap ahead of earlier Def iterations. Still, my Def 1.9s were already very good and played all my music so I was wondering how much better can it get and, of course, I shortly found out it got much better.

As has already been mentioned, the bass articulation is much improved, but I have been particularly impressed with their increased sense of liveliness and superior high frequency extension. I suppose its this wonderful combination of the nano drivers working in tandem with the Radian tweeter which accounts for this, and it's particularly noticeable when listening to chamber music where subtle spatial cues localize the instruments better as well as provide a better sense of the recorded space. I know Spirit was concerned with a "slight softness" and lack of "high frequency satisfaction". This is something I noticed too, but mostly with certain classical pieces, and even then I thought it might be the recording. Well it wasn't the recording, and the new Defs address this shortcoming to the point where I don't have any nagging feelings about the music it plays.

Thanks to Phil who has already articulated much better than me the improvements in the Def 4s, but sometimes the average lunkhead just wants to hear how flippin' good something is, and being an average lunkhead I fully attest the new Def 4s are flipping' good. I'm running mine with Rogue M-180 monos and KT 120 tubes, a First Watt B1 buffer/pre and Benchmark DAC1 USB. It's an excellent combination, though I'd love to try other amplification such as SET and yes, even ASR. Wait, that's not gonna happen. I ran out of money.

One more thing, and yes bloody Phil has beat me to the punch, but these new Defs seem to extract as much musicality as possible from even harsh or poor recordings. I haven't really played anything that hasn't sounded less than good on these and I have very broad taste in music. From Portishead to Shostakovich, these new Defs will play it and they will involve you more emotionally than before. Heck, even my MP3s sound great (please no tomatoes).

Have a happy Fourth of July everybody!

Matt

Matt, congratulations!
I `ll say that my curiosity to hear the Def IV has been piqued due to phil`s detailed description and obvious enthusiasm.I`m usally not interested in speakers with powered woofers but the crossoverless design and high load impedance attract me.

>>How intuitive are the 5 way controls on the backs of the speakers? Is it fairly easy to find the best settings, set and forget?<<

If you read Zu's manual, the controls make sense quickly. If you don't read the manual, twirling the knobs will orient you quickly and then you can dial it in. There is both apparent and real interactivity between the settings. I think it takes some care but not endless fuss. Once set for your room, the combination you arrive at will be stable. I suggest you start with Phase at 0deg, Low Pass Freq at 45Hz, PEQ freq at 31, PEQ gain in the middle, and Volume on 8, and adjust from there. Room variables make any one setting impossible to prescribe. The big levers are Volume and Low-Pass Frequency. Dial them in and then go after the others, with Phase last. Don't obsess. It gets pretty clear by ear quickly, and if you want, an analyzer app can guide you further.

Phil

I don`t know you personaaly but based on reading your posts you come off as dogmatic and somewhat childish, as if what you prefer 'has' to be better than someone else`s choice,Come on my friend grow up.

You completely missed the larger point made and the obvious humor in my last post Charlie. Platitudes and a patronizing tude don't equal higher ground, but again, that is one of the internet personas you seem to wear. Come on my friend. Change it up a little.

Germanboxers, what happened dude? More feedback?

A blinded experiment involving ASR, Quad, and other amps feeding IVs has been suggested. The Zu owner involved has a tricked out room and owns the latest generation of Emitter I. That would be worth hearing about....

Matt, you've really cheered me up today. Your post has filled me confidence that the one area I felt the Def2s were lacking compared to other top end speakers has been addressed, ie restricted top end extension/transparency and resultant muted dynamic snap.
My new tt is performing really well, but is highlighting softness in the 2s. I know now that the 4s when they arrive will fill in gaps in this part of the spectrum.
Also like Matt, my bank account is pretty much exhausted by this purchase, so experimenting with amps is out for a while. It's good to know this really isn't going to be essential, the 4s being so complete as a package.
Roll on their arrival!

1Daddy,

You write

I don`t know you personaaly but based on reading your posts you come off as dogmatic and somewhat childish, as if what you prefer 'has' to be better than someone else`s choice,Come on my friend grow up.

I must say that you have done that to me in this thread and now you do it again. We are not your little boys that you can spank when you feel like it. Writing that members here have to grow up/mature and meet your full manhood stature is condescending.

You have a lot to add on there forums but this daddy paddling the little boy is not one of them.

You can have the last word Dad.

Agear,
I missed the humor intent (hard to tell when reading threads I`ll admit) I apo;ogize. I don`t intent to patronize, just feel the debate about amp prefernces can get off track and silly after awhile.You may call it a platitude but I simply believe there`s no universal best when it come to audio components, just what one person happens to like vs other options(simple but true) exactly why so 'many' brands/choices exist in the first place. I`ll end it at that.
charles,
Regards,

Spirit,
When I went from a tube pre to my current First Watt B1 buffer/pre, I experienced better transparency and more transient snap with my Def 1.9s. This almost hurt my feelings as I was running a Rogue Athena pre which is no slouch and not known for any tube softness. At any rate, the First Watt was an improvement but it is very utilitarian looking and only has 2 sets of inputs. Now I feel I'm just getting the flavor of the KT120 output tubes on my Rogue monos which to these ears sounds magnificent. If you like your Radia, you might try a buffer or passive. The First Watt is relatively cheap.

Matt

Hey Dad, if I ever ragged on the Audion 845 like 231 does the Krell amp I would be a two year old.


RE: How much of the "high end" is a scam?
Posted by 213Cobra (A) on April 3, 2010 at 20:41:18
In Reply to: How much of the "high end" is a scam?

My first reaction, looking at the list of gear you heard, was to think, "well, obviously you won't get anything resembling music from that stack." But I realize that, by itself, doesn't help.
Now, really, SET OPINION=ON. No, I'm not going to try either to offend anyone or avoid it. That stack represents most of what's wrong with high-end audio and why most people can't remotely relate to it. It's also a prime example of why the SET, widebander and Gaincard insurgencies sprang up over the last 20 years. Wilson, Boulder and to a lesser extent what Meridian has unfortunately become (after a long illuminating contribution to hifi) are the current endpoints of a toneless jag high-end set off on circa 1980. I peg the turning point to the debut of the first Krell amps, easily the bleakest line of electrified dead mass ever heaped upon an ususpecting public of music lovers. The day a leather-eared hifi journalist of stature deemed Krell a contender during our last significant economic calamity, a rush of EE entrepreneurs jumped in to over-fetishize hifi during the Reagan administration, to the point where six figures puts you in the Maxell chair wondering where the fun went?

Has a Wilson speaker *ever* produced a note that sounds remotely communicative of the emotion carried by music? No. Too many drivers, too much crossover, cabinets too dead to do anything but drain life from the sound. Of course to get any jump factor out of the Wilson, you need amps powered directly by the Hoover Dam, so you get complex, toneless Boulders that manage to reveal every transient but left the body behind alongside Jimmy Hoffa. And poor Meridian, once purveyor of digital gear full-bodied and visceral now obscuring music in a jangle of crystalline angst.

People hear these stacks of toneless metal pushing a firehose of sound through dreadnought boxes of pistonic might and they know you're nuts because it just doesn't sound right. Oh, it's *immpressive* but it doesn't sound like any music they ever heard but, you know..., you're an audiophile and the stuff looks expensive so..."what do I know?" is all they can say.

What gives is that the mainstream exotica has become totemic of wealth and conferred exceptionalism. What does it matter if it sounds like a cannonball fired at your face? It looks impressive! Those are brands 'everybody knows'! How about that bass rattling your pelvic structure? Ever hear cymbals hurled at your head like that??

And then of course 90% of this gear ends up in a "man cave" hidden and cherished, so the few times anyone else gets exposed to it who might be sensible enough to hear it and say, "Dude, WT...F?" instead gets cornered into a "demo," which is going to be about everything BUT the music. And the retailer displaying that Boulder....well, can't blame him. It's no different from a shiny Rolex.

SET OPINION=OFF.

Look, these kinds of systems are why a few adventurers prowl the back alleys to find oddities from a lost era. Have you ever heard a full 47 Labs / Sakura Systems system? Zu or Cain&Cain with SET amplification? A Shindo system or Leben amps with simple wideband or 2-way speakers? Heck, let's go mainstream. Walk into your nearest McIntosh & Sonus Faber dealer and ask him to wire up the "nonsensical" combination of Cremonas + MC1.2kws + any Mac preamp and any decent disc player or TT they have in the store.

Good sound is out there that lives up to (or beyond) its price; it's just not where you had hoped.

Phil

Glory,

You missed the point of that post. A post, by the way, I'm happy to have in the permanent record since it probably sums up more of what I think has gone wrong with hifi than any other single post I've written. Thank-you for re-posting it here; the old school forum equivalent of a re-tweet!

And it was in response to a question: "How much of high end is a scam?" Read the whole thread. Why stop with me?

Anyway, Krell was just a start. Dig some more and you'll find other mentions of my disdain. But I've got a long list of gear to cast aspersions to for insults to music fidelity. None of the gear discussed in *this* thread is on that roster of rogue hardware. We're discussing smaller differences between components that all get in the realm of musical credibility, revolving around what we all agree are exceptional speakers. Our differeneces are over answers to the questions: "....but if you have to pick just one, what...?"

Phil

Hi Glory,
No, I`m not assuming the role of big poppa on this thread. IMO we`re all adults who happen to share a common interest of music and the components that reproduce it in our homes.It seems most of us by this stage have had exposure to enough equitment as to be able to form idividual impressions.

I freely acept the fact that people like different components(just as we have varied taste in the music we like). We are`nt(nor need to) all going to make the same choices when buying audio gear, this is logical.
Glory you and others have hit your sonic jackpot with the ASR amp, congratulations(I mean it sincerely). I`ve found utter joy with my Coincident 300b SET(phil with his Audion amps).I t`s sublime for me but won`t be the answer for others, just as the ASR won`t satisfy everyone.

My only point addressed to agear was his attitude that the ASR is a superior choice to any tube and or SET amp without question and that simply is`nt the case. How is it a platitude to state the 'obvious' fact that different ears will prefer different types of sound(this is why an absolute 'best'stance is`nt possible). A large SS class AB amp with NFB will surely be quite different to a SET lower power amp in class A without any NFB(both types have their supporters).Which is preferred is up to the particular listener, always subjective(by default). Within the realm of SS high power and SET there`s significant variations in performance and a hierarchy develops. Not 'every' SET amp is good, but some are outstanding, same thing of course with any genre of amplifiers.

Platitude alert, people will/should buy what sounds best to them if they trust their ears, is there any other way?
Glory I hope you enjoy your current system for many years to come,just as I plan to do with mine.
Charles,
Regards,

Gear wrote,

An overused and tired fallback position, and one that, if you or anyone else here really believed it, Audiogon would not exist. Most of the verbiage generated is the derivative of debate (and subtle and not-so-subtle insults). Glory caught cobra with his pants down. Cobra has gotten the better of Glory too. So what. Don't go to the Asylum anytime soon.

Not everything is created equal. This is true of most things in life, and audio is no exception. A Yugo would never be confused for a Porsche, nor would a Audion Black Shadow for an ASR.....

You wrote

My only point addressed to agear was his attitude that the ASR is a superior choice to any tube and or SET amp without question and that simply is`nt the case. How is it a platitude to state the 'obvious' fact that different ears will prefer different types of sound(this is why an absolute 'best'stance is`nt possible). A large SS class AB amp with NFB will surely be quite different to a SET lower power amp in class A without any NFB(both types have their supporters).Which is preferred is up to the particular listener, always subjective(by default). Within the realm of SS high power and SET there`s significant variations in performance and a hierarchy develops. Not 'every' SET amp is good, but some are outstanding, same thing of course with any genre of amplifiers.

Dad what are you smoking? How do you read Gear's post and come away saying he thinks the ASR is God's amp and there are none others?


You write
No, I`m not assuming the role of big poppa on this thread. IMO we`re all adults who happen to share a common interest of music and the components that reproduce it in our homes.It seems most of us by this stage have had exposure to enough equitment as to be able to form idividual impressions.

By telling members here to grow up you then become the big Daddy with your paddle. Can you refrain from doing that?

By the way one of my first amps was the Audio Note 300B Meishu. Wonderful amp! I love SET amps with HE speakers.

Daddy,

If you can find this thinking in any of Gear's writings please cut and paste it on this thread. I personally know Andrew and he does not believe that way nor has he written with that tone here on the Fourms. Maybe I am wrong Dad so please help me on this.

We are not married to the ASR/Zu speakers or any audio component. I do tend to think like Phil's write up on Krell/Wilson but the minute you say such things you find someone somewhere has put together a great sounding system with both Krell/Wilson.

My reason for posting his rant on this gear was to show you, Daddy, that one can have an all or nothing approach on audio gear and not be a baby needing to grow up. If you call Gear to grow up, and not finding any of his posts stating your believe about him, and I clearly gave you an example of Cobra doing what you accused Gear of doing then you should exhort 213 to grow up.

By the way I thought the 213 post about Krell/Wilson was a huge Hee Haw.


My only point addressed to agear was his attitude that the ASR is a superior choice to any tube and or SET amp without question and that simply is`nt the case

Wow…this thread has been “all around this world” to borrow a Grateful Dead song title. I could say the same for the 2 months just passed since I received my DefIV’s. I won’t bore you with the non audio related and only a little on the non- Zu Def IV related (some amp trials)

To cut to the chase and fill in the details later, I am listening to some wonderful sound coming from my Def IV’s as I type. It is open, coherent, surprisingly more transparent than my already transparent 1.9’s, beautifully sweet, and most importantly, musically engaging. Sean just left my house an hour ago after having hand delivered a new pair of Def IV’s and picked up my old pair of Def IV’s.

My original pair had a problem with the Hypex amp in one of the speakers. I can’t say enough about Sean’s commitment to making sure the problem was solved and that I was happy with the results. He didn’t need to build and deliver a new pair for me, but he insisted that this would give him the peace of mind that I was fully satisfied with the speaker. I can say unequivocally…I am more than satisfied with the speaker. And Sean’s efforts to fix the problem and ensure I was happy as a customer means a great deal to me. I was already a “Zu fan”, loving my Druids and prior 1.9’s , but this speaker, the Def IV, and Sean’s efforts and communication throughout this period have made me a “Zu Groupie”! Great guy! Great company! Truly Great Sound!

Hours after I first posted in May about receiving my Def IV’s I noticed a low frequency oscillation with no signal going to it. I measured it electrically at the speaker binding posts with my Fluke and found it to vary from ~16 Hz to ~20 Hz depending on parametric EQ settings. Amplitude was as high as 5 Volts at full volume setting on the Hypex. Of course, at this level, the doors and walls in the room would visibly shake. What I was hearing was a somewhat higher frequency than that, though below a 60Hz AC. If I had to guess, what I was hearing was the 2nd and/or 3rd harmonic of what I measured.

The result of all this is that whether for psychological reasons or physical reasons, I had a difficult time enjoying the sound, even with the EQ settings down low enough to not induce a measurable oscillation in that speaker. In direct comparison with my 1.9’s, the 4’s lost and lost consistently. That is definitely not the case today…the 4’s are a very significant upgrade over my 1.9’s!

While I waited for Sean to build and deliver a new pair, I listened to my 1.9’s. I took the time to determine if SET amps would move me in a direction I preferred compared to my Atma-Sphere M60’s. I bought a used Cary 805AE from a dealer in Indy…it definitely was not my cup of tea and certainly not worth experimenting with different tubes to improve it. Sold it and lost a bunch of money . I demo’d old chassis Sophia 845 SET monoblocks and there was much to like, even a hint of midrange magic. Alas, it seemed to impart too much of its own signature, a signature that included a bit of upper midrange glare, for me to be happy long term. It didn’t help that the mfg insisted that I not try an 845B tube (“amps are tuned for the A tube, don’t change tubes”) and not to worry about biasing the tubes (you cannot bias the old chassis amps without going inside the chassis), so I returned the amps to Sophia. I am still very curious about the Audion Black Shadows and also the ASR Emitter Exclusive, so I may seek answers there in the future. However, given how wonderful the sound is through the Atma-Sphere / Def IV right now, I am, indeed, content for the moment.

The Atma amp is an amp I would hold on to. If I could have worked with the OTL Tenor/Atma heat I would have never sold them. You will be hard pressed to beat the OTL. I found the ASR to do just that ...

Germanboxers,

You're in a good spot of equilibrium with Def4 + your OTL.

Two comments:

1/ The Audion 845 amps and Audion SET in general have qualities quite apart from almost all other SET implementations. It's far more articulate and transparent than Cary and its ilk. I did not commit to SET until I heard Audion. Black Shadow is the only 845 amp I recommend unconditionally, with others conditioned on caveats. I generally consider Sophia's 845 as next best to Audion, but trading a little more drive for a distinct loss of finess, articulation and some diminishment of tone.

2/ You can safely use the 845B as a drop-in replacement for the stock 845a in the old or new chassis Sophias. It sounds much better, too. I have two friends who couldn't afford Audion Black Shadows, who stepped down to old chassis Sophias on my recommendation to use the 845B from day 1. They've found the B better in every way, and reliable.

Phil

Thanks for the input German. The Dead reference is amusing. I have quite a few bootlegs along with a smattering of Dick's picks. My wife gets irritated by the Dead, and does not "understand" their musical merits other than being a road trip facilitator due to their fluid, undulating, and circular knoodling. That is a potential thread in itself...

Kudos to Zu for running an ethical and customer service oriented company. That is in vanishing supply these days IMO. A lot of weasels out there with substandard but heavily hyped product.

German, it seems as if you are a transparency man (like Gary). Would be interested to hear your opinions on the Emitter as several other IV owners have converted and are thrilled.

As for all the teeth gnashing about amps, let me clear the air about what I "believe" or think I know. When Gary was transitioning away from OTLs to SS due to heat issues, I was not expecting a good outcome. Ironically, he shared the same basic opinions of SS as Phil and Charles. The fact that ASR floated his boat was a REAL surprise. At that time, I myself was struggling with amplification. My TRL Dude/Samson combo did not synergize well with my new loudspeaker (Fried Reference). Things were a little too bristly. I thus started looking for new amps, including SETs. The designer, Steve Finley, had told me that many Ref owners used tube amps, including SETs. The best sound he had heard from them was fronted by Viva Solista 845 monos. Sooo, I was hunting for tube amps. I wanted something with slam and the "breath of life" phenomenon which you rarely hear. Options included Kronzilla, Solista, the big TRL stuff, Joule Electra, etc.

I did some preliminary A+B experiments with a Kora 50W SET that a friend loaned me, TRL, and ASR. I included my wife in the experiment (as I always do) in a blinded fashion. The ASR won easily. There were things TRL did a little better (dynamic energy) as well as the Kora (midrange subtleties), but from top to bottom, the ASR was simply more complete and satisfying. This was unexpected. Clayton Oxedine, the owner of the Kora, is a series xover guru who modded my Refs. He has been a SET and Vinyl only guy for years. He too was startled by how good the ASR sounded and told me he should consider one himself. The absence of tubes and hassle is a bonus with a 5 month old running around.

Is the ASR a perfect amp? The best in the world? Hell no. I am ALWAYS open to new things. Jim Rickets, who has sold Wavac and a lot of hi, hi end stuff, tells me that the new Alef stuff makes the Wavac and previous tube offerings sound broken. A little Italian integrated me sells (Norma) is supposed to make the ASR sound slow and sluggish. I told him to send me a demo unit but he declined. A local audiophile buddy is crowing about the new NCORE class D modules from Hypex and wants to do a shootout. It displaced his 15K Clayton class A monos. Fine. If its better than the ASR, so be it. It is not my child. I am not emotionally attached. This is all just a grand experiment.

The reality is that arguments about equipment (98% of this and other sites) is a bunch of empty hand wringing. Room and power trump equipment IMO. This is where I disagree with Phil most strongly. We have all heard the adage that the room is > 60-70% of a system. I now believe that is true. I am 80% done with a dedicated sound room centered around Starsound Technologies grounding scheme. I did some preliminary experiments with cheesewhiz gear (Apple AE, radioshack wire, Marantz AV integrated amp, and $300 Klipsch speakers). It sounds more real than my fancy pants stuff in a crap room. There are obvious problems in the upper frequencies, etc, but overall, it is a surprising discovery.

Glory – agreed re: Atma-Sphere amps. I’ve owned the MA1 MkII.2 ~8 years ago and liked them for what they did. I upgraded to the MA1 MkIII’s (after a brief run with high power SS, Parasound JC1’s) and loved the added finesse and a touch of sweetness on top the MkIII brought. With the M60 MkIII.1’s and Cu-foil Teflon Vcaps, driving a relatively easy load in the Def 1.9 and now Def4, there is much to love about their sonic merits. Comments from you and others regarding the ASR are intriguing. In time, I hope to be able to hear them to determine for myself whether they possess the combination of unique attributes that “float my boat”.

213Cobra – your comments are interesting re: Audion/Sophia amps. What I noticed with the Sophia’s in reference to the M60’s is that they were a little sweeter, had a little more “density” to the midrange tone, and a little more sense of coherency or “cut from the same cloth” sound (at least from upper bass to treble); however, the latter seemed, upon further listening, to be a coloration imparted on all music and ultimately became a bit of a distraction. There was also something going on in the upper midrange / lower treble that showed up on some tracks. Wished the mfg would have been more supportive of a tube roll to see if it addressed this issue, but he was not and I had limited time to evaluate them. The Atma M60’s had significantly more drive, a larger soundstage, more air on top & weight on bottom, though none of the aforementioned was perceived as lacking while listening to the Sophia’s. I have heard that the Sophia’s have a lower noise floor than the Audion’s? Although noise didn’t significantly factor into my evaluation of the Sophia, I wouldn’t want it to be too much higher. Can this be a distraction with the Audions?

Agear – thanks for your explanation of how you came to your current views regarding amplifiers. I always find the path one has charted in this hobby (as well as the associated knowledge and relationships) to be illuminating. It seems some sections of the path are almost universally crossed, yet depending on too many variables to list, each of us, at any given time, find ourselves at a unique point on our own path. And as such, each of us are differently inclined at any given moment to move in one direction or another. Enough philosophizing. I am curious about the NCore from Hypex…read one of their white papers and, although over my head technically, was interesting nonetheless. There seems to be enthusiasm, if not true potential, in the class D approach. Consider me a casually interested bystander at the moment though.

SpiritofMusic – dude, you are going to be stoked with your new Def IV’s!! I listened/watched several concerts last night with my wife. Sound quality from digital out of the Oppo Blue Ray to the LIO-8 has never been as good as firewire from MBP to LIO-8, yet the sound quality improvement with the Def IV’s was dramatic. My wife is generally skeptical and not terribly interested in “sound quality”, yet she was visibly excited about what she was hearing and how “smooth” it is and “voices are so much clearer” and “I can hear the other instruments better” and “I hear what that bass guy is playing now” and “I could listen all night at this volume…it doesn’t hurt after awhile like before” It’s definitely a winner in our household and to echo what others have said…it is a SIGNIFICANT upgrade from the 1.9.

I am in a fair amount of agreement with Agear re power and room issues being essential to get a good sound, after all it is the foundation (power) and enviroment (room acoustics) that the gear is constrained by.
After some expensive forays into power conditioning, I've gone for cheap industrial balanced power and it's transformed my system esp. in the area of dynamics. I'm hoping that when funds permit I'll optimise this with a pro studio 8kV! balanced system to totally isolate the system from nasties.
Unfortunately I'm not able to create a dedicated room, so my improvement to acoustics/enviroment has been to install a SpatialComputer Black Hole anti wave bass attenuator. In my room at least this has smoothed out peaky standing waves and bass nodes esp at 27.1Hz leading to a much flatter in room response. Depending on bass integration of the Def4s in my room, my listening space's cubic volume of 8000 cubic feet suggests poss installing a couple more.
Both these solutions have been so effective that it was a tight call whether I would actrually finally make the upgrade to the Def4s.

I hope I didn't scare paddle Daddy away from here as he is MIA.

Hi Glory,
I`ve said all that I have to say regarding the issue of amp preferemces. If I inferred incorrectly from agear`s posts then that`s my misinterpretation of his tone and or point he was making.It `s very clear people here are happy with a variety of amplifiers,ASR, Quad,Atmasphere,Audion,Ancient Audio etc.driving their Zu speakers.It seems the amp discssion had taken on a life of its own and was becoming redundant.We all have our choices and if that improves one`s system/enjoyment that`s the ultimate goal.I don`t even have Zu speakers but found this thread very interesting to follow.
Regards,

Charles, you can add Hovland gear to the list of that prove that the Zu's are amp friendly. My HP200 tube pre and Radia ss pow have a great synergy with the 2s and I am more confident by the day this will be the case with the 4s.
I'm of the opinion that this overheated discussion of what makes and doesn't make the perfect amp for the Zu's is a little redundant.

Spirit,
You are correct,I was`nt trying to divert the topic of this thread. It was phil`s in depth and captivating description of the DEF IV that caught my eye. He has commented on other components in the past that I happen to know well and his impressions were dead on the mark IMO. So I tend to pay attention when I come across his posts.

His viewpoint on the current direction and sound of(most) 'high end' components is near identical to my own thoughts formed over the past 20 years.
Regards,

I always find the path one has charted in this hobby (as well as the associated knowledge and relationships) to be illuminating.

Agreed. The "journey" is typically shockingly haphazard and fickle despite the measured, anal retentive, retrospective analysis that gets thrown around on these threads. We are not the captains of our own audio ships. If I had snagged the Kronzilla or Solista, I would probably be flapping my gums on another thread about how it was the answer to everyone's prayers....lol.

I am curious about the NCore from Hypex…read one of their white papers and, although over my head technically, was interesting nonetheless. There seems to be enthusiasm, if not true potential, in the class D approach. Consider me a casually interested bystander at the moment though.

Color me an interested bystander as well. The specs are stunning. It "appears" as if class D has arrived. If you follow the US tour thread on AC, there is a lot of enthusiasm, but time will tell. I am skeptical due to my past experiments with class D (Hypex, classD, etc) on high efficiency speakers (Emerald Physics). It sounded pristine but the soundstage was slightly flat and cardboard sounding. That was even with a tubed pre-amp. You find that many class D devotees stress the need to a tubed pre-amp. I would be very interested to hear how the NCOREs did on the IVs or any Zu speakers for that matter.

....power and room issues being essential to get a good sound, after all it is the foundation (power) and enviroment (room acoustics) that the gear is constrained by.

That is what I have bumbled into. I did an experiment with a Topaz isolation transformer, and the results, in a crappy, unfinished basement with no dedicated lines, etc were NOT subtle. I have read or been told that ITs can limit dynamics and can have a sound of their own. Here is a little blurb from Pure Powers website:

"Q. Won't an isolation transformer make a new clean power supply?
A: Expensive isolation transformers can be used to create a new “clean” ground at the point of use and this will fix a common mode noise problem – but at a high cost and a risk of dampening audio system dynamics. It will not correct voltage sags or spikes. It is better, and cheaper, to run new, uninterrupted wiring from the service entrance to a single “isolated ground” receptacle. This simple step will almost always be effective at cleaning up common mode noise that can cause hum."

Spirit, since you know and like Clayton Shaw's offerings, have you thought about digital room correction? He offers that service (SpatialComputing.com). I believe it has a lot of potential merit in difficult rooms and real world settings.

His viewpoint on the current direction and sound of(most) 'high end' components is near identical to my own thoughts formed over the past 20 years.

So Charles, other than SETs being the shizzle, what specific elements of Phil's theology do you ascribe to? From what I surmise from some of his writings, room acoustics, power conditioning, and wire are a waste of time. Do you agree with that? Several older audiophiles and manufacturers I know whom I respect greatly share similar views. It almost appears to be a generational residue of sorts.

Hello Arear,
1, I`m a true believer in the benefit of balanced AC power transformers. I`ve used the BPT3.5 SIG Plus for 4 years and as I`ve written elsewhere it provides an across the board improvement(yes,dynamics included) that is substantial.It`s permanent part of my system.

The room is an obvios major factor in regards to overall sound.I will admit I`ve not put in any effort to using room treatments as my room just has very good acoustics already(sheer luck?) people who have visited my home have all commented on the good sound quality. Could it be further improved? yes , but at this time I enjoy it and will leave well enough alone.

To be fair, I`m not read where phil has been dismissive of room effects,cables(he`s spoken highly of Zu cables and Auditorium for example). He`s also spoken positively about isolation transformers. He probably does`nt place the same degree of emphasis as you and priorities are likely in a different order.

I do prefer SET amplifiers but willing admit they all are`nt equal and their certanly is a pecking order. There are other alternatives in amplifier choice that can yield excellent results(I`ve never questioned that).Exception SET amplifiers just have worked out best for me and my desires .

Where I most agree with phil is the area of tonality,timbre and holistic attributes and their vital importance in presenting music 'natural' and convincingly.Much of the direction in the High End seems toward hyper detail and ultra clean low distortion. The result of this(strictly my humble opinion) is the sound becomes artificially lean, dry, sterile, 2-diminsional etc. The full body tone and harmonics are stripped away ( the complete note i.e.substain and decay is compromised)and the music will lose emotional involvement and sound canned.

When I listen to live acoustic music(mostly jazz)I`m always remined of the true fullness of the instruments and how strikingly beautiful they sound. There`s a natural flow and liquid quality(along with dynamic nuance and ease) that many componenets convert to a stiff or mechanical character(this is a major flaw). I want to preserve as much of that inate organic/holistic presence as I reasonably can.
Charles,
Regards,

Sorry for the typos,meant innate not inate.

Agear- let's be fair and highlight that the Alef gear starts at 60k an amp.

I think folks have to try amps in their system to judge them appropriately on the 4s. I've personally tried the Audions, Sophias, McIntoshes, Quads, FirstWatt, Vacs, etc. I tried to set up an ASR demo, but there is no Cali dealer and I don't want to pay hefty shipping charges from the NA distributor.

I can't definitely say one amp is best over the other--they are all quite different. I will say on the SET side, I preferred the Sophia sound to the Audions. But I preferred the P-P Quads to all the SETS I have tried.

I also don't like 845Bs one iota (and for 4 years now). The top end is incorrect in my opinion with that tube and it's rolled off. The Cryo'd 845A that 213Cobra mentioned is a much more linear option that doesn't have the glare of the Chinese original.

I also strongly believe in Room Acoustics and have a Rives L1 designed room- no component outside of speakers has made a larger improvement. Untrapped bass masks a lot of problems imo and that is another reason my amp journey may differ from others.

Agear- let's be fair and highlight that the Alef gear starts at 60k an amp.

That was in comparison to Wavac. Not exactly an Audiogon bargain hunters dream.

...believe in Room Acoustics and have a Rives L1 designed room- no component outside of speakers has made a larger improvement. Untrapped bass masks a lot of problems imo and that is another reason my amp journey may differ from others.

Agreed. The room is your speaker. For me, stratifying things would go as follows: Room>power>speakers>amps>source>pre-amp>wire.

I`m a true believer in the benefit of balanced AC power transformers. I`ve used the BPT3.5 SIG Plus for 4 years and as I`ve written elsewhere it provides an across the board improvement(yes,dynamics included) that is substantial.It`s permanent part of my system.

I saw that you own the BPT. Nice unit. My speaker designer owns one and it has a positive influence on his system.

Where I most agree with phil is the area of tonality,timbre and holistic attributes and their vital importance in presenting music 'natural' and convincingly. Much of the direction in the High End seems toward hyper detail and ultra clean low distortion. The result of this(strictly my humble opinion) is the sound becomes artificially lean, dry, sterile, 2-diminsional etc. The full body tone and harmonics are stripped away ( the complete note i.e.substain and decay is compromised)and the music will lose emotional involvement and sound canned.

I agree wholeheartedly. The real question is what is the source of that phenomenon? Low distortion levels don't necessarily equal lean sound. If we all had 1/2" master tape, we probably we not be having this argument. Monkeying with the room and power can give you a more analog sound in my experience. Tubes also embellish poor source material whether it be CDs or Vinyl. That is a bonus IMO and why in real world applications, tube based amplification does make sense. There is less lunatic fringe, OCD audiophile behavior going on.

As for Phil and his philosophy, I agree with much of his sentiments and I enjoy his acidic writings. For example, here is a blurb on room acoustics from the Asylum:

I've never seen a mainstream living space I couldn't get satisfying sound from. This is the point. We've become so intolerant of compromised sound that we've made hi-fi arcane, irrelevant, anti-social and a perceived pathology in circles where once it was enjoyed.

It's our choice. Wormhole hobby or a musically-driven resurgent interest? I take a little bass spike and lower-treble glare at high SPL that I can't fully tune out of my room via normal furnishings, to drive for the latter. The first-time guest who once admonished me for having a coffee table in the living room with my stereo, and asked for its removal so could "hear properly" didn't get offered the glass of Pappy Van Winkle's 23 year old, nor invited back.

Phil

and

Well, I can't argue with a man who wants his own domain. But whether that's where the primary sound has to go, is another thing.

> > I would like a dedicated listening room that I can acoustically treat and furnish with only one purpose, the best quality sound and comfort of listening. < <

Over the last few decades I've visited many dedicated listening rooms, acoustically treated, optimized for listening. I never had any fun hearing music in any of them, and I couldn't see any evidence the owners did either. The problem is, no one hears music in an optimized space. Put pop, jazz, rock, blues, etc. aside for the moment. As a kid I had regular opportunity to hear Eugene Ormandy's Phildelphia Orchestra in the Academy of Music, a truly mediocre acoustic space. And yet my emotional connection to the music was no greater when I later was able to hear Seiji Ozawa's Boston Symphony in the peerless Symphony Hall. But having been in Symphony Hall dozens of times for concerts, I notice that recordings made there have never sound *less* like Symphony Hall than when played back in an acoustically-treated, dedicated listening room. Room tuning folks are quacks, if judged by the results. They know everything about how a room measures and nothing about how it sounds. It's like investment bankers or venture capitalists who know everything about money but nothing about the economy.

The very best sounding room I have ever heard a hi-fi installed in was in a century-old Victorian house in Arlington, Massachusetts. It had a large living room proportioned within maybe 10% of Symphony Hall's, with large bay windows on two walls, a wall of floor-to-ceiling shelving and cabinetry, and an outsized fireplace. The ceiling was smooth plaster with radiused corners and a full mahogany soffet perimeter. Absolutely nothing was done to "optimize" the room acoustically. It was, however, so good, nothing sounded bad. The owner would challenge us to bring over our worst trade-ins to find something that sounded bad. I'm now almost the age he was when he taunted us to defeat his room. Even a pair of horrific Cerwin Vegas powered by grating Phase Linear 400 and Southwest Technical Products preamp fed by dry-as-sandpaper Stanton cartridge in a pathetic Garrard Zero 100 sounded OK in that room. Even a 1979 boombox couldn't be denied. I've never heard even a acoustician-designed, computer-modeled, custom-built room sound remotely close to being as good as that room. But I've had some that I lived in come closer than I hoped upon first inspection, especially in open plan houses.

If someone builds their man-cave for whatever and they put a decent stereo in it, fine with me. But their *only* hi-fi? Well, if they ask my advice, I recommend against it. Think of the music you could buy. The time you could get back. Satisfaction in the acoustically-treated dedicated listening space is elusive, and more often than not, it seems to me synthetic -- a declared victory because, well, the money's already been spent.

People have fun in livelier settings and music is generally a shared experience when heard live. It used to be that way in homes too. Of course, you used to turn on the radio and hear Dean Martin, Sinatra, The Beatles, Motown and Philly soul on the same station. If hi-fi is going to be relevant again, it has to have something for everyone and that means removing the conditions that draw it inward to a solitary interest. Besides, what's the point of keeping the art of a McIntosh faceplate to yourself?

Phil

There is a lot to agree with in there particularly in regards to orchestral music. A bitch to get right in our audiodomes. I have also heard my share of mis-engineered rooms that sound like a mortuary. You can hear a pin drop but are left feeling a little dead inside. On the other hand, what I am "hearing" now is a much better and involving facsimile. Like Andy Murray said after the Wimbledon final: "I am getting closer."

Question for Phil: do you have any addendums to add to your room philosophy in light of recent experience with Keith and panels, etc?

Agear,
I love that blurb by phil, I can relate to his point.He just simply loves music and the emotional connection that can be communicated with the right choice of components and enviroment. I guess people like us are what could be called sonic naturalist(for lack of a better term).Seeking organic truthfulness and purity of sound with as little hifi artifact as possible.

Agear you`ve put a lot of research,effort and time in constructing a dedicated listening room. I hope all this work pays many dividends for you. I `ve heard some treated rooms,some executed more sucessfully than others. At what point in this endeavor will you realize an end stage where you feel enough treatment is utilized without it becoming counter productive(potentially)?
Regards,

>>What I noticed with the Sophia’s in reference to the M60’s is that they were a little sweeter, had a little more “density” to the midrange tone, and a little more sense of coherency or “cut from the same cloth” sound (at least from upper bass to treble); however, the latter seemed, upon further listening, to be a coloration imparted on all music and ultimately became a bit of a distraction.<<

All of this is consistent with what you should expect from competent SET v. push-pull -- even OTL. However, I cannot reconcile your statements. At least within the terms you chose to use, I don't know how "coherency" can be judged a coloration. It can take awhile to get used to, after years or decades of hearing push-pull crossover notch grunge, subtle as it is, as normal. But I'm guessing that whatever you heard as a coloration was something else about the Sophia. I don't regard the Sophia 845s as objective as the Audions, but they get closer than most competing 845 SET amps. The Sophia design is a more in-your-face presentation, and that's not just a function of acoustic energy. It's more aggressive.

>>There was also something going on in the upper midrange / lower treble that showed up on some tracks.<<

That something was likely the 845A tube's signature upper midrange glare, which the B tube mitigates, as does (to a lesser extent) the 845A Cryo. I know why amp makers ship with the 845A (it's dirt-cheap and consistent) but I don't know why any of them insist that's how their amp sounds best -- it doesn't. Not anyone's. I can't listen to the Sophia happily either with the stock tube. There is also some further tunability in the Sophias via the input, driver and rectifier tubes. It's not as simple a circuit as Audion's. The downside is less palpable intimacy and finesse. The upside is you have more tubes to roll for custom contouring!

>>The Atma M60’s had significantly more drive, a larger soundstage, more air on top & weight on bottom, though none of the aforementioned was perceived as lacking while listening to the Sophia’s.<<

Ralph's M60 is a muscular amp and it has deep bass performance more precisely defined and textured than almost any SET amp. Can't comment on the soundstage differences since when I've heard both of those amps, soundstage was as large as I could want, appropriate to the music and the room. That none of these comparative shortcomings were perceived when listening to the Sophias shows vividly how subjective evaluation is. A/B comparison can make both contenders sound "wrong."

>>I have heard that the Sophia’s have a lower noise floor than the Audion’s?<<

They have in the past, though to me the difference was not actionable. Audion has recently changed their power transformer shielding and made some other internal wire routing changes, in part based on results from some work that Bob Hovland did on my Black Shadows. These amps are now as quiet as Sophia's, which were the quietest 845s on the the market, previously. You can also run the Audions very quietly by virtue of their high input sensitivity. If you have ample gain in your preamp, you can run the input level controls quite low and use more of the gain in a quiet preamp. In any case, this nosie floor difference between the two brands' 845 amps is now effectively moot.

>>Although noise didn’t significantly factor into my evaluation of the Sophia, I wouldn’t want it to be too much higher. Can this be a distraction with the Audions?<<

I'd need to know you much better to say. I've been listening to tubes my whole life, and vinyl too. What's a little power amp noise after all that? Power amps are quiet compared to recordings and sources. There's noise in the world, including at any live performance of music. Compared to my guitar amps, my hifi amps are silent. I didn't consider noise a problem with my Audion power amps before and they're over 10db quieter since Hovland had a go at them, so I never think about it. on the other hand, I know people who love the sound of a tube amp but because of scant spurious noise, they listen to solid state they enjoy less. People are funny.

Phil

>>From what I surmise from some of his writings, room acoustics, power conditioning, and wire are a waste of time.<<

This is not nearly a correct summation of what I think about these topics.

Power condition is difficult to prescribe. That is, the precise results in any given home and system are not strictly predictable. I use voltage correction, isolation, and on my sources, balanced power. All these have been helpful to me. I generally recommend large balanced power isolation transformers as the most cost-effective power "conditioning." But I've also heard installations where no conditioning sounded unmistakably better than any alternative. I can recommend balanced power unconditionally, but I can't predict exactly what method power conditioning will be best for you.

I've never written that cabling is not valuable. I have written that I have not found much correlation between cable price and contribution to sound quality. I've also written that I view cables as having distinct sound signatures -- that they are effectively "fixed parametric equalizers" -- and there are more important aspects to pay attention to if money isn't unlimited. The role of cables is affected by context. I prefer soncially neutral cabling that is also practical to use. That excludes most of the cable on the market.

On acoustics, I've written that room treatments tend to underperform though in some rooms, an acoustic dysfunction may be so egregious that correcting for that is indispensible. A friend has a room that without elementary treatment, it's first-order dysfunction simply builds cumulatively, like a figurative sonic Hadron Collider. Fixing that is worthwhile regardless. But most treated rooms end up overdamped and unnatural. My personal preference is to eschew dedicated listening rooms, keep the hifis out in the open living areas of my home and mitigate with room furnishings and placement. The rooms are to live in first, to optimize for sound second. Here's the thing: No matter the room, I can always hear the signature(s) of the gear through the prevailing acoustics, and that defines the actionable elements to what I'm hearing. But the room as an acoustic environment becomes just that -- environmental -- and easily forgotten. Put another way, no room has ever gotten in the way of me enjoying music, but much gear has proven too deleteriously distracting be enjoyed.

Phil

>>Question for Phil: do you have any addendums to add to your room philosophy in light of recent experience with Keith and panels, etc?<<

Keith has a severe first order acoustic dysfunction in a nearly square space. We couldn't take down his ceiling panels but Defs mitigate floor and ceiling effects much more than the speakers he owned when he had the room treated. So put that aside. But it was easy to remove his reflection-points damping panels. In that space, removing the damping panels had the effect I expected, but worse --- the room goes "runaway" -- a sonic Three Mile Island in the making. It also eats bass below 100Hz or so, like a grizzly romping through a salmon farm. The Def4 sub eq helps there. I've never chosen to live in a space that mandated a virtually square acoustic domain for listening. If I had a first order problem like that, I'd minimally treat it too.

But I don't. I have normal US sheetrock-on-frame aberrations: some rising bass response, a little slap echo, some excitable sheetrock glare when I run Duane Allman or Hound Dog Tayler a little hot. But the tonal integrity of the system and room is solid, and imaging is as good as it gets in a 14' x 21' space -- smaller than Keith's uni-room -- where I can't place the Defs far from the boundaries. Interestingly, aside from the differences in our respective rooms' sub 100Hz bass profiles, an iOS device-measured FFT analysis profiles surprisingly similar signatures.

My 2nd system is in a 12' x 22' space, on the narrow wall, but like the 1st, it is not fully bounded in an open plan house. That room presents different anomalies, none of which are practical nor actionable to treat. And anyway, that is a relatively near-field setup.

So net is, in rectangular rooms, I won't do anything acoustically that can't be mitigated by normal furnishings. If I had the severity of Keith's primary problem, I'd do the least needed to correct the 1st order acoustic dysfunction and live with the rest. Keith's room doesn't sound as bass-deficient nor as soft on the top end as it measures, and mine doesn't sound as bass-emphasized as it measures. What others do is up to them, but again, I don't advocate dedicated listening rooms. And I haven't heard one yet in 40 years of being exposed to them, that sounds natural enough to justify the work or the livability compromises. The best domestic room I ever heard remains that beautiful space in an Arlington house, so whenever I consider a move to a new domicile, I just look for as many attributes of that space as I can get. Anyway, there are guitars that need buying and playing, too.

Phil

Charles, I had the good fortune of buying a house with an unfinished basement and thus my dream of an engineered room from the ground up has been realized. It is not your typical room with panels and bass traps. The actual walls have been mechanically grounded (ala Starsound/Sistrum technologies). The end stage has been realized when my neighbor's Best Buy grade system sounded more engaging than my big rig.

Agear,
Congratulations on your sucessful results. Do you plan to post your system and pictures on this site?I`d love to see that.
Regards,

There is not a single system that doesn't benefit from at minimum treating first reflections and a bass trap or two. And it can be 100% hidden these days and has become a much bigger industry over the past 5 years as folks finally figure it out. So no excuse there either. Audiophiles imo are lazy and want to buy cables, vibration, racks, points, paint, contact solution, green markets, etc and ignore the room too often. Like teflon dialetric is going to make a bigger difference than the room. Please! Are there things about my room I would change? Absolutely--my diffusors on the front wall were costly and not sure how much benefit they really achieve.

Some people are lucky to have golden ratio rooms with higher ceilings- 99% don't. In fact, I honestly don't think you can be a true audiophile without working to achieve basic room acoustics. Put bookshelves in the back of your room to store records as well for one easy one.

While I have a squarish room that Phil noted has some definitive bass issues, any rectangular room not built in a golden ratio has just as many issues. Per my numerous demos, Phil's room in particular suffers from a small sound stage, lack of detail, and separation of instruments due to slap echo and lack of bass trapping that he mentions above. He chooses not to go down that path, but knows he has a compromise in place (that's he's ok with, of course). Some day I will toss a few panels in the truck to take over and play with for a few hours....it will be an interesting experiment.

The difference in sound with and without will be similar in any room. That's because you can't cheat physics.

>>There is not a single system that doesn't benefit from at minimum treating first reflections and a bass trap or two.<<

A system will benefit, but the room may not cooperate if its primary purpose is living in it. I'm completely supportive of the idea that music can be a first priority but audio might take a back seat to functional or aesthetic priorities of a primary living space. Put another way, I'm not replacing an original oil painting or a limited serigraph with a damping panel at a first reflection point, regardless of the sonic benefits. And bass traps present their own problems. I have yet to see one that's invisible, which is not the same as "hidden."

>>Audiophiles imo are lazy and want to buy cables, vibration, racks, points, paint, contact solution, green markets, etc and ignore the room too often. Like teflon dialetric is going to make a bigger difference than the room.<<

I can always hear these allegedly smaller influences through the room, regardless of the room compromises. The acoustic context and the electronic delivery chain have distinctly different influences and effects, and one can be improved without improving the other, to very good result, compared with doing nothing. There's a limit to everything. Does a $10,000 rack make sense? Not often and not for me, but somewhere there's an audiophile who thinks so and it's not because they're lazy. On the other hand, changing my turntable mounting made transformative improvements that no amount of room treatment can duplicate. These other electro-mechanical investments help in ways the room cannot.

>>In fact, I honestly don't think you can be a true audiophile without working to achieve basic room acoustics.<<

If by this you mean there is such a thing as an audiophile absent interest in music -- lover of sound for the sake of sound alone -- sure. Then I'm not an audiophile and neither are most people here. A musicophile who wants to have convincing sound through audiophile means can draw his or her own lines. By this definition, one can't be an audiophile without also committing to a dedicated listening room because anytime hifi is placed in open living spaces where living functions make audio considerations secondary, "basic room acoustics" will not be optimized. Putting audio absolutely first is the primary disease rendering hifi irrelevant and arcane to the larger population.

>>Phil's room in particular suffers from a small sound stage, lack of detail, and separation of instruments due to slap echo and lack of bass trapping that he mentions above.<<

I don't agree in this sense: My sound stage is as big as is appropriate for the room. Particularly since Def4s have been added, the soundstage is, when the music warrants, the full width of the acoustic space, and the full hieght, too. It shouldn't be bigger. It's not small compared to soundstaging in a smaller room. But it's not as large as a 25'x25' space either. In such a space, I hear some sound images as bigger than life, and I don't want that either. I hear no greater separation of instruments in similar treated room systems like yours, but then I have lots of experience listening through my room, so nothing to adjust to. I have yet to hear any detail on Keith's system that I can't hear on my own *though the presentation of detail is differrent* for many reasons, ranging from the space itself and placements, to sources and intermediate electronics. I've already said I don't think detail is under-represented in modern hifi -- it is mostly over-detailed, especially in digital. My system mitigates this in meaningful ways, and it's not the room doing it, but the system is more highly resolved in texture, finesse and tone.

>>Some day I will toss a few panels in the truck to take over and play with for a few hours....it will be an interesting experiment.<<

Let's see.

>>The difference in sound with and without will be similar in any room. That's because you can't cheat physics.<<

The actual sonic results are reduced in rectangular rooms. Physics of acoustics notwithstanding, just as measured results of gear don't anticipate how important a characteristic will be to perception of it, I've never heard a rectangular room go runaway, but I have often heard this in square or nearly-square proportion rooms. Our rooms don't sound as deviated from "flat" response as they are, and rectangular rooms are more forgiving of the physics violations, as we actually hear them. Guess what -- every performance you ever heard live was compromised acoutstically, too. And so was every recording. Ever been in an acoustically perfect recording studio? Ever been in one that is highly imperfect? Robert Johnson recorded in a hotel room and his musical influence continues to be cumulative. He sounds vivid and ultra-present on those deeply flawed recordings. Sun Records was far from an acoustically perfect studio. The realism captured in a legion of acoustically flawed studios before multi-tracking and out-of-control multi-mic'ing became the norm is stunning to hear against contemporary context.

Phil

Thanks Charles. A system thread is forthcoming. One key element about rooms and room tuning is that it takes a team approach with multiple sets of ears/minds. It is very difficult otherwise.

If I had a first order problem like that, I'd minimally treat it too.

But I don't. I have normal US sheetrock-on-frame aberrations: some rising bass response, a little slap echo, some excitable sheetrock glare when I run Duane Allman or Hound Dog Tayler a little hot. But the tonal integrity of the system and room is solid, and imaging is as good as it gets...

vs.

Per my numerous demos, Phil's room in particular suffers from a small sound stage, lack of detail, and separation of instruments due to slap echo and lack of bass trapping that he mentions above.

It sounds as if your room would in fact benefit from tuning. Again, the room game should be a team approach otherwise you can get lost in self-deception. There have been times when I thought I was cooking with gas and a fellow phile visits to provide a contrarian viewpoint.

The difference in sound with and without will be similar in any room. That's because you can't cheat physics.

and

Audiophiles imo are lazy and want to buy cables, vibration, racks, points, paint, contact solution, green markets, etc and ignore the room too often.

True and true.

Phil, is the Zu Dominance more immune to room issues? Do you think it will fix things when replacing the IVs...

Keithr writes,

"Per my numerous demos, Phil's room in particular suffers from a small sound stage, lack of detail, and separation of instruments due to slap echo and lack of bass trapping that he mentions above. He chooses not to go down that path, but knows he has a compromise in place (that's he's ok with, of course)."

Like the Wizard of Oz when the gang finally saw what was behind that huge curtain making all the loud and strong banging noises. Just a little guy blowing a lot of smoke.

In my book that is not a musically convincing place to be.

Goes to show you can have all the facts and figures down and the techno talk going on with big flowery words but when it comes to building a MC system from ground up the end result is not up to snuff.

Folks- Phil and I are good friends, but have disagreed on room treatment for the past few years. (ie. I knew he would write a sizzler to my response and it doesn't offend me)

Agear- 100% correct analysis. Philes need to work together and Phil has actually helped me tune my room for the better--our recent exercise in speaker placement/toe-in made my image more natural size-wise and overall much better sound. I have bass issues due to size and because the room can't pressurize (due to adjoining hallways). We also played with some furniture placement and figured some stuff out about my fireplace that I need to do something with. In general, audiophiles don't criticize enough and that leads to lazy sound. I was very happy when he said he thought images were too big- as that confirmed my suspicions as well.

It also effects our amp choices (getting back to the point of this thread)-- Audions don't provide the impact or bass depth that they do in Phil's room and frankly I had them for a month, with tons of tube changes, etc and they still didn't do it for me. I believe they work better in his room due to untreated/rising bass response. I also believe this has also been the case with a Zu Dominance owner who tried the same amps and now has FirstWatt SIT1s- and who also has a Rives treated room. In fairness, my room needs pushier bass due to size, but a PP 15w set of quads with a design from 1953 was much more dynamic and bigger bass than 25w Audions. Go figure.

Also, Phil has been asking me for quite some time to take out some of the room treatment, so I finally did it a few weeks back - and haven't seen an audiophile that shocked in quite some time. His comments above sum up the differences well in my room. The $500 in panels we took down had more of an impact than ANY cable or preamp I've tried, hands down. Unfortunately the ceiling tiles aren't easily removable, and they provided the largest difference that we couldn't judge that day- I hate low 8' ceilings!

That all said, I 100% stand by my comments as it relates to detail/sound stage. My Wilson/BAT system with no room treatment had similar issues that I didn't realize until I hired Rives. Smaller sound/image, less separation, etc. I can hear it instantly. For one, when I listen to an orchestra--i can separate where the clarinets are in the soundstage with tremendous accuracy. That only happens when slap echo is reduced. We know from measurements, that his room has rising bass response---so we know a bass trap will help tremendously clear up a muddied mid range. The effect will not be small.

Glory- this isn't a knock on Phil specifically like you insinuate. I think any untreated room has all the same issues. What have you done to alleviate room issues btw?

I 100% believe audiophiles need to focus more on the room BEFORE vibration, racks, cables, etc. Typical rectangles have up to 30db swings---that's just life. I'm not saying those other things don't matter (I am just starting to play with them now). And I'm not advocating only dedicated rooms. But bass traps can be done custom that match the room architecture, art panels now exist that look exactly like paintings (the GIK ones I own are ok, but there are much better/expensive options), in-wall acoustic panels are now sold, ceiling clouds can match certain decors- or custom soffit ceilings can be made. Bookshelves provide reasonable diffusion and there are window treatments that look good and help out. It's not hard--it just costs more perhaps.

but hey, that's just one man's opinion. I will update our thread after Phil/I's experiment in his room at some future date. to put it another way--I have NEVER heard of an audiophile who didn't praise room treatment more than any other "upgrade" once done. not a single one.

>> is the Zu Dominance more immune to room issues? Do you think it will fix things when replacing the IVs...<<

I heard Zu Dominance (the only pair in existence) in the home of a very generous, friendly and questing Zu customer, with also a discerning collection of music. We had corresponded periodically over the past year when he approached me for advice on recommendation from Zu. The system built around Dominance speakers is in a Rives-treated room, and it is a dedicated listening space, and a very comfortable one.

One of the owner's first comments when we entered his room was to explain what Rives had done and then to say "I think they went too far and I'm still thinking about what to do next...." With that we turned on his system

No speaker is immune to room issues, but some are less affected than others. When Sean Casey first told me a few years ago what he was thinking about for his super speaker, I was wary. Three FRDs, two supertweeters, a big built-in sub. It had the potential to be an overbearing speaker in most domestic settings. As executed, it isn't at all. Dominance has more acoustic power and scale available to the room than the smaller Definition, but it is as fleet, precise, delicate and agile as any small monitor. It is both large and beautifully focused. That focus and immediacy mitigates, but does not obviate the room.

I am unlikely to ever buy a pair of Zu Dominance. It is the best speaker I know of commercially available at any price, and is easily the best speaker I've ever heard, on balance, in over 40 years of being active in high-end audio. But it is a more visually and physically imposing speaker than I am likely to want in any domestic setting I'm likely to live in. Perhaps I'll get closer to Dominance by buying Experience sometime. But would Dominance "fix" my room if I bought them? Sorry. The room would still retain it's basic acoustic flaws.

Some perspective is in order for this discussion.

I've never said that I don't understand nor that I don't believe room correction is influential. I understand it perfectly, and there are both physical and DSP remedies. All of them are imperfect, too. My low priority assigned to professional room correction is a choice of principle and aesthetics. In any residence of mine, there will never be a dedicated listening room, no matter how much available space there is. Music via hifi is part of the social experience of being in my domicle, and that's not going to change. So the systems are in the living areas and if there is a choice forced between a 1st reflection panel and a Nieto painting, the 1st reflection panel loses that contest, no matter how much good it would do sonically. There's only so much wall space.

I've never heard a system for which the attributes of the gear couldn't be heard through the room, so whether a room is treated or not, the signature of the assembled hifi prevails. A related point is that the many people who came to hear music in my home who then left asking how to get "that sound" were not deterred or distracted in any way by the fact that they were listening in a room only marginally corrected by furnishings of the room. I have, by the way, heard the room empty, and it is radically improved by the way it is furnished. Improved enough, and it has no runaway tendencies.

So, while I have found most treated rooms quite unnatrual in significant ways, for anyone who wants to put room treatment as a first priority, it's an act of free will so have at it. But if people *ask* me whether I advise them to start there, my answer is no, for reasons already stated. I also, as you've seen from repostings of some other opinions I've written, don't want to participate in any trend that reinforces the notion that hifi for music is a geeky, solitary pursuit more regarded as pathology than enlightenment. But that's me. I'm an evangelist for the interest, and I'm actually more interested in bringing more people in from outside our community, than in influencing people already in it.

One more thing: I've known a lot of audiophiles with treated rooms over the decades I've been involved with this interest. One observation that comes to mind is that I expected a preference for room treatments to also result in more system components stability or longevity. But that's not what I've witnessed. Audiophiles with treated rooms have in my experience tended to be more restless about their gear than people who don't prioritize acoustic optimization. Is that coincidence or correlation? I don't know. But I haven't seen room treatment lead to greater apparent satisfaction nor more settled owners in the hifi realm.

And, Glory, my private email traffic from people asking my help has gone up due to this latest run of this thread, even today since Keith's criticism of my room and priorities. So, you know....I'm demand driven. I don't mind people asking for help, and I don't mind people ignoring me either.

Phil

Each of us has priorities. My personal goal was great music through a two channel audio system within a pre-specifiec budget and in a room that was designed primarily for aesthetics (furniture, artwork, etc) and general livability (off-axis listening) and not designed primarily for audiophilia. I also selected components for aesthetics as well as for sound, hid wires behind cabinetry and under the floors, etc.

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.