Opinion on Zu speakers vs Merlin tsm

I have owned both the Merlin TSMs and the Zu Druid Mk IV and Zu Defintion Mk II. IMO all excellent speakers but also very different. The Zus are very dynamic and have excellent tone and can be driven by low powered amplifiers but not as resolving in the uppers as other speakers. Merlins have wonderful resolution and soundstage but need more careful partnering with amps. I loved both of them but if I had to choose looking back I would take the Merlins.

Others have remarked that the Zu in the latest iteration - Mk IV - is much improved in the upper registries but I would strongly recommend you audition before purchasing as the Zu house sound is not for everyone.

Vicks
Thanks. That is solid advise. Any comments on tweeter performance of the Zu?

In the Zu Mk II IMO I thought tweeter performance was one of its weaknesses. I remember when I switched to the ASI Tango speaker and the first thing I noticed was increased resolution over the Zus. However, the sum of the Zu is greater than its parts and often you would not notice this as it does so many other things so well.

The TSMs, even in their latest versions do not exhibit real bass power, certainly not like the Zus. Consider that element carefully when thinking about your goals. TSMs have a wonderful midrange, but not the top end definition and purity of ribbon tweeters, for instance.
I've heard the Zu Definition and Def Pro. The original Definition has a spitty top end, which I didn't like but the later Pro was very nice, extended, and detailed on top.

The new Zu Definition 4 uses a Radian 850 compression supertweeter, and it is a major improvement over the prior Zu supertweeter. It may be the most beautiful supertweeter I've heard in any speaker of any kind at any price. Now, in Def4, that tweeter is only rolled in on a high pass filter above 12kHz, so what's going on up to 12kHz? Well, there things are improved for resolution and listenability too. The new nano-treated Zu FRD is even faster, more agile and more resolving than the prior HO and earlier Definition2 main drivers.So resolution at all frequencies is not just perceptibly higher than in prior Definitions -- the difference is a revelation. Further, the top-to-bottom integration of driver elements into a single behavior is advanced, given the lighter, stiffer FRD cone coupled to a torqier motor, the single strong 12" downfiring sub with the more competent Hypex sub amp, and the extended beautifully open Radian supertweeter, sonic behaviors are nearly full-range electrostatic-like in sonic holism, but with big dynamic range, high power handling and solid bottom end foundation.

I have heard the Merlin TSM but not in the same room and on the same gear as a Zu speaker. It's a good speaker. Personally, I can't go back to a crossover-based speaker after owning Zu. Leaving passive crossovers behind is a one-way street for me. The disjoin is distracting to me, but not to everyone else. That's up to you to decide. But I certainly wouldn't consider the newest Zu to be resolution limited on top relative to Merlin. I also don't think the older tweeter and HO driver in Soul Superfly are limited either in that respect either, in a smaller, less expensive speaker. But I think you can expect Zu to put the Radian and the new nano drivers into more upper-range speakers over time, giving buyers access to that sound in a wider range of prices than the $12,995 Definition 4 alone. But in all Zu speakers that get the nano driver, this goes a long way to overcoming the resolution difference some people have commented on in the past, relative to certain conventional speakers.

Phil

The Zu Definition II superseded the Pro and I did not find the top end always to be nice, extended and detailed on top and I owned these speakers for a significant period of time.

There is currently a lengthy thread about the new Zu Definition IV and I suggest you take a look. 213Cobra is very helpful on the subject of Zu speakers.

James

Anyone have much experience with the Essence?