Zu Druids upgraded Vs Essence

I had an extended comparative listen to Essence and my Druid Mk4-08, as well as my Definition 2s, in my home.

As background pertinent to this particular question of whether a Druid 4-08 owner should upgrade to Essence, I'll add that I started in Zu with a used pair of Druids five years ago that were, as Sean Casey then noted, "...somewhere around Druid 2-1/2." A later change took them to "...about 3-1/2..." And then they were upgraded to Mk 4-08 shortly after that option became available.

I agree with facets of everyone's observations about Essence vs. Druid 4-08. Both Bonesetter and Audiofeil, for example, are correct. Druid and Essence do have distinctly different sounds, and yet compared to most speakers they have more in common than in difference, due to the prevalent character of the Zu FRD.

So, I'll first answer the question posed, then explain. My advice to anyone who already owns and loves Druid Mk 4-08s is to forego Essence and stay with Druids until you can afford or are inclined to make a bigger jump up the Zu line. That said, anyone not already in possession of Druid 4-08 and new to Zu will likely be deeply impressed by the speaker, for all the reasons Zu owners trumpet, and that Art Dudley noted in his Stereophile review.

No doubt, Essence sounds more like most people expect a quality loudspeaker to sound, than does Druid. Essence has just enough greater low-end extension to impress the listener as "full range" and not in need of a sub-woofer. The actual response difference before roll-off is only about 8 Hz (advantage Essence), but the presence of bass more fully underpins the music in all respects. This is directly a function of the larger cabinet loaded with a full Griewe cartridge and that works just great. Top end isn't actually as much more extended on the Essence as it sounds, but here the difference in presentation is divergent. Druid has a reserved teble character while Essence puts the entire high-frequency content of whatever you're listening to right up front. You've moved much closer to the performance. This is almost entirely due to the switch to a ribbon supertweeter in Essence. The sparkle factor common to hi-fi is fully accounted for, clean and incisive without ringing. But the ribbon is bit of a trick way to get more of the resolution and frequency extension of Definition without the more costly (and correct) high frequency output management possible from its two FRD + supertweeter configuration. Together, Essence's bass and high treble presence yield a speaker that delivers the essential character of Zu FRD crossoverless sound in a speaker that emulates commonly-available good hi-fi speakers.

There's also a difference in dispersion and soundstaging. The Essence FRD is unique to Essence in Zu's line -- you will notice a small difference in its whizzer cone as well as a large difference in phase plugs. Essence will spray sound over a broader area, getting from the single FRD configuration more of the dispersion delivered by the two FRD Definition. So Essence scales spatially better than Druid with a much larger sweet spot, and in particular would be a more successful HT / music double-duty speaker. Essence is and will be a successful speaker for Zu because it meets mainstream expectations for how loudspeakers sound. Essence could be successfully sold in a Magnolia store alongside Sonus Faber and Vienna, while Druid probably could not irrespective of its quality.

But if you own Druids and appreciate that speaker's magic for what it is, then Essence takes some of that away. This is the cost of incorporating the ribbon tweeter in Essence. Notice the specs: Essence has an efficiency rating of 97 db/w/m whereas Druid was 101 db/w/m. The FRD in Essence is dialed back a bit to match the lower efficiency of the speaker's ribbon supertweeter. Now, if you are new to very high efficiency crossoverless speakers that also handle gobs of power, that 97db/w/m will seem revelatory. But if you're already accustomed to 101db/w/m, that 4db loss in jump factor and tonal density is audible, and missed.

To be clear: I have two systems and one of them has Definition 2s, so I have subterranean bass available in the next room. Still, for me Druid is not a bass-shy speaker and I listen to them as much as my Definitions. Good to 38Hz is fine with me, especially when the bass coming from the speaker is as natural and defined as it is from a Druid 4-08. Likewise, Druid 4-08 does not lack high frequency response -- it is simply a more distant perspective. So I don't value the differences here in the top and bottom extensions as much as many (maybe most) speaker buyers do. What I do know for certain *for me* is that the small-but-noticeable reduction in midrange tonal density and dynamic life forced upon Essence by adoption of the ribbon tweeter is not worth any changes to the extremes, given that I already have Druid 4-08s. Many people will emphatically disagree.

I auditioned Essence expecting I'd want to upgrade, though when I heard that Zu had chosen to incorporate a ribbon tweeter, I was skeptical of the decision. Hearing the two, I elected not to change, for reasons noted.

Druids were a polarizing proposition, which in some respects helps a young company get off the ground. Hi-Fi mavens tended to either love them quickly for all the right reasons, or question whether the owner knew anything about high-fidelity audio at all. Non-audiphile music lovers tended to embrace them. I am also pretty sure that WAF generally favors the slender depth profile of Druid over the bulkier-but-same-footprint Essence. However, no doubt Essence is more of an 85/15 proposition in favor on sound. It has a crossoverless mid-range correctness most people rarely hear, dynamic life completely alien to the majority of attainable hi-fi, but with top and bottom extension that cues high-end audio respect.

The differences I am citing are likely too fine for anyone but an existing Zu Druid 4-08 owner (or a sufficiently-interested audio geek willing to spend the time comparing) to appreciate or care about. But I do think that most Druid 4-08 owners will hear those differences as larger and prefer to keep their speakers, skipping Essence in favor of stretching to Definitions or jawboning Sean to build a pair of Presence. Or just enjoy what they have and see how the Zu line evolves.

But that's just me.

Phil

What people here are referring to as Zu's "Soul" speaker is a prototype. It's not yet a product, not yet priced and not yet documented in product collateral as everything about it is subject to change along the way to what tech companies call "FCS" -- First Customer Ship.

Phil

The supertweeter on the new prototype speaker is dynamic.

Random notes from the thread:

The ribbon supertweeter in Essence is not "dead." Quite the contrary. It's very much alive and present, and Zu has done a better job of seamlessly mating a ribbon to a dynamic main driver than anyone else I've heard try in a production loudspeaker.

Presence and Essence aren't voiced the same. That is to say, Presence is certainly full range, with its powered sub-bass array (like Definition) but it does not have what we loosely here term "hi-fi" traits somehow trading away musicality. It's very much in the "Druids + Sub" realm, more highly resolved. People argue whether Presence was more Druid or more Definition. The two FRD configuration allows acoustic management not possible in the Druid/Presence architecture. For me, Presence was conclusively more a polished "Druid sound + stereo MiniMethods, than Definition Lite. Essence is voiced more as a crowd-pleaser also built in a decor-friendlier form factor and much more affordable, for good reasons. The two aren't meant to be equal.

Phil

Bonesetter,

First, I'm glad my prior posts helped you with a buying decision, and you ended up happy. Next, if you found my prior notes on Druids and Zu actionable, then know that if you love Druids you will love Presence. It is the Druid voicing and tone density with the equivalent of stereo subwoofers, without the integration problems. The treble contour on the supertweeter is just a slight bit more lively, owing to the fact that the FRD, relieved of trying for deep bass, has higher resolution and warrants a touch more heat on the tweet.

Don't think too harshly of the more mainstream aim of Essence. First, its sound lubricates its market acceptance which helps Zu invest in their product line, and second, it is a first iteration of a Zu FRD + Ribbon combination. It will be further developed. Like an excitable child, it will be pulled back into line in 2nd gen refinement. I think it's OK for their line to have a centerpoint tipped a bit to mainstream notions of high-fidelity. It will be a revelation to plenty, and those of us who were originating customers can continue to buy around that centerpoint. A Druid 4-08 owner can be patient.

Presence certainly does have as its main difference the powered sub-bass array and it also offers bass/room tuning possibilities through bi-amping and bass EQ that are absent in a Druid alone. I've heard Presence and it is better than Druid in more than bass and dynamic authority, though the real upgrade to aim and save for is Definition.

Of course there is another upgrade path: the rest of the system. Again, understand that my Druids system is my secondary system. But liking the specific qualities of Druid and finding it a worthy presenter of gear above its grade, the preamp and monoblock amps on that system are worth, retail-for-retail, about 6X the speakers. Now that will seem peculiar to some. One of the consequences of Zu speakers is that the fulcrum of fidelity for your system moves to the power amplification. That's the pivot point that determines the character and quality reach of your system once the Zu FRD is introduced. By traditional measures, you'd expect that Druids warrant no more than a good integrated amp. No. Just as some owners used to run extravagent amplification into a pair of LS3/5a because their midrange quality warranted the expense, Druid is an exception to the traditional norms for distribution of funds within a given system. It punches far above its weight.

I'm serious. If you accept the idea of a speaker being worthy of much greater expense invested upstream, in Zu's case an exceptional $15,000 source mated to a $5,000 amplifier will not sound as good as a good $3,000 source mated to $17,000 of the right amplification. Truly good amps are still scarce. Lots of "hi-fi," not so much realism. But a VPI Classic + Zu103 or similar is only $3,000 and it's a great analog source. The same amount or much less buys many great options in digital players or a DAC for PC audio. It's good amps that are hard to find. No doubt you'd have to consider just taking that kind of cash and buying Definitions plus appropriate amplification. But not every room can handle Defs, whereas Druids are fine all the way down to a closet.

There have always been speakers with specific holistic sound attributes to make these aberrant spending distributions worthwhile. Quad ESL, Dynaco A25 and A50, Large Advent; LS3/5a, Dahlquist DQ10, Apogees, Audio Physic Virgo, Sonus Faber Cremona, Reference 3a L'Integrale and Veena, Zu Druid and Definition. If you love Druids, you have lots of headroom to upgrade.

Phil

Afc,

High-efficiency speakers -- especially single driver types -- have their peculiarities and some of them are hard to live with. I've never been willing to trade away midrange tonal accuracy to get the palpable dynamic aliveness and holistic presentation of a Fostex or Lowther-based loudspeaker, though that's heaven to some music lovers. I tried Avant-gard and while they were among the best horn driver speakers I've heard, no amount of forgiveness or distraction could mask their lingering horn-ness. Music served the speaker rather than the speaker serving the music. But others raved. You have to know your acute sensitivities. I can't live with shout, even a little.

Zu opened the door to high-efficiency speakers for me, by reasonably combining high sensitivity with high power handling, excellent octave-to-octave balance with harmonic frequency extension through judicious use of a supertweeter and the holistic presentation of a single driver speaker. And over the last decade of the company's progress, they've steadily refined their full range driver and factory break-in procedure to push single-drive "shout" to the vanishing point.

I have Credenzas in my office system. That speaker really is the top 18 inches of a Druid, so lacking the cabinet height for partial Greiwe implementation, bass rolls off quickly below 50Hz.

A Zu subwoofer is a perfect match, since most other subs don't have the transient speed and definition to mate well with the Zu main driver. No floppy-surround, long-excursion cone thump boxes need apply. No, not even REL. So Credenzas + Method or MiniMethod sub(s) will go deeper than Druids alone. But it does mean placing more boxes and running more cabling around the room.

Credenza is genuinely a credenza speaker as it doesn't really sit well on stands built for modern small-driver monitors. If you had such a stand, it would take up the same footprint as a pair of Druids or Essence and the combined weight of Credenza plus any credible stand would be similar to or greater than Druids or Essence alone.

Essence is flat down to about 30Hz and the bass it produces is defined and tonally true so you're not left wanting a sub unless you crave movie scores at their most bombastic. But if you like the idea of Credenzas + subs, have at it. Just make sure the sub is quick.

Phil

Matro,

Consider that prototype interesting in form only. I saw it at a Zu field outing here in California. The evolving prototype that becomes a product is already different.

Phil

Regarding Soul: A friend of mine here in Los Angeles just took delivery of s/n 0001/0002 Soul speakers. His are Superfly. This speaker is better than a Druid Mk 4-08 in every way, for less cash. The FRD is below the supertweeter so that it would fit in the tapered cabinet while sticking to Zu's preference for packaging their sound in a 1 s.f. footprint. Zu extended what they learned in designing and building Essence -- their first full-Griewe implementation -- to a more economical structure and build process while further improving the Griewe model in practice. This speaker upends traditional notions of how to allocate system resources. It truly takes full advantage of high performance amplification and accentuates the reality that a system with Zu speakers moves the fulcrum for fidelity to the power amps. You'll see Soul Superfly systems with power amps that cost 5X and the resulting sound will be entirely legitimate. In fact, I'll go so far as to say that $9500 worth of the right power amplification on $2600 of Soul Superfly will sound better than a good budget amp on Definitions.

Phil

Zanon: Soul gets *more* bass extension from the smaller cabinet than Druid, because of the Griewe model working inside a tapered cabinet. They've also eliminated, in a different way from Essence, the Druid's ultra-sensitivity to the floor-to-base gap when dialing in bass balance. You just set Soul down and roll some signal into them.

As for flea amplification on Zu: It does work. A 2w 45 amp will sound beautiful and be as or more dynamically suitable as any number of other HE Fostex or Lowther-based designs. But 2w are 2w. So the second watt gets you to 104db/w/m -- that doesn't mean you're getting ease and dynamic integrity. A solid 20-25w 845 amp will drive them fine in nearly any practical application, but not all 25w amps have the same apparent drive. A 25w PSET 300B amp will be dynamically less compelling but possibly tonally richer still. In a push-pull amp you might not be happy with less than 40w, but a pair os 15w Quad Classic II sound sublime and alive. Generally in solid state, you'll want more oomph unless the amp has an oversize power supply and lots of headroom for transient clarity. Yet despite the efficiency, a pair of McIntosh MC501s would not be out of place with any Zu speaker. It just depends on the actual behavior relationship between a given power amp and the Zu FRD. Just keep in mind in this case, the Soul's impedance is higher than prior Zu speakers. Up from the Druid's 12 ohms to 16.

Phil

>> if I get PushPull frankly I might as well stick with solid state. The magic I hear is in SET<<

There's plenty of magic in a well-executed push-pull tube amp that is elusive in p-p solid state. The two devices are dynamically quite different, and tonally dissimilar - except when they're not. While I agree on the preference for SET, and especially love the synergy between 845 SET and the Zu FRD, you can get excellent results from exceptional p-p tube amps like a used Jadis, Quad Classic II, Quad Two-Forty, vintage Mac MC225 or MC40, MC30 monoblocks, MC240, EAR, Wright Sound, Luxman, lots of others, will yield a sound so distinctly different from p-p solid state as to be essentially unavailable from silicon. If you like silicon better, fine. But p-p topology doesn't make the difference between solid state and vacuum tubes moot. In solid state, Pass-designed amps tend to sound very fine. The current Luxman Class A integrated is a great match; 47 Labs, LFD, Valvet's power amps.

Phil