Zu Druid & Definition Roundup


In separate threads about the Zu Druid V and Zu Definition 3 & 4 in this forum, several questions have been directed to me about the comparative merits of these models, supertweeter capacitors, and a variety of other variables. Rather than bury comments in those threads, I thought it better to start a new thread and focus any follow-up comments or questions in one place.

Over the past few weeks, I helped a new Definition 3 owner install and setup his speakers, after earlier having setup his loaner Def3s that had an earlier iteration of the supertweeter network. Additionally, I made a capacitor change on the high pass filter to the supertweeter on my own Definition 4 and Druid V speakers. For further perspective on this, I have lived with my Definition 4 speakers for the past 13 months, and my Druid Vs for the past three months. Prior to that, I have migrated through the Definition 1.5 > 2 > 4 upgrade path, and Druid “3.5” > 4 > 4-08 > 5 upgrade path in two discrete systems since 2005. Any search on Zu topics or my handle here will serve up plenty of commentary on Zu speakers, cables, suitable amplification and other related matters, so I am not going to attempt to repeat all of that here. But I am going to roll up a collection of observations in response to prior questions, that might help Zu owners understand the relative value of current options in the upper half of Zu’s range, as well as people who have never owned Zu but who are considering their speakers, to better grasp what they might gain.

Druid 3, 4, 5

My first Druids were a used purchase from a prior owner here in Los Angeles. It turns out they were one of the first 10 pairs of Druids made. They had been sent back to Zu in late 2004 to be upgraded to then-current configuration plus had full internal Ibis cabling. The first 10 Druids made had the Speakon connector for full B3 geometry from amp to drivers when using Zu cables (I did), along with parallel Cardas posts for connecting any other cable. When I bought this first pair of Druids, they were shipped to me from Zu, in what Sean called a configuration he approximated as “version 3.5.” That speaker hooked me on the holistic Zu sound, but it had a euphonic warmth and soft top end that was forgiving and not fully revealing. Nevertheless, that v3.5 Druid was addictive for its unity of behaviors, and much like the original Quad electrostatic its ample advantages made it easy to overlook its limitations. The v4 upgrade opened up the top end marginally and was welcome, but the Spring 2008 v4-08 upgrade to Druid was a big leap toward bringing Druid closer to the liveliness and open top end of Definition. Then Druid was taken out of the Zu line. I let the Essence aberration pass by. Sean got back on track sonically with Superfly but I preferred the Druid form factor so stuck with the dead-ended Druid 4-08 for my secondary system, all the time lobbying Zu – along with other Druid owners – to restore Druid in more modern form in their line.

We got exactly that in Druid V late last year. For 4-1/2 years, while Essence came and went, Superfly got the HO FRD and then Nano, Druid was static and falling behind. Version 4-08 still had some tone-density and focus that was sacrificed in Superfly in favor of that speaker’s livelier, burstier dynamics and somewhat more expansive scalar projection. Superfly also had a slightly more extended top end than Druid 4-08 so to most people it simply sounded more like a modern speaker should, than Druid 4-08. It also had a more complete Griewe implementation, for faster and more textured bass than Druid. Druid V addressed all that, and more. The more advanced multi-composite cabinet with integral full Griewe and the mechanical grounding of the thick aluminum plinth would have comprehensively improved Druid even if the old Druid drivers had been installed. But the advance of the Nano FRD and the Radian 850 in supertweeter use gave us a Druid form factor speaker that has the linearity and finesse of Definition, with the traditional focus, unity and tone density of Druid even more present and obvious than in any prior version. Druid V *is* the modern equivalent to the original Quad ESL, without the extreme beaming, the bass limitation, dynamic restriction and fragility. It just happens to deliver Quad-like unity and speed from dynamic drivers with much higher efficiency *and* power handling. Druid V is finally an uncompromised and uncompromising speaker that despite its price can be justifiably driven by the very highest quality amplification at many times the cost of the speaker, yet can put modest amps in their best light. Why would anyone drive Druid V with amplification that costs lots more than a pair of the speakers? Because the total design can leverage stellar amplification, and no other speaker today can duplicate the full combination of attributes that Druid V delivers. You can get even greater focus and unity, ironically, in Zu’s line from the ~$60,000 Dominance, with its radiused front baffle and three FRDs, but not with Druid’s lightness of mass, presence and drivability. No Magico at any price can deliver Druid’s pure unity of behaviors regardless of what you try to drive them with, and no Magico is as musically satisfying with such a wide range of amplifiers. Druid V laughs at the cacophonous disunity of a Wilson speaker. Druid V ridicules the dynamic choke points imposed on Focal speakers at the crossover points. In the same way that no one appreciative of the unity of the Quad ESL heard any musical value from the Infinity IRS or a Duntech Sovereign back in the day, a Druid V owner today can pretty much ignore the rest of the alleged “high-end” speaker market inflicting damage upon our hearing, with the exception of other Zu speakers.

Because of the newest Nano FRD’s ability to reproduce more musical scale than prior Druids, for the first time in version V, Druid is a credible HT2.0 speaker in addition to being a great 2ch music speaker. Also for the first time, Druid is now quite good for listening to a full orchestra, whereas earlier Druids fell short on scale for orchestral purposes. Druid V is the first “no-apologies” Druid. That’s not to say that Definition doesn’t have advantages for more money – it certainly does. But Druid V is now a true all-music, all-purpose speaker with no real musical limitations in practical domestic use, and if a lower linear limit of about 35Hz isn’t deep enough for you, there’s always Zu’s new subwoofers. It’s also extremely amplifier-friendly. And the Griewe implementation does a fabulous job of extracting solid, tuneful bass from low-damping-factor/rising-deep-bass-THD SET amplifiers. Druid V gets qualitatively better bass from 2a3, 45 and 300B SET amps than any unassisted (no powered sub) speaker I can think of.

Definition 1.5, 2, 3, 4

The 2004/5 era Definition 1.5 was a revelation in its day, for its combination of speed, transparency, resolution, scale, bombast and finesse while having very good unity behaviors and terrific amplifier friendliness. It was sharply different from the same-era Druid because of its extended top end, almost tilted a little bright, and for its impressive sub-bass foundation. It was a relatively big, bursty, lively speaker even driven by modest power. It also had two clear deficiencies: first the sub-bass array amp had no level control (later and quickly rectified for everyone after I pointed out the glaring omission upon receiving my speakers), and second, that v1.X Definition’s MDF cabinet “talked” at high SPLs, marring the clean and incisive sound with an overriding glare. In Definition 2, cabinet talk was dramatically reduced by introduction of the birch-ply cabinet structure, stronger baffle, more robust plinth and associated damping techniques. The voicing of the speaker also tilted somewhat darker but the net result was a Definition absent ringing and glare, cleaner at moderate SPLs and far less fatiguing at high playing volumes – even fair to say altogether unfatiguing. While Definition 4 introduced many simultaneous improvements, Definition 3 shows clearly how much cabinet talk was left in Def2’s “silent” cabinet. Def3 starts with a Def2 cabinet and gets additional bracing and damping during the upgrade and it is plainly apparent when you first fire up Def3s after being familiar with Def2, that sound emerges from cleaner, quieter noise plane in the newer speaker. Def3, while retaining Def2’s 4x10” sub-bass line array on a rear baffle, gains seriously-improved deep bass by virtue of replacement of the Def2 plate amp and level control with Def4’s D amp with parametric controls. The Dominance trickle-down Nano FRD gives Def3 a close facsimile of Def4 performance from lowest response up to 10kHz or so, but Def3 uses the older-generation Zu supertweeter, which cannot begin to match the beauty, finesse and spray of the Radian 850 supertweeter used in the upper range Zu speakers. Def3 sub-bass performance is not equal to Def4’s but it is surprisingly competitive. In the Zu FRD range of roughly 38Hz – 12kHz, Def3 is very close to Def4, separated by clear differences in cabinet construction and internal configuration that give Def4 advantage as should be the case. As you get above roughly 8kHz, where the Radian 850 in Def4 begins to slope in, the upper range of the FRD in Def4 through the Radian’s exclusive extension on the top are in absolutely every way contributive to an elevated sense of musical fidelity and realism.

Definition 3 would be a market-wrangling speaker not surpassed at 3 or 4X its price if Definition 4 did not exist. But it does. As good as the new sub-bass amp and parametric controls are for the older 4x10” line array on the back baffle of Def3, the 4x10” rear-firing cones can’t load the room as evenly and deliver the incisive unity of Def4’s downfiring 12” driver. As closely as Def3’s Nano FRDs match the same in Def4, the completely re-architected cabinet of Def4 allows the drivers to perform with greater neutrality and freedom from distracting resonance. And the Radian 850 sprays the loveliest and yet most objective harmonic content of any tweeter I can think of today. The combined effect of Def4’s improvements over the Def2/3 design make it a compelling upgrade worth every penny to anyone who can afford its price compared to Def3, and yet the bargain roots of rendering Def3s from donor Def2s yields a speaker that is astonishingly great for its sub-$10K price and is necessarily limited in the number that will be produced. Notwithstanding that Omen Def is probably the peak value point in a two-FRD Zu speaker, for true high-end applications, Def3 is the high-discretionary-income value point and Def4 above it is the luxury alternative that nevertheless has no non-essential waste in its composition or price.

Definition 3 or Druid V?

I get this question privately from time to time: “For less than $2K difference, Druid V or Def3?”

These two speakers suit different priorities. Ask yourself the following:

1/ What is your application? That is, do you use your speakers strictly for 2-ch music or is your system doing dual duty for 2ch music and HT2.0?
2/ How important is the bass region between 16Hz - 35Hz to you?
3/ What are you using for amplification?
4/ What is the size of the space you have to acoustically load, and how far you sit from your speakers.
5/ What are your music listening habits, and what are the 3 - 5 sonic attributes you most value to feel satisfied?

There’s not a straightforward answer to this question, without knowing the above, but it’s easy enough for anyone reading this to self-sort. Druid V will give you focus, tone density, top end finesse and beauty that Def3 can’t quite match; Def3 will give you spatial & dynamic scale, deep bass foundation, resolution and horizontal dispersion that Druid V can’t equal. Overlapping both are the speed, agility, transparency and shove of the Zu Nano FRD. So, having the honest self-awareness to know what satisfies you most if your finances force a choice, will yield a crisp answer. If you can’t live with the trade-off, that’s your signal to save, and save, for Definition 4s.

Supertweeter Network Capacitors

Recently, there has been a lot of new interest in capacitor upgrades for the supertweeter high pass filter in Zu speakers, particularly the Druid and Definition. I have not been able to listen to all the available and oft-discussed options. My Def2s and Druid Mk 4-08s had Mundorf Silver-in-Oil caps. I had my Definition 4s built with V-Cap CuTF as an upgrade over the Mundorf. My Druid Vs were built with Mundorf Silver-in-Oil. In January, at Sean Casey’s recommendation, I had Clarity caps installed in both Def4s and Druid Vs. My Duelund capacitors are back-ordered (well, Zu urgently needed my pair for a more demanding customer), so I await them. I have heard Duelunds in non-Zu speakers. There are a few things I can say about capacitors at this stage, with more comments to follow as I put more contenders head-to-head.

1/ Every capacitor brand, formulation and composition brings specific attributes and a sonic signature. None are perfect. Not even Duelunds. You tend to think that what is best in current experience is as good as it gets until you hear something better. I can understand why someone feels ecstatic allegiance to Duelund caps, while at the same time appreciating why someone else prefers V-Cap TFTF or CuTF or some other alternative to them. For example, Sean Casey takes the position that Clarity caps bring 85% of Duelund’s sound quality to Definition 4 and Druid 5, for less than 1/3rd the retail cost. Elsewhere on this forum, another poster relates a conversation wherein Sean said something similar about the Audyn True Copper caps (90% for 10%). I haven’t heard the Audyn capacitors so have no comment right now. I will say that if Clarity is close to Duelund results, then both are a clear improvement over Mundorf Silver-in-Oil. The Clarity cap is both revealing and exceedingly smooth. But the case for Clarity (and by extension Duelund if Sean’s assessment holds) isn’t a slam-dunk compared to V-Cap CuTF or TFTF. There’s such a thing as too-smooth. This is reminiscent of the same disagreement I have with advocates of “slow” voiced SET amplifiers compared to the quick and transparent Audion SET amps that are so unlike most other SET brands. Some listeners are strongly attracted to a too-smooth representation. A lot of instruments have some harshness and rough texture in their output. The Clarity sands a touch of this off, just like (but less than) the round-sound old-school SET amp voicings some listeners favor. The V-Cap has more snap & tooth in its sound, but it is also less forgiving. I’m still in trial with a decision about whether to stick with Clarity or return to V-Cap CuTF or TFTF – as well as Duelund – pending. No, don’t bother assuring me that I’m going to love Duelund caps. Just consider me open to being convinced, but also not assuming a priori I will be.

2/ All of these exotic film caps take time to settle in. Clarity sounds great fresh but then they put you through a few weeks of meandering performance. They seem to be sensitive to temperature during the infant hours of use. We’ve had an unusually cold December and January here in Los Angeles, and I don’t use much furnace heat (you northerners and east coasters should see what people in SoCal consider a “furnace…”). A day of 64 degrees in my house sets breaking-in Clarity caps back a couple of steps. A warm day with internal temps in the high 70s pushes them forward. Then they go through a period of sounding beautiful on simple music, but shut down with congestion and blur on complex music. And then they start being reborn again to reassert their original convincing impression, and more. You have to be patient with any change.

3/ The Radian 850 in supertweeter application in Druid V and above in Zu’s line is intrinsically smooth, articulate, detailed and lovely. Frankly every cap sounds great into it, with the worst and the best still within the realm of excellent. You’ll hear differences and likely develop clear preferences, but even the basic Mundorf Silver-in-Oil sounds fully credible and completely acceptable in the absence of hearing something better. But the advantage of upgrading the Clarity (or Audyn True Copper, I imagine) is unmistakably beneficial to Def3’s supertweeter, and any earlier Definition or other Zu speaker using it, is fairly dramatic insofar as you are paying attention to top end harmonic character and are influenced by it. Clarity really tames much of the comparative roughness in the pre-Radian Zu supertweeter, compared to all the stock cap choices put in those speakers. What I’m saying is, pick your cap for Def4 and Druid5, knock yourself out. Some will sound definitely better but all will sound very fine. But if you have a Zu speaker using the older supertweeter and have an appetite to give them a worthwhile refinement, get a Clarity cap network upgrade. The cost is very reasonable and the benefit is disproportionately large at the price.

4/ There may be a cheap sleeper in capacitors. I was discussing film cap upgrades with Bob Hovland a couple of weeks ago. He mentioned that his more recent research indicated that the material consistency of the dielectric in film capacitors (even thickness & density, absence of pinholes) is more influential to sound quality than specific materials themselves. He wasn’t suggesting that all more exotic capacitors might not deliver someone’s preferred sound, but he does believe an excellent sounding cap can be made from prosaic materials. SuperCaps has a relatively new family of “Robert Hovland Edition” film caps that are highly affordable. They are handmade in the US, comprised of non-exotic materials, highly inspected during build and sealed tightly. I got some samples from Bob to try in my tube-output DACs and the results exceeded my expectations by a wide margin. They are more than good enough to settle on, and are staying in the DAC (mhdt Havana Balanced). He is next very eager for me to try a pair of 1uF/1000v versions in my Zu high-pass networks. I don’t know what to expect relative to Mundorf, Clarity, Audyn, Duelund but it’s a trial too interesting to not undertake. I’ll post back results, perhaps after I can put Duelunds in the mix, too.

Enough for now. I’m happy to add comments if questions are posted. I am sure I will remember something I intended to write here, but forgot.

Phil
213cobra
Steve,

Unless you are setting up a compact listening area within your 30x30 space, for relatively near-field listening, I think you will prefer Message for its Definition-like ability to spatially and dynamically scale, and to be more energetic with most amplifiers -- assuming the price difference isn't a barrier. Since you plan to delegate the deep bass duties to one or two Undertone sub(s), for that size space, if you want the most general sonic satisfaction for that room, Message's Definition-configuration scale will likely satisfy you more than Druid V. For anyone here who doesn't know what Message will be, it's Def4 sans powered sub, Griewe-loaded instead. Or put another way, it will be Omen Def built to Def4 levels of execution. Message was briefly outlined on Zu's web site and is referenced in some of the background in the 6moons Druid V review.

You certainly *can* use less than the available space to set up a near-field listening area to enjoy Druid V's advantaage in focus, but then you wouldn't be concerned about acoustically loading the whole space.

Think of tone, as I write about it, as sufficiently conveying the complete texture, distinctive harmonics and the fundamental character of people and instruments to be convinced of their presence naturally. The more you have those distracted moments when your attention shifts because a saxophone, singer or guitar, for example, sounded absolutely real and present, the more you are noticing tone. It's also the way electric guitar players think of tone -- the whole note is there; the character of the whole sound chain, from fingers, pick (or not) and style; neck wood, frets, nut and bridge materials; body, pickups, cable; the full voice of the amp along with the cone type of the driver and its motor; whether the baffle is ply or mdf, etc. The whole note is there; note just the suggestion of the note. Tone is comparative, since nothing gets all the way to absolutely real. To most, what I describe as a tone advantage in Druid V over Def4 is an esoteric difference that a lot of people aren't even sensitive to until they abandon crossover-based speakers. Message and Druid V are both going to give you essential Zu tone. But if you are biased to nth degree of tone over scale, then you'll appreciate Druid over Message. Most people are more variably excited by scale at small sacrifice of some nth degree of tone. Either way you're getting the essential Zu advantage in convincing tonal fidelity and dynamic life, and that's a big advantage over the vast majority of what you can buy at any price, in that particular respect.

Phil
Warrenh,

Thanks for your suggestion re:Def III. I was thinking Message would be my speed, because it houses all the Def4 cabinet work, Radian Tweeter, and Nano drivers. Def4 just without the subwoofer in the same case. Which could be problematic to set up external undertones in the room, but may also be beneficial with not having the sub activity affecting the main spkr cabinets resonance. My concerns are more whether I am losing anything going to dual FRD's instead of Druid..... Or is it all positive. I've never had the opportunity to hear Zu goodness. Too far away.
Phil, eloquent as always, but "tone" was just a cut above. Read it twice...nice stuff..

warren
Steve, I have gone the subwoofer route twice before with wonderful speakers. Both times it was impossible to achieve a seamless musical marriage between my speakers and sub. Many incorporate subs and love them, I suppose, but over the long run of listening, my system always sounded best when I put my sub to sleep and allowed my speakers to [just] be.
Wow Phil.

I think I "get" the idea of Tone now. Thank you. It is in fact the element that seems to be missing from the systems I listen to in the past. I used to chase HiFi sound, but that's like trying to marry a supermodel....fun but perhaps too high maintenance and not quite real life.

Could I also inquire as to a little more clarity or comparison regarding the "focus" as pertains to Druid vs Def/Message?
Thanks Warrenh.

I too have avoided owning a sub, as any I have tried seemed to sound like added on bass.... I was heartened by Srajan's recent Submission update... And I guess my thinking goes along the lines of this: I read rave reviews about Def4 with its in-built sub and electronics. Message would simply separate the boxes, like an amp/preamp vs integrated..... Also, my music taste is so wide, that some things I listen to need to have sub level slam. But I agree with you too.... They have a power switch for those times when it's only additive, not contributory.
Steve, I forgot to mention that my subwoofer experiences were based on speaker placement related to the sub. True, below 60hz? (maybe as high as 100) is omni directional, but there were too many room factors related to real life living and sub placement to get my "sound" right. And my listening space was much smaller than yours! I could have the sound I wanted only when the sub was right up close to my speakers. I'm not up on the Zu Message and how much it costs, but maybe you might want to save a little and do the Def IVs. A pair of those babies in your listening space with a 360 degree bass spray generated by the downfiring woofers, just might be the ticket.
Though I'm more of a jazzman, now, I still [top to bottom] follow and listen to the latest and greatest rock. And I'm not talking FUN. Anyway, when you're talking "slam" (Fender Bass stuff, Keith Moon double kick drums, etc.and being a Woodstock, Filmore East boy) I'm thinking Druids and two Submissions, or the easy breezy way; two Def 4s with (for those ear bleed, rocking, dancing, can't do anymore because I'm too old spl levels) 200 wpc to take you there. Deep pockets for the amp quality for rock is not a major concern for me, because who can listen at those spls for that long, except the yute. I find 35SET wpc in my living space does it for me, but does come a bit short when I want to go ballistic. This happens so rarely it ain't worth the time or dime. At 10 feet from my [now] Def 1.5s, I am SET for most of the time. Sorry for all this verbage. Waiting for my wife to get off the treadmill
What do you think about Omen Defs (with stereo subs) vs Def 4s?

Suppose the Omen Defs had radian tweeters?
No Radian 850 tweeter no "new" Zu for the Zuster. I love/ed my 1.5s, but on down the road the upper end was a major missing link, however, I would still be listening, with no itch to upgrade if one of my subwoofer amps hadn't blown; there be the click onto the Zu website which equaled Def IVs. $$ are always a factor, so do the best you can comfortably afford, and "delay your gratification" [M Scott Peck] until the Radian is possible.
Radian tweeter is really critical in the extra performance envelope of the Def4s/Druid Vs. For top quality, wouldn't look lower down in the range.
Re the Druid V/Submission v Def4/integrated sub bass, all I can say is that the Def4s have an amazingly nimble but powerful and extended bass performance, leaving you wanting for nothing. I really maintain a fair amount of spatial cues are encoded deep in the lower frequencies, and I'm sure they're stereo as well. Whether one can really seamlessly integrate 2x Submissions with a pair of DruidVs is an issue the integrated sub bass of the Def4s doesn't have to face.
Guys....any speaker is missing top end to me. I have worked this out for myself.

I do not think a speaker designer is going to 'get' my audio needs. Really, we sit and bitch and fume over a great speaker that doesn't have pinch of this and a pinch of that. F*** that thought.

I purchased a Fountek Neo 2.0 from Madisound. I have it on top of my Zu Audio Essence, crossed at 9kz with my Essence and dear god, used great SVS sub. If you think every speaker was made for you.....grow the hell up. Work with a great sound, and be happy. But, most of all, think for yourself:)
Zu is truly the GodZu. They have brought a wonderful product to market.

Now, work with their wonderful sound and make it your own. Please quit bitching about the small shit. That is up to you.

Dale
Getting very close to blast off. Christian, from Zu told me they would be shipping by the 20th, so I'll add the usual week before I go knocking on their door to find out the scoop. Phil to dial me in, and Mark to help me get those babies out of the box without dropping two or three disks. I'll be calling you when they be on the road. I'll be slipping my 1.5s into the crates for their journey to Zu. I'm going to luck out on the shipping, being 25lbs less than the IVs. 150lb, UPS, is the starting point where it becomes a freight charge. Twice the price. I'll just get in under so the shipping will just be ridiculous.
>>Could I also inquire as to a little more clarity or comparison regarding the "focus" as pertains to Druid vs Def/Message?<<

This is difficult to answer for a general audience, because I don't want to magnify or overstate the difference, yet I do want people who are interested to understand it. OK, try this: Definition/Message/Omen Def are IMAX Digital at your stadium-seating multiplex. Even if you're alone, it feels like a group experience. Druid V is a personal screening of a 35mm fresh film print, plush and organic, with some of the sharper details sanded slightly smoother in exchange for a seamless continuum in color tone. Even if others are with you, it feels like watching something intended for your eyes only.

Definition and Message have higher...well...definition. But their presentation of a performance doesn't seem quite as personally and singularly directed to you as with Druid. On the other hand, Druid's personal experience doesn't wash over you with tidal wave of sound like Definition and its dual-FRD relatives.

There's also the small but discernible factor that two of something never behave with quite the absolute unity of one of the same thing. But Definition's benefits from the dual FRD M-t-M arrangement outweigh the small sacrifice in absolute unity, so it is for most circumstances the more convincing speaker, at higher cost.

This trade off between focus and scale in the Def/Druid comparison has narrowed considerably with Def4/Druid V. It was a big difference previously. But Def4 has more range downward in its scalar characteristics, and Druid has more range upward in scalar presentation, than prior versions of each. In the Def3/Druid V comparison, it's also a narrower difference than Def2/Druid4.

Before writing this, I made a point of listening yesterday for a few hours to bigger, more bombastic music on Druid Vs, that I usually play on my Def4s. Druids had no trouble exciting me with the energy of the music. They stepped-up nicely, cranked. So it's not a stark choice that denies you one thing to get another. I also played smaller scale music on Def4s that I usually play on Druids, and Defs didn't force bigger-than-life sound on the performer.

Phil
Phil (213cobra),

Would you care to comment on the Soul Supreme vs. Druid V? Am I to understand that the Supreme contains the Radian tweeter with the HO FRD? Does the Supreme have the Nano driver?

I had a pair of the original Superflys and sold them in favour of Harbeth SHL5. I'm thinking about jumping back into the Zu pool and was wondering which would represent the most bang for the buck - Druid V or Soul Supreme.

Thank you in advance for your excellent commentary.
Phil, so what be the 70mm fresh print version via Zu Audio?...I'm just busting ya, but I know you'll have a retort...lol..
>>What do you think about Omen Defs (with stereo subs) vs Def 4s? Suppose the Omen Defs had radian tweeters?<<

Def4s will sound more authentic and refined, capable of far more nuance and finesse. The cabinet of Def4 is a huge upgrade over Omen Def, all by itself. It ought to be. Add the Radian 850 in Def4 and it's no contest. Even if the Radian were available in Omen Def, the comparative cabinet talk in that speaker remains an issue, not to mention the greater challenge of attaining equal sub integration.

If however, your priority for similar money is bone-shaking house party sound not serving a listening position, Omen Def + stereo Submissions will get that job done impressively.

Phil
>>Would you care to comment on the Soul Supreme vs. Druid V?<<

Soul Supreme is Soul with the Nano FRD, and the Radian 850 in supertweeter dutiy, just like Druid V. It also has the Speakon connector, so with Zu cable, full B3 can be extended to the amp outputs. Soul Supreme costs $1000 less than Druid V in the US, so you can imagine the two are not quite the same.

Soul Supreme is a smaller speaker. Not surprisingly, Soul Supreme sounds smaller than Druid V. It also does not have Druid V's massive machined aluminum plinth, so it sounds a little less "grounded." Soul's center of sonic gravity is a little higher. Additionally, the cabinet has less internal treatment so it contributes some measure of cabinet talk that Druid V silences. And Druid V's Griewe acoustic impedance loading scheme is more sophisticated and complete than Soul's, so Druid V's bass is more agile and controlled.

The two speakers have the same essential voicing, but these differences are genuine. Soul is nominally the higher value-per-dollar product because it has the essential benefits of the Nano FRD + Radian 850 + B3 + Griewe in a smaller, easier-to-produce and lower-materials-cost package. But for anyone willing the pay the price difference, Druid V will be the higher-finesse speaker, and the one I think closer to the preferences that led you to Harbeth after owning the original Superfly. And for that Druid V is the better bang-for-the-buck speaker for you.

Phil
>>so what be the 70mm fresh print version via Zu Audio?<<

I knew as soon as I wrote that 35mm film reference, someone would raise the 70mm question. And I also knew I wouldn't be surprised if it was you to do it, Warren.

The 70mm fresh print is Zu Druid V driven by Audion Golden Dream 300B PSET silver-coil-content monoblock amps running KR Audio 300B globe style tubes, just like in my Druids system!

Phil
Phil, have you had any reliability issues with the KR 300b tube?
It used to be Israel Blume's choice for sound quality but he said he experienced too many premature failures with it.Is there a certain vintage that's better than others?
Regards,
>>have you had any reliability issues with the KR 300b tube<<

Nope, not a thing. I've never had a problem with either KR Enterprise or the current KR Audio 300B tubes. They can be a little noisy for the first 50 hours or so as they burn in, but that disappears and they get quiet, dynamic, detailed and toneful. They are very illuminating in Audion and other 300B amps I've listened to them in, with the best bass of any 300B tube I've used over the years.

I think Blume isn't using it because of the cost. They have risen quite a bit over the past decade. No one makes it their stock tube except KR for their electronics. The Coincident amps would have to cost more if stocked with KR.

The prior KR Enterprises company from Dr. Kron's days made reliable 300B tubes but I think the current KR Audio 300B sounds a little better. The older tubes were dialed more to impact and definition and less to tone. I think the current tube is more centered in that continuum. I have a quad of NOS KR Enterprise tubes and I suppose on close inspection I can see some more meticulous workmanship in tubes built when Dr. Kron was still alive, but this has not translated into any difference in reliability that I've experienced. These tubes are at least on par with Emission Labs and EAT 300B, which are also excellent, but the KR Audio is the "fastest."

How it compares to your Takatsuki, I can't say. But I've heard the KR 300B against everything else relevant and comparable that I can think of and I have no hesitation to recommend it. I prefer the KR to the modern-production Western Electric and the Shuguang re-issue of same, for instance. One notable exception: I haven't heard the Sophia Royal Princess yet. KR Audio offers the 300B in both globe and coke bottle glass. They sound subtly different, but both have the essential KR traits of speed, discipline, definition and bass control with convincing tone.

I say this all with some conviction, since my Golden Dream monoblocks are PSET and require 4 300B tubes, total -- which means there are some pretty decent amps that cost less than my Golden Dream power tubes.

Phil
Phil,
While were on the subject of KR tubes, have you heard the KR 845? And if so what is your opinion on the KR 845 vs. (my current) Shuguang 845B. What would I expect for the additional cost? Thanks
>>have you heard the KR 845<<

I have. The KR is an "out-of-spec" 845, really KR's idiosyncratic take on the tube. It sounds fast, clean, linear and extended. Bass is deep but somewhat leaner than the 845B, at least in my Audions. Other circuits may vary. The top end is quicker than the 845B and sounds somewhat more extended. Midrange isn't as meaty tonally but it is clean and pure. The KR sounds spatially big and trades away a little shove in favor of more nuance, than the B tube.

The first few years of the KR845's production were rocky. KR put a ribbon filament in their 845, and poor production tolerances let to filament shorts in the field, resluting in some spectacular failures. So I had avoided that tube. It's also gotten much more expensive over the past six years or so. KR believes they have solved the reliability problem, and I certainly can't say they haven't. Reports of failures seem to have abated quite a lot. The owner of Audion says the KR is a drop-in replacement for Black Shadow and Elite amps, and it's his favorite tube for them, for example. He's had no trouble.

However, the filament current draw is different from 845 spec, so depending what amp you are using, you may need to make a component change in the filament supply to be sure of reliable operation, particularly for the amp. Ask the maker. BTW, if you have an 845 amp that uses the tube conservatively, you may be able to get many of the KR benefits from the Shuguang 845C sheet-metal-plate tube. But its dissipation rating is only 70w against the RCA spec of 100w, which the B conforms to (dissipation, not power). If you put it in an Audion amp, for instance, the 845C mildly "cherrys" but doesn't go runaway. It's tolerable but will shorten the life of the tube. The 845C also has an extended top end and crystal clarity, but in some amps, like mine, also is decidedly bright.

If you're interested in the KR845, two other upmarket priced tubes might also be interesting. The very limited production, scarce, and difficult to buy Elrod 845 is reputed to be unbeatable. Last I saw they are $1800/pr., with a long wait. For less than half that, the new Sophia 845 Mk III is gaining traction as a premium 845. I haven't heard it yet.

Of course at the prices of the top-of-market 845 tubes, you have to consider NOS RCA, United or GEs. They are still available though perfect pairs can be $1600 - $2400.

Phil
Phil,
Thanks for your reply.Israel offered the KR as an optional upgrade,the EH Golden Grid is the standard tube.The current upgrade is the Shuguang/Psvane Black glass tubes.The Takatsuki is nothing short of sublime (but also very expensive) I believe you`d like them(a lot). The Sophia Royal Princess sounds excellent in my amp,much better than the reissued W.E.

The KR 300b sounds very interesting as does the EML Mesh plate tube.I`m glad to hear you`ve had no problems with the KRs.I`d like to hear them one day.
Regards,
since this the Zu family I have to exclaim:
my Def 4s are going to be delayed a couple of weeks because Zu is (due to the Chinese NY) waiting on the Radian tweeter. I emailed Christian about (since I re-terminated my Ibis [obviously too early] readying it for my 4s)a serious situation I have listening to chicken wire (pretty close)for the next two plus weeks. Well he's making up some (if he does not have in stock) speaker cables for me to hold me over until the big day. He asked me the length I need and any special spade measurement. I'll send them back with the 1.5s Who does this stuff? Great guys.
@ Phil,

I can't tell you how wonderful your reviews are. Truly, simply 'killer'. You do rip Sixmoons a new one. I do appreciate their attention to to Zu.....except for Audiobeat...where is there ripping excellent review?

I am reading todays posts and taking it all in. Simply wonderful illucidation on one of my fav subjects. I am 'lusting' in my heart for the new Druids....I love intimate...and you termed the 'difference' wonderfully....to my eyes, at least. Honest? I have zero doubt. I do love my Essences.

Hey, here is toast to Sean and Co.. You guys do everything that I have lusted after:)

Dale
Phil, I have no idea what the "speakon wire adaptors" are, but why o why wouldn't Christian think of that? Certainly the easier, so you say, way to go. Go figure. I fired him an email.
Dale,

I'm happy to help. Let me add one thing: Everything I write here is stream-of-consciousness -- one pass and I submit. I squeeze these posts in between obligations elsewhere in a professional life completely removed from audio. I don't have the time to edit to the polish of a publication, online or print. So my posts are what a publication would consider a rough draft, and unfortunately some typos don't get taken out before I post.

I use my time here to try to be as direct as possible with answers that I hope become actionable, in the absence of the robust dealer network that existed when I started out in hifi, and you could just go hear what you were interested in, in just about any city. We're a long way from those days of hifi being mainstream.

Phil
Hi Phil,
On the topic of 845 tubes, at CES this year I heard a spectacular PSET 845 amp, the Absolare Passion. The best sound I heard at the show and it uses a 845 made in Germany.Are you aware of any premium quality 845s from that country?
Regards,
Charles, this is what confuses me. "the best sound" you heard at the show: how do you know what it was that made it the best sound? Why the 845s and not the speakers, or pre, cables, the whole nine.
Phil, In California, don't they call that a cathartic experience...well, at least a long while ago. It has made its way to NY...
>>Are you aware of any premium quality 845s from that country (Germany)?<<

Yes; Elrod. Scarce, hard to buy, always back-ordered. Cylinder bottle with a flat top. Kind of its own thing; reputed to be outstanding. Something like $1800/pr. Most of the photos of Absolare 845 amps show the Psvane 845 in use, which was disappointing to me for $52,000 amps. Elrod should be commensurate with the amp.

Phil
Charles, the Absolare amps you heard at CES used the Elrog ER-845 that are made in Germany.
Vetterone,
Thanks for the information.

Warrenh,
I'm aware that what I heard is an entire system and not simply the amplifier. However in this case when the MSB SS amplifier was used in this system the sound was respectable but nothing more.When the Absolare Passion amplifier replaced the MSB, the sound was transformed with profound sound quality improvement. All other system components and audio items remained unchanged, the only variable different was the power amplifier substitution.
It was actually a stunning example of a amplifier's impact.So yes this so impressed me Iwant to learn as much as possible about this marvelous Absolare (including the 845 tubes it used).You had to be there.
Regards,
The maker of these german 845 tubes is Klaus Schaffernicht.Besides use in the Absolare amplifier they are also the stock tube in the VoXativ ER 845 monoblocks.This seems to be a recent addition in the upper cost 845 arena.
Regards,
charles, that is the ideal situation to evaluate the amp. Now comes the tube part. I am interested, now, in hearing feedback about the ER-845...and you know the guy.
Warrenh,
I don't know very much about the maker of these tubes.When talking to the owner of Absolare at the show he did say they methodically tested many 845s and the designers settled on the elrog ER 845.All I can attest to is the sound in that room was the most natural (antithesis of typical hifi) realistic I've ever heard in a show or demonstration. How much contribution did the tube account for, who knows? I know this, they sure did'nt hurt.That 50 watt PSET amplifier completely outperformed the highly regarded 200 watt MSB amplifier matched with Rockport speakers in that particular system.The difference was that dramatic.
Regards,
At the show the Absolare were uisng the Elrog ER 845.I was told this is their tube of choice.It is an expensive tube and may be worth it, time will tell.
Regards,
Dale,

I'm happy to help. Let me add one thing: Everything I write here is stream-of-consciousness -- one pass and I submit. I squeeze these posts in between obligations elsewhere in a professional life completely removed from audio. I don't have the time to edit to the polish of a publication, online or print. So my posts are what a publication would consider a rough draft, and unfortunately some typos don't get taken out before I post.

I use my time here to try to be as direct as possible with answers that I hope become actionable, in the absence of the robust dealer network that existed when I started out in hifi, and you could just go hear what you were interested in, in just about any city. We're a long way from those days of hifi being mainstream.

Phil
Phil, are a great reviewer. If believe I referenced Mr. Hull. I enjoy him very much. I enjoy you very much. I have him to review Zu. He isn't into that. You and I are. I simply thank you for having done what you have:)

Dale
Nhocti,
The current Dagogo.com review of the Melody AN 300b intergrated amplifier is very flattering.The reviewer Phillip Holmes seems smitten by it,congratulations.
Regards,
I've been talking with Sean for a year or so now, trying to arrange to bring a Zu in. I think we're now on target for something fun to head this way in late summer ....
Ibis owners: what is the purpose of that heavy hunky metal jammie at the end of each cable? I cannot believe I have owned these superlative cables for 6 years and have not (though wondered) put it out to Zu or you. Since I'm auditioning the Events; there it be....
Hi guys. I ran this buy The Cobra, February 13, (213), and respect to death his opinion, but I would love to know if thefd are any Definition owners that have swicthed to Zu's new cable (Event) from their Ibis and for what reason? I'd love to know, as well, what the amp you are using to drive your babies. The tweeter in the 1.5s was always, though nice, a weakness for me. Out of the box, the Events are sweeter on top. That will only, from experience, get better. I'm wondering with the new Def tweeter this is not a factor. This may be a hard thread to find Zu people who have sampled both and made a decision. Either way, I am interested in your thoughts on the Event, if that is in the equation. So far so good, but auditiory memory is ephemeral, and ABing is not a reasonable thing, now, given the 1.5s are going deep south. thanks so much in advance.
So fellow Zuists- have a new pair of amps coming in- the Valvet 3.5 MKii monoblocks. 50 watts, class A with a single pair of transistors each. Excellent, simple build quality. Will see if they supplant McIntosh as the best SS I've had on Defs (I preferred 601s to FirstWatt SITs as previously posted).