Zu Druid IV - the real deal?

Chazzbo,

The appeal of Zu speakers is in their holistic representation of music. Frequency accuray is sensational on Definitions, and very good on Druids. Phase coherence is about as good as you have experienced and far better than most speakers. Top-top-bottom consistency of transient behavior is uniform. And detail is revealed without sacrificing body in the tone. Add to that the ease of driving 101db/w/m speakers with relatively benign impedance curves and you have speakers that are unusually communicative of expression and intimate, but which scale spatially and dynamically to ambitious music.

I have two systems, one built around Druids and the other centered on Definitions. After over 30 years of serious involvement in hifi as hobby, and the music interests behind that, Zu speakers are among the top handful of genuine advances in fidelity I've heard in that time.

A key characteristic that drives the unusual tonal excellents and coherence to the Zu sound is absence of crossovers. You don't have to accept the tonally disruptive effects of crossovers, and the dynamic constriction they inevitably cause. Being free of crossovers can take some getting used to, as can the phase linearity of the full-range driver design, but the behavior of these design attributes is startlingly reinforcing of your illusion of musical reality from recorded performances. The jump factor of very high efficiency combined with a strong-motor driver that is as dynamically engaging as real instruments only adds to the value of Zu's speakers in an overhyped market.

Last, don't discount the contribution made by having speakers able to be driven forcefully by modest output amplifiers. Able to choose power amplifers on the strict merits of sonic signature and not on power, Zu owners have unusual latitude to find their sound.

Phil

D wants measurements from me. What good would it do for me to measure any speaker in my house? Neither I nor anyone else here listens in an anechoic chamber and hardly anyone has their room treated or EQ'd to flat response itself. More to the point, every location I listen to live music in imposes its own acoustic signature too. I've had plenty of speakers in my home that measured "flat." This had only limited relationship to sonic fidelity. No one has yet measured the aggregated simultaneous behaviors of a speaker transducing music. So, yeah, measurements are interesting, and have some relevance, but are not exclusively determinant.

Zu provides specs on efficiency, frequency distribution and on phase coherence. The speakers sound pretty much like they describe, and then some. They also sound like they are missing crossovers, which they are and which is a good thing.

So, bottom line is that in their price ranges, Zu's speakers deliver frequency accuracy, dynamic projection, phase coherence, uniformity of transient behavior top-to-bottom, frequency range and efficiency in sufficient balance to transduce a superior illusion of musical reality from the electrical signal they are fed. Most of us who own them think very few speakers at any price meet or exceed Zus in this regard. And some of the folks who don't own them refuse to accept the conclusion of those who do. It's easy to resolve. Skeptics can uy them and return them if you don't agree. Or get to a location where you can hear them and decide. Fly, drive, walk, hitchhike to Utah and get a demo at the factory from the guys who design and build the speakers. Do what you want, but the answer remains the same. I'm highly experienced at this hobby, have benefit of industry friends if I want something else, get to hear most gear that has any modicum of credibility, and I ventured to buy Zu. The result is that both my systems are at equilibrium and the sound quality I have is the most realistic and natural attained so far, 35 years after buying my first piece of true hifi gear. To answer the original question, yes, Zu Druid is the real deal, and this applies more dramatically still to Definitions.

Phil

Dave,

The reason you might have to "get used to" the sound of a speaker is that the absence of a crossover in an otherwise tonally accurate speaker yields a sound quite unlike what you've heard from conventional speakers. The hifi loudspeaker industry has made most people accustomed to phase incoherence, inconsistent transient behavior and choked dynamics as you approach crossover points. Not to mention serious cabinet contribution to sound character for better or worse. When you really hear a voice or an instrument juxtaposed with most speakers, even good ones, you realize how dissimilar the two sound.

In my case, this initial period of disorientation lasted about 3 minutes and then I realized what was going on. I reconnected a pair of my prior speakers and realized there was no going back. Then you begin to notice the extraordinary jump factor and dynamic shadings these speakers are able to transduce in sharp relief. The essential unity of sound you get from a Zu speaker makes its own case, but for many people it will be the first time they've heard such a thing.

Phil

Dave,

Yes, the Definitions are well worth the additional cost over Druids. In every way, the Definition is the more accurate capable speaker -- except one. The Druid can be used relatively near field and does have a special intimacy of presentation on close listening of modest scale music. Otherwise, Definitions are wider-band, tonally more neutral, considerably more revealing of fine detail and micro-dynamics, and they scale up for large performances. That said, you need a larger room than for Druids, and usually 11 linear feet of distance from speaker baffle to ear, or more, for the Definition's sound to fully integrate.

I've said in the past that Druids give you the essential Zu qualities and 70% of Definition sound at 30% of the price. But that remaining 30% is well worth paying for if you can afford Defs.

As for your desire for more clarity on the matter of why you might have to get accustomed to a Zu speaker, I'll say it a little differently: Speakers as a whole just haven't been very good to date. The transducers in general are where a disproportionate number of the problems occur in the hifi chain, because their job is difficult. We've come to believe in the progress of cumulative technical development, and many have learned to discern improvements to products derived from a mistaken path. We all know that hifi at best is still a miserable approximation of sonic reality, but it gives us enough cues to be convinced, mind filling in the rest. The holism of a Zu speaker's behavior and sonic presentation is more like a real instrument's sound, but the absence of distortions and compressions we've become accustomed to accepting as part of hifi *can* make them sound momentarily disorienting when you're comparing them to another conventional speaker. If everyone got the speakers and immediately compared their sound on a trusted recording to the sound of a live instrument, it's far less likely this momentary disorientation would occur.

Phil