Decision between Zu Definition OR VS DB99

I am adding a third speaker to the above two, the AG Duos. I am getting a fantastic deal on them and they are pretty much the same price of the above two. How would the Duos compare with the Zu's Definition and VSA DB99.
Thanks

Guys,

I own both the Druids & the Definitions. They have a similar "voice" but the Definion has a better (IMHO)presentation of low level detail & micro dynamics, and obviously the bass. The bass from the Definition is so fast & clean. The Druid MK 4 is a little bass shy, but it was never marketed as a full range speaker.

Great customer service & great products!

The Druid comes much closer to the performance of the Definitions than an educated guess would allow. Someone wrote not long ago that the Druid provides 75% of the performane for a third of the price. If anything that is an underestimate. The Druid is far better than it appears in pictures. In fact, I suspect it would embarras many vaunted designs by famous manufacturers. My guess is we'll be hearing much more from Zu.
I know nothing about the DB 99 so I can't provide the requested comparison.

For what it's worth Gregm's identification of how the 99's sound from the specs is spot on. Meaty/dynamic and very good sound imaging. I would add that with the 99's rear firing tweeter with ambience control one can adjust for pinpoint or focused imaging to more dispersion with the turn of the dial. Sound stage depth/width/highth are all there. Singer is in the room. I would add "clean" to the descriptor list for the 99s.

Still-- gotta be someone out there who has heard/compared both. How about those who have attended audio shows?

Thanks Macrojack. I had overlooked that there are 4x10" woofs per side (rather than 2). So much the better. I expected the imaging properties to be good - I just want to know if they present a pin-point/ "reductionist" image (which I doubt) or a more holographic type. Fm what you say, the latter seems to be the case.
Using two wide-range drivers is what intrigued me -- they cover a very large range downwards and I wonder how they dealt with intermodulation and coupling the two.

BTW, looking at the Druids I can understand your interest in the bigger model. BTW, the yr spkrs have a different tweet and a heftier hi-pass filter than the Definitions.
Cheers

Essential, old sport, a most unfortunate misfortune in my post seems to have inopportuned you. Which, pray, are the erroneous points? The mistakes (as opposed to the errors)?

BTW, if you own (or have used) Zus, can you give a quick summary of actual sound characteristics?
Jokes apart, it's really a very intriguing design.
(BTW, don't want to be seen as bashing the VS -- I just happen to be interested in the Zu). Cheers

Gregm - Zu makes all their own drivers. Each cabinet contains 4 x 10 inch powered woofers in the rear. Each front sports two 10 inch mids and a super tweeter in the MTM arrangement you described. These present 101 db efficiency at 6 ohms. This is a nearly resistive load so it is very amplifier friendly.
Actual listening seems to support their claim of 16Hz on the bottom. I found imaging to be very good and depth of soundstage very convincing. I hope to be buying a pair of Definitions very soon. Meanwhile, I bought the Druids. These are much more cost effective than the Defs but with 5 fewer drivers per side, they don't quite do the same thing.

Gregm, your post is based upon speculation, not having heard the Zu Definitions (which you graciously admit). Unfortunately it contains some errors.

Nealhood, Zu offers a 60 day money back guarantee and in fact insists that you keep the speakers for that long so you give them a chance to break in. They sound great with tubes and are OTL friendly.

These two are quite different designs. Some things to consider just by LOOKING at them:
VS:
The VS uses a 10" seas woof, commendably placed low down to get benefit fm floor boost and with a transmission line. There's a 7" mid in a tapered back chamber (I think? What's a "terminated" transmission line?), & a tweet with a wave-guide (both drivers of undisclosed origin). The mid has a quoted 100db sensitivity -- which is unusually high given the quoted motor specs; maybe this sens is using the internal amp. In any case it's excellent.
The bass is active and, again it seems, they use a high input buffer on the internal amp to power the mid as well (difficult to understand VS' techno-marketing). There is a passive xover, possibly a series (what on earth is the quoted "Global Axis" this xover is supposed to integrate? Phase?) and L pads to help tune some of the drivers.
The system's sensitivity isn't evident; what's quoted "in room" looks like ~90-92 anechoic.
Interestingly, given the "booster" amp, the system's impedance should be very benign (with reserve re, the techno-maktg). Excellent characteristic.
OTOH, does this mean that one has to go through that amp's circuitry before reaching the mid+woof?

The Zu uses two 10" woofs (sourced possibly fm Eminence, "US made"), active, covering apparently a single octave (~50-~25 Hz) with a line-level 24 (L/R?) filter. Then there are two wide-range units in a MTM config and an Audax tweet with a wave-guide.
The two wide-rangers cover most of the musical spectrum, so you have a quasi point-source that's driven full-range -- i.e. there's no added xover (is there a notch filter s/where in there?). The amp drives these more or less directly and full-range.
The Audax tweet kicks in full blast very commendably high up, ~15kHz with its 1st order filter @ 12kHz (excellent idea, nice 90 degrees phase angle, and you can do that with ONE component only).

Design wise, this is starting to "sound" real good: minimal (if any) phase, delay, amplitude & power anomalies, in the critical range ~100-~10kHz.
OTOH, 1) you get narrow horizontal dispersion as you go up (due to the 10"ers beaming) 2) how do they integrate TWO drivers to simulate a single point-source???

So, on paper, the Zu looks as lovely as the VS interesting. In theory, the Zu should offer very good transient attack, coherent and well-balanced sound. In theory it won't image exquisitely -- but well enough. It should also be relatively easy to place and drive.
The VS should offer a meaty, dynamic sound, and should be exceptionally easy to drive, and should image easily and very well.

All this fm looking -- now how 'bout s/one who's tasted the pudding (to coin a phrase)? Cheers

I'd like to hear some comments on these two comparisons also. I own the 99's and have posted several times on my comments about their sound. Feel free to look those up by doing a search. I Use them with Consonance Cyber 211 mono blocks-would highly recommend these. Read enjoythemusic.com Dec review of them. Nice review.

It goes without saying that I do enjoy the 99's but since I have never heard the Zu's I will refrain from making a blind/deaf comment regarding the 99's being insanly great in comparison to the Zu's. Don't like other's doing that-won't do it myself.

Best

I believe Zu offers a trial period of 30 or, maybe even 60 days. This, and the fact that the Definition speakers are held in such high regard right now, would sway me into giving them a try. Indeed, they sound like special speakers from what I have read. It would really be great VS, or their dealers offered a similar audition policy. It's worth checking on since virtually all credible dealers provide an audition-at-home policy. The potential issue I see with this is that the DB99 may not be stocked. Therefore it will be difficult to auditon it unless VS provides an audition policy.

Verdict: If you can't listen to VS, go with the Zu's. You can always return them should they do not meet your fancy. But, I really don't think you will return them once the disk starts spinning.