Earnie,
I have both the Zu Definition Mk4 and the Druid Mk4-8 ( last model before Druid Mk5 came out late last year). I can speak to the differences between the two as well as the effects of amps. I've had the Coincident Frankenstein Mk2 powering the Definitions now for about 1 week and I've done a lot listening in this week. I've used the Atma-Sphere M60's and Clayton M200's as well.
The difference between the Druid and Definition, even the earlier Definition Mk 1.5 and Mk1.9, is large. Still, the Druid properly set up is competitive with many more expensive speakers. It brings the rich tone, coherency, and dynamic ease (macro and micro) that Zu is known for. The Definition's, in comparison, sound more "alive", more dynamic, present a larger soundstage with a little less image focus, and more resolved inner detail. The Mk 4's are really special.
To my surprise, the Coincident Frankenstein Mk2 drive the Definition Mk4's wonderfully in my open 6000 ft^3 listening room. Unless you listen regularly at really high SPL's, I can't imagine needing more than the Franks on the Definition Mk4. At natural to quite loud volume levels, they are alive, dynamic and nuanced. Bass is surprisingly as good or better than my M60's. It is easier to follow the bass line in complex music and is just as textured. It is not solid state "tight", but I don't find that realistic anyway. If the instrument produced a "tight" low frequency sound, the Franks present it that way.
On the Definition's or the Druid's, the Dragons wouldn't break a sweat at insane volume levels. Given the easy drivability of the Coincident speakers, I doubt either the Franks, and certainly not the Dragons, would struggle at all.
I have both the Zu Definition Mk4 and the Druid Mk4-8 ( last model before Druid Mk5 came out late last year). I can speak to the differences between the two as well as the effects of amps. I've had the Coincident Frankenstein Mk2 powering the Definitions now for about 1 week and I've done a lot listening in this week. I've used the Atma-Sphere M60's and Clayton M200's as well.
The difference between the Druid and Definition, even the earlier Definition Mk 1.5 and Mk1.9, is large. Still, the Druid properly set up is competitive with many more expensive speakers. It brings the rich tone, coherency, and dynamic ease (macro and micro) that Zu is known for. The Definition's, in comparison, sound more "alive", more dynamic, present a larger soundstage with a little less image focus, and more resolved inner detail. The Mk 4's are really special.
To my surprise, the Coincident Frankenstein Mk2 drive the Definition Mk4's wonderfully in my open 6000 ft^3 listening room. Unless you listen regularly at really high SPL's, I can't imagine needing more than the Franks on the Definition Mk4. At natural to quite loud volume levels, they are alive, dynamic and nuanced. Bass is surprisingly as good or better than my M60's. It is easier to follow the bass line in complex music and is just as textured. It is not solid state "tight", but I don't find that realistic anyway. If the instrument produced a "tight" low frequency sound, the Franks present it that way.
On the Definition's or the Druid's, the Dragons wouldn't break a sweat at insane volume levels. Given the easy drivability of the Coincident speakers, I doubt either the Franks, and certainly not the Dragons, would struggle at all.