I’ve just read through the bottom third of a very, very long and passionate thread here regarding Zu speakers, generally centered around whether or not our designs employ crossover networks or not. After doing this, and with a great deal of restraint not to write you all off or retort “screw ‘em all” (Yes, I try and keep a clean mouth, had the other word there for a bit but on reread... But honestly, I might have to use such words to keep the attention here.)
I feel a nice long ramble coming on but before I open it up full throttle all cross-country like letting it all ride, let me make a few brief points. I also know that in order to accurately communicate we must use technical jargon and it is also evident that the majority I will be communicating with are concept-oriented and likely do not have a fundamental background in loudspeaker design or physics. Very likely you are getting your info from that STD cookbook—how to build iffy loudspeaker by VD. Big mistake if you ask Gene Czerwinski, Lars Nordland, and others that have made loudspeakers their life's work. If you haven’t at least studied Harry F Olson (Hey Lars, Harry was a Swede too, born in the US though, didn’t have your cool accent) and you are posting your opinion as acoustic-physics-based you should stop, do more home work and come back ready to play ball. So, this will be wordy, technical, maybe even problem/proof centric, we’ll see. Yes, this is a pain in my butt, it is a big distraction, the few hours that are going to go into this are stolen from my family and I’m pissed about it. If this were during the work day I would still be pissed because I got better things to do, this is not a real contribution to the art of audio, my contribution should be realized in product and systems, not Q&A. But there is a need and if I let the anti-zu thing go too far it will most certainly hurt revenue and thus the mechanism through which Zu’s ideas are realized. It is also difficult as I do not think in a linear fashion. Ideas are expressed in my mind as if they were on a stage, roughed in concepts seem to just take shape, the various parts interplaying and emerging simultaneously, and I am able to see the problems in my head, work them out virtually. I suck at math generally to say nothing of my English and spelling skills. Going from thought to pounding on this keyboard is like flying along at 170 MPH and then having to slow down for a school zone. I also drop words, sometime complete ideas, hands are always behind. So, read with care, realize this is not what I like doing and feel free to NOT expect more of this blather here. We will however address the wives' tales, misunderstandings and music over at ZuAudio.com. We hope to give the Zu guys some proof support and also hopefully convince some of you ATC and Klipsch onwers to give us a try -- okay, at least respect what we have created. By the way, you ATC guys, I have my one secrete sauce and rebuild tweaks for their very cool 3” dome. It’s three hours per driver, shop rate is $60 / hour. Satisfaction guaranteed. On second thought, I’ll be asked a bunch of questions, let’s come back to this if Zu really is just a fad. I do think that is one of the top 50 drivers of all time. Love the thing.
Cynicism is a good thing. I don’t care if you don’t like the Zu sound, I don’t care if you think you can do it better, I don’t care if you only like to listen to unamplified triangle made from C76200 alloy played only at night 100 miles from the closest paved road—I don’t care. But when you armchair engineer my stuff and rag on my customers, and do it with this “I don’t mean to offend” attitude but you really do—ya, this gets to me, at least it did tonight.
There are a ton of things I think Zu should now begin to talk about. Finding the time for such writings will be difficult but we are committed to it. For now I can only briefly address the whole crossover thing. I will come back to it and give it a proper writing with Adam to run proofs and math and to pick up what I let drop. I swear we will do it in the very near future.
Enough all ready. Zu Tone, Druid and Definition loudspeakers do not use a crossover network.
“Crossover”, like “speaker” is short for loudspeaker, is short for “crossover network” as applied to audio. Webster’s New Universal Unabridged Dictionary copyright 1996 defines a crossover for audio networks as: An audio circuit device that sorts the impulses received and channels them into high or low-frequency loudspeakers. This is a very non-technical definition but gets the point across. Our full range driver is directly connected to the binding posts with nothing more than cable, designed to reduce reactive loads, from voicecoil to input terminals. There are no devices of any kind between. Simple right? No, many think that the dynamic behavior of the drive unit must be factored in. I agree, the engineer must consider this but it is not part of a defined crossover though must influence a builders selection and execution if a crossover network will be used. Since our driver is an electrodynamic coil-in-static-flux type it has reactive components. These can not be eliminated. We tried many new types of coil windings on our motor, trying to first reduce the inductive rise without sacrificing dynamic range while also looking at how to increase electromagnetic densities. After a lot, or is it alot, of this and that, success and flat out failures, we ended up with a basic down and back, windings on top of former voicecoil. This voicecoil is rather big for a drive unit with a bandwidth of 8.5 octaves in room response, 5/8ths of an inch long and 2 inches wide, immersed in a high density magnetic (B) field uniformly covering the complete coil, static B field density has a practical usable length of 1 inch allowing for linear full coil immersion operation of roughly 1/4”, 1/2” peak to peak. The drawing of the motor assembly resembles a neutral hung design. Consider now that we have a mechanical xmax on the suspension system, spider and surround with a gib factor of about 20 / 80, you can see that our drive unit is quite capable of very high SPL levels, very linear dynamic behavior, reduced inductive rise as the coil only sees a shunt or little static B field at full band power levels in the 100 Watts RMS area. Full bandwidth thermal dissipation capacity on our Zu260FR/G2 is 200 Watts, 400 Watts if used with an active high-pass set at 50 Hz (2nd order) for those of you who might find yourself using them for DJ monitoring. What, none of you are in to the DJ scene, man you really are missing out. A motor, which accounts for all the electromagnetic functions of a driver, must also be modeled with the transducer's intended impedance matching counter part, the thing that couples to the air and that things suspension, and visa versa.
I also noticed that somebody here is a big active crossover fan. Cool. This has real promise and is how everything in pro is done. While the digital technology has finally come around well enough to make decent sound I personally feel that for great texture and tone the main transducer should cover as wide a bandwidth as possible keeping that first crossover point below the modern third octave (64 Hz point give or take a bit). But this really is a completely differnet topic, we are talking about home audio applications, not OzFest stuff where active crossovers and crazy solutions are essential. For this club style party we played at HE2006, we ran our druids with the Crown I-Tech power amps. A two way system with a LR12dB/ at 52 on the Druids, BW6dB/ at 28Hz on our Druid riser subs. The room had a big fat boom in the thwack range. We really lit the system up for DJ Presto at about 2:30 AM, man was that cool, crystal clear, hard hitting sweet sound at concert levels that would make even Gordy Johnson cry!
Speaking of the show. I had this 20 minute talk with a Bose guy. I really wanted to say, but didn’t, hey, what cool stuff have you made anyway, spending ten times the Chinese made product costs on market, get the flip out of my room. Instead I had to listen to his absolute understanding of cone modes and break up. This is why you ain't gnu see anything cool from Bose anytime soom. This is a lead-in really. Here is an actual quote by an earlier blogger’s post: “I too am sure that nothing aphysical can be happening---if only because that would not be allowed by physical laws.” Really, somebody wrote that? Not sure if this was a Zuid or a Zu is a fad guy, either way we can’t think like this. If an anti, say something that sounds kinda good, use the word physics to back you up and move on. That’s a load of crap. First, we humans know little more than that friendly little black ant crawling under your door. Don’t they call ‘em piss ants or something. Really, you take any branch of physics, try and take it down to a fundamental level and see if the whole thing doesn’t fall apart. Yes, Newtonian physics let us get surprisingly close to the average model of many things, let’s us measure and repeat basic stuff. But the further we dig the more we realize we are nothing, understanding virtually nothing on a base level, only knowing how to repeat and model not truly getting the whys of it all. Physical laws are discovered, they do not allow or disallow, they behave in a particular way under particular conditions, understanding being based on the particular way you measured and model the thing. Again, you break stuff down far enough and new models and behavior emerge. The physics student that does not subscribe to absolute will be find himself in a position for discovery and contribution with greater frequency and magnitude. Me, I’m only a physics major drop out, largely self taught in acoustics starting with passion at the age of thirteen. Favorite reading back then was Olson. If a Zu guy said this now you know why I started jumping up and down when I read it.
Physics, it’s super cool. It’s our chosen discipline here at Zu. We hope to add to the knowledge base, not simply follow everyone else’s models. And when it comes to loudspeaker and cable design we want to lead, we intrinsically question others models and proofs, preferring to go it on our own, discovery is still a much bigger fixx than recreation.
Give us a break, we are a bunch of guys that love music and sound just like the rest that post here, bootstrapping our ideas to life. We are just asking for a bit of time to mature, get our communications together, figure out marketing a bit, find ways to get the product in your home for a listen. If you don’t like it, no big deal. But if you are pissed off cause you think you should be where I am, then get busy man. Make it happen.
Look for more at ZuAudio.com in a few weeks. Really, we are committed to the communication of technical assays, if for no other reason than to save our supporters from going crazy here at Audiogon.
I’m tired, need to see my wife, get some lovin, eat breakfast with the kids -- at home and not at Zu.
The Druids main driver seems to work with any good amp you hook them. My impression is that they work very fine with medium power amps, say 15-50 watts. Its supertweeter reveals everything upstream.
Frankly, I think the Druids lie in the sweet spot between price/performance.
This is a great subjective hobby, and (fortunately) we all don´t like the same things in life
Drubin - I don't understand why some people are slower to pick up on Zu than others but I have a theory. If you start listening for what you have already accepted as "right" and hear something different, it may take some time for you to recognize that the experience you carry in your "right" file maybe isn't as right as you thought. I suppose this theory sounds arrogant and I do not offer it to offend. All I am saying is that you don't know when you're half way into the forest until you've been all the way through. Perhaps the people who pick up on Zu (or other innovations) fastest are the ones who are most open-minded. They say that the guy who says he can and the guy who says he can't are both right.
Undertow i apologize for making comments that were not fair to Zu's, because I've not heard them. I was refering to a post over at AA from PatD who posted a graph on them. You;ll have to read that for yourself. You can raed atmasphere's review and others, and make your own decision. I'm sure its afine speaker, and hopefully I'll get the opportunity to hear them. Until then we can only read owners comments here on the gon. From Atmas' comments seems the Zu may have qualities I'm interested in. One good thing i like about the Zu's is the light weight, 70 for the Druids and 120 for the Def's. This is a big plus. I hope to hear them one day. Seems everyone will have their own preference in speakers and all things audio. There is no one sound fits all. Paul
It was good to read your post. Your company is a creative one, and I wish it the best. There is no hostility to Zu here. Basically only two issues:
(1) A few fans of Zu are extreme in their advocacy and don't allow others the normal breathing room of questions, doubts, and tentative opinion that audiophiles have always enjoyed. One gets criticized for wishing that the web site was more informative or that the speaker came in a certain finish. While such fans are not winning many hearts and minds for Zu, most people realize that Zu is not responsible for their behavior.
(2) Terms like "crossover" "2-way" "full-range" etc belong to no company but to all of audio and some people just have an opinion on what they should mean. Instead of a civilized exchange, sometimes this trips the Zu fans into their attack mode, publicly as well as by private email. (In the latter context, I am one of those who think Zu should refer to its driver as "wide range". The danger if everyone uses a term how they wish is that it gets degraded until it is useless. That is what happened to "amp power" and "watts" once, until the government had to step in and impose regulation.)
That is the synopsis of just about every heated exchange here. You said you saw the last 1/3 of the other thread. Besides the prior 2/3 of that thread, the participants have been debating with one another in other threads as well and bring a history and memory into all discussions.
My advice: Pay no attention! :) Just work on making your web site more informative and build my favorite model: (1) either upgrade Druids to go a little deeper, or (2) fill the vats gap between the Druid and Defs with other models that do that.
I also happen to believe, with some evidence, :) that your company is rich in "self-expression" and poor in "communication". This will bring you a lot of self-satisfaction but leave others confused about just what you are doing. I think you will be well served by redressing the unbalance.
What type of music do you listen to through your zu's. Do the speakers sound good across the board?, or is there a certain gendre that suits them best? ie. classical - rock - jazz
The Soundstage response graph on Druids is inaccurate, bogus really. They adhered to a Canadian measurement standard that required the speaker to be suspended in mid-air. Zu sought an exception from the standard because the Druid requires floor placement and precise gap adjustment for the Griewe model to work. Soundstage made no exception and measured the speaker, showing both dramatic fall-off in bass response (of course, the floor was missing!) concomitant anomalies extending up to the midrange, in the absence of the Griewe model working.
The speaker's sound bears no resemblance to that curve, unless you hang Druids a few feet off the floor, of course.
The reason it takes some people an extended period of time to adapt to Zu speakers on first listen is the necessity to unlearn much of what you have been conditioned to accept. Most people -- most audio consumers -- haven't ever heard a phase-coherent speaker, nor one with uniform transient characteristics up and down the frequency range. Nor have most heard a speaker that doesn't place a crossover in the region of information density in a music signal. And most haven't been exposed to a speaker with the dynamic life, the jump factor and fast rise that you get from Zu speakers. And many of those that have, have not heard these factors from a speaker with Zu's tonal accuracy.
The product design biases of the industry have conditioned listeners to accept disjointed sound, and pinched midrange in the crossover points. You've been listening to many phase -incoherent speakers, and high variability in transient behavior, top to bottom. When these attributes have been sold as normal, hearing the absence of them can be disorienting. It takes some people minutes and others weeks. But when you hear it you will understand the result, even if you need more time to investigate the reasons.
Sure we all may have different wants/wishes for a speaker's voicing of the muisc. About the graph, I guess if someone asked what what I like in a speraker, then we looked at my speakers curve graphs, he may tell , "nope, this Seas is not the one you are looking for, from the specs its not in line what you want". Another thing is that the Zu's next to my Seas may show flaws in my "ideal" Seas', weaknesses I did not know exsisted uptil A/B next to something with better qualities in some areas. I guess there is no one perfect speaker, only what we feel is "ideal" for us. And then of course the Zu's may show their weaknesses next to the Seas'. Can work both ways. On the comment that it took a few days to get to know the Zu sound/image more intimately, I can understand that. I know I sat in the B&W room (my wife WANTED them, had no choice, never bring the wife along)), this was 4 yrs ago, and so bought the 602, after comparing them to my 1981 Philips 2 ways, the weaknesses that were NOT SO NOTICABLE in the lsitening room, came alive at home , after a few months. Then the seas' blew them out the water EVEN MORE. The old Philips revealed its weaknesses also next to the Seas, faults I did not know were there, until the Seas arrived on the scene. I guess the Zu/Seas thing would be interesting, but really I feel "all things considered" I've found what i'm looking for, in spite of any weaknesses that may be in the Seas. I'm sure the Zu's have some nice qualities I hope to hear one day. A second system is always a possibility. Nothing wrong with that, in fact thats a good thing. Man you've made it when you say 'oh thats my second system" Audio heaven :-)
doesn't look much better. With the full range driver mounted at the top of the cabinet, I'll bet the dip at 150hz is still there even with the speaker on the floor.
"I'll bet the dip at 150hz is still there even with the speaker on the floor" (as opposed to someones previous objexction taht the tests were performed on the Zu driver sitting in mid air). ....oops...Dip at 150, classical music has alot going on at that critical juncture. Oh well.
Yeah, Kana, I can't see that graph or the article well enough to know how the graph was derived. Suffice to say that you can't just wire a Druid up on a bench and measure it without knowing how to set it up.
What it behaves and sounds like is plenty of energy down to high 30s and then rapid fade below, preserving high articulation down to its lower limit. The midrange is affected by the Griewe model working, and is quite smooth and open, but there is some coloration that is tuned out of the Definition completely.
The Griewe model is essential to Druid bass performance. I'm not hearing a 150Hz dip corresponding to the graph. Yes, classical music has a lot going on there, and in my room it's all present and accounted for on Druids.
The FRD doesn't derive its bass extension from direct proximity to the floor. And in fact you realize you are hearing the lower tones seemingly from the entire unit and not from the cone. The height of the FRD imposes no bass limitation, and in fact the Griewe model is what puts the driver up there in the first place.
>>The Soundstage response graph on Druids is inaccurate, bogus really. The speaker's sound bears no resemblance to that curve, unless you hang Druids a few feet off the floor, of course.<<
I disagree 100%. I've done my own measurements which very closely resembles the Soundstage graph.
Suffice to say that you can't just wire a Druid up on a bench and measure it without knowing how to set it up
Cobra, relax: 1)You don't measure a speaker on a bench -- or "set up" for that matter. You do it anechoic or simulated anechoic (use a short time window to FFT it). 2) The two FR & phase graphs TOGETHER look quite OK down to ~80 Hz. There's a huge impedance peak & +45 phase angle ~160Hz; it's very narrow. OTOH, the measurements show the FRD is nice & smooth as it goes up -- afa these things can be smooth 3) If you had the FRD close to the floor, you'd suffer fm reflections -- which is probably one of the (secondary) reasons why the designer didn't place it there.
Overall, don't bother defending yr speaker. Just listen to music and add two bass modules while you're at it -- and y're set for a long time.
Aktchi, Your persecution is imaginary. I was one of the people who responded to you. I attempted repeatedly to provide you with suggestions by which you could reach your apparent goal. An example would be my suggestion that if Zu's website wasn't providing what you felt you needed in the way of information, a call to the factory certainly would. Did you make that call? The other example you cite concerns the external finish of the speakers. Again, tell Zu. Complaining to us will not fix that for you. Mentioning it once is fine but maintaining it as a talking point in your list of Zu shortcomings is not an outcome based pursuit. The fact that Zu doesn't make a speaker at a particular price point is silly. Mass production, mass marketed, mass appeal products make sure no dollar amount is neglected. Artists do not behave that way. Van Gogh really missed the boat by not painting any 18 x 24 inch landscapes, don't you think? Look what kind of music we got when musicians focused on the 3 minute song. Your arguments about the semantics involved in Zu's product description were pushed to the point of lunacy. All that matters is that we understand what they are selling and how it works. Phil explained it for all repeatedly in an exhaustive fashion and the rest of us tried repeatedly to soothe your vocabulary issues. The breaking point resulted when frustration overtook everyone involved. From my position it appeared that you did not particularly care to be informed or reassured but rather wanted to diminish the company and/or its products for failing to adhere to arbitrary specifics in language which you felt qualified to impose. Help was, and is, there for you if you want to move forward but I don't think Zu people are the sort to voluntarily retreat.
Tvad, Aktchi, I realize I am throwing feathers into the wind here, but this was explained almost to a T' by myself as well earlier, however now you have some readable Info online
"Conceptually, Zu has an issue with their lineup. We jump from $2,800/pr for the Druid to $9,000/pr for the Definition (add $1,000 for the Pro which removes the internal bass amp, replaces the four rear-firing woofers with higher-excursion units and makes bi-amping mandatory). That hole in the middle is currently filled with subwoofers - the 2 x 10" Mini Method at $1,500 and the 2 x 15" Method at $2,500. You could hit $6,000 dead center with a pair of Druids and two Minis. What could Zu introduce by way of a $6,000/pr one-box speaker that makes sense? A Definition with two instead of four woofers is essentially a Druid minus one widebander plus a Mini."
Source of the Quote: http://6moons.com/audioreviews/zu10/pro.html
Simply chosing to say that we want a 2 BOX solution vs. a 3 or 4 Box solution is again your own choice.
Tvad- You shot wide again. Would you criticize Yo Yo Ma for not playing guitar? Guitar is very popular and its included in most of the music I buy. Should B.B. King include RAP in his repertoire just because there is a demand? Even Wilson, who you seem to adore, provided only two widely spread prices when they were Zu's age. And even today they don't provide any options in your specific price range, do they? Why do you guys insist that Zu should do so? By the way, I've heard that the new speaker will be much closer to the Definition in price than to the Druid. Another thing to consider if you really do have an interest in owning Zu, is that you will no longer need big power for Defs. If you were to sell off your amp and preamp and move to a small integrated as I did, you could allocate that much more cash for a speaker upgrade.
Sorry guys. There is a caveat to my last post. You've heard this before so let me just remind you that you need a listening distance of 10 feet with those Definitions. They are not physically large but they do impose a minimum on room size because of the focus necessary for their coherent delivery.
Ha, notice in the quote in my last post the word "Widebander" used instead of "Full Range", seems that one sentence solved both problems of the "Full Range" drive debate and the "Hole" in the market debate in one shot for the people having issue with Zu claims!!! Yeah right, but wishful thinking.
While I haven't measured the Druids, based on what the Griewe design seems to be (a type of underdamped tuned pipe) the SoundStage curve is not unreasonable given the way it was measured. Based on my own auditions of the speaker, I would expect the response in the bottom three octaves to be perhaps an average of 6 dB louder than shown in the SoundStage measurement when the speaker is placed on the floor as intended, but that's just a guess.
I would also expect the 150 Hz ballpark notch to be very difficult to hear, as the ear is relatively insensitive to comb filter effects and that notch resembles a comb filter notch. However, the 150 Hz notch is not related to floor bounce (which typically imposes comb filtering on a loudspeaker's output).
If my guesses are correct, the notch is centered on the frequency where the path length to the end of the Griewe line is equivalant to one wavelength. At this frequency, the backwave energy that emerges is 180 degrees out of phase with the front wave, maximizing cancellation. At the frequency where the line length is equivalant to 1/2 wavelength (roughly 75 Hz) we'd see maximimum reinforcement. Then the lowest frequency at which we'd see some reinforcement - the 1/4 wave fundamental pipe resonance - is roughly 37 Hz.
Based on my own experience with underdamped pipes, they measure much worse than they sound, as that 1 wavelength cancellation dip is much less audible than it looks on paper. There are techniques that will reduce the magnitude of the 1 wavelength notch, but most of them also reduce the output at lower frequencies.
Now it is possibile that the Druid incorporates a technique that reduces the notch magnitude when a large reflecting surface is placed perpendicular to and close to the line terminus. Perhaps the resulting slot introduces a phase-inverting helmholtz resonance that bleeds off energy that otherwise would have contributed to cancellation in that frequency range.
I am amazed that the high efficiency Druid achieves useful reinforcement down as low as it does in that small of an enclosure. The muffler-derivative Griewe enclosure must work well, and the driver parameters must have been tailored to such an application. In particular, I suspect an unusually compliant suspension system, but that's just a guess on my part.
I welcome correction from those who know more about this than I do. I may well be completely off in all of my guesses, as they're based on my limited experience.
One question for Sean: Can you tell me the patent number of Ron Griewe's patent? It's apparently not under his name.
I have to strongly agree with Microjack. I have experimented adnauseam with different distances. My speakers are 8 feet apart and my tympanics are 10 feet from the front baffles. "There's a caveat to my last post"--I'll believe that when I see it. You went down a tough road into oncoming traffic. You did well. Relax, crack a beer, and listen to some tunes brought to you by Zu...nothing like it...warren :)
Warren is right. 10' might be a "guideline" but it is by no means an absolute. My listening chair is about 9' from the Defs and there is a 10' space between them with outstanding results. Distance from the side walls, back walls, and overall room acoustics in addition to distance from the speakers are all critical to proper set up.
Tvad, I know what you're talking about with Microjack. Since he will not be posting anymore on this thread, we can talk about him all we want without reciprocity..Come on, I know you are baiting him...lol... How come you never took Cobra up on that Definition/Druid audition? Maybe you can still make that happen. It will really give you a chance to put the speakers through your test, plus you will be able to listen to your own tunes, and make a new audio friend. You are right on, as well, about never knowing who a potential customer was. When I was in grad school I was a waiter. Many times it was the patrons who busted my chops the most, and were the rudest, that left the biggest tip. Ya never know...
Bill, that's quite a space between the Definitions, but you say it works. Maybe it's the distance from the walls that is making the difference? My Defs are closer to the side and rear walls than I would like, but the room demands this set up. Do you have the speakers towed in much? Mine are almost facing directly ahead. Just a hair of a tow in. 15 degrees maybe.
Mine image best when I can just see the inside surface of each speaker. Give it a try and see what you think (hear). Everybody will have their own preference but I find this position ideal for my ears.
As was stated above Zu does not build to price points. A speaker is targeted, built, evaluated and modified repeatedly. This can take a very long time and lead almost anywhere. The final product is then priced according to the dictates provided by our accountant. You are unlikely to notice a structure or pattern in our speaker line ascendecy. Silly, huh?
In reality I have no professional affiliation with Zu at this time although I have applied for a job as company flyswatter.
Tvad- I may have confused you with Aktchi as the one who was more or less demanding a sub $5000 dollar pair of Zus. If so, you have my profound apology. That must have seemed cruel. $7K is the number I was told also. And about 25Hz. And maybe December. Rainbows follow me everywhere I go and, you know what, I feel us growing closer.
Ain't life swell? Can't wait until you get your Zu speakers.
Macro what do you think about Zu's Def at 9K, comes loaded with 4 USA made 10 inch high efficiency internal powered woofers + Zu's 10 inch Zu universal woofer + the dome tweeter, all this for 9K. Frankly I don't want any of the speaker to be internally powered. I'm old school, the amp drives the speaker. >>>The only other option is the Druid with the same tweet and the single Zu 10 inch woofer, at 2800. Nothing in between. Looking at other speakers prices, Theils, Vandersteens, the Druid is fairly priced. But the next step up is 9K, out of most of our budgets. I realize that Zu is busy at working up more models, and we all should wait to see his newer models offered between these 2. Can some one explain why a speaker needs 4 10 inch woofers + another 10 inch universal woofer? Why not just 1 internal powered woofer. When I see too many drivers in a cabinet, a red flag goes up,. Guess I got that from those early 70's speakers of the disco days. Though I realize this 4 woofer is a different concept from the muti driver loaded speaker, like the Legacy's.
Yeah, no kidding, a speaker doesn't get tested on a bench. It was an expression. Been there. Point is, it's not a legit test of what a buyer should expect if you test under conditions that don't allow the speaker to operate with all its design principles functioning. The tester must understand the operating principles of the speaker and accommodate them.
Correct about if the FRD were close to the floor. But think the Druid's dimensions are more than an aesthetic choice, instead the FRD height is dictated by the Griewe model and the rest of the package follows from there. Definition is a sealed system, so it has other factors driving its packaging, including a Zu point of view on aesthetics and space efficiency.
I wouldn't add bass modules to my Druids. I think they are better without. I am not a fan of subwoofers in general, but in the Definition they are so well integrated, I make an exception. I have two systems, so I have the luxury of maintaining the purity of the Druid in one system and using the Definitions system when I want more scale, whomp, and linear accuracy.
Certainly, I don't spend an iota of energy "defending" Zu speakers. The product and the company can take care of themselves. But helping people understand them, well....that's a different thing.
Duke,
Zu is hesitant to publish too much about their implementation of the Griewe model to the point where even customers can only get a partial explanation. I understand the competitive reasons. But your intuit of its consequences in the Druid is a pretty good stab. The way Zu has implemented the model has changed from version to version, and I don't think Zu is done developing it. Your surmise of a 37Hz lower accurate limit coincides well with both Zu's claims and the actual experience of hearing content through the speaker.
Bartok,
From a business and market perspective, no doubt Zu has a big hole in its product spread. But it has an entry product (Tones), brand-making product (Druid) that encapsulates neatly all the attributes the company wishes to project, and a statement product (Definition) that asserts the company's engineering and manufacturing prowess. I think Zu knows they have a product/price gap to fill, and whether it ends up being a dipole, a super Druid or a Junior Def I expect it will surpass Druids + Method or and have straightforward one-box packaging as well. Let them surprise us. Having built the brand-making product, lubricated the entry to Zu via Tone and made their statement, closing that gap is probably going to be the most considered speaker design project they've done to date. Patience.
The Definitions's at $9k are a bargain, IMO. Why 4 10inch subwoofers? Why not? The more air the speakers move the more palpable and visceral the sound. Small footprint with dynamics, speed, prodigious deeply extended bass, providing a wall of sound that is quite addicting. I love them, and, as I've said many times before, haven't had this much fun with a set of speakers since my Magnaplanar Tympani 1D days. 101db made the way for SET. I'm a convert now, and listening to this intimate, holographic sound gives me the tingles. Never heard a female vocal sound this lovely. It's been only 5 months, and they continue to improve.
Tvad- Too true. Communication is poor here and I'm guilty this time of seeing something other than what you wrote. It drives me nuts when others do it to me so I must apologize.
The Defs are $9K and the Druids $2800. The new speaker (whose name I can't recall) is probably going to drop in around $7K but I'm not sure that decision is final.
Since we have established that I get things wrong sometimes, let me clear up some other possibly incorrect notions I've been harboring. I was under the impression that you simply did not like the Zu sound and were not interested. I just reread your comments to Warrenh above and feel pretty confident that I got that right. You further say that you have an invitation to go to someone's home (presumably in your area) to hear them at their best but won't bother because what you heard at shows convinced you that the Zu sound is not for you. Fair enough. What I don't understand is why you think a Zu speaker at your requested price point will suit you better. I feel pretty certain it will carry the Zu sound which you clearly do not enjoy. What are you expecting?
This thread is by Zu and is intended to provide a forum for Zu owners and those who would like to learn from them about these remarkable speakers. It was started by Sean Casey in the wake of controversy when the entire previous thread was summarily expunged due to incivility.
Do you have a question? Or some experience to share? Or an interest in Zu's future? Why do you place yourself so prominently in our midst? It seems clear that you already have enough information about and experience with Zu products to eliminate them from consideration. Do you wish to dissuade others from pursuing Zu? Why would you want to do that?
Yes, I know you have every right to be here. What confounds me is your reason for being here.
The reason it takes some people an extended period of time to adapt to Zu speakers on first listen is the necessity to unlearn much of what you have been conditioned to accept.
That's absolute nonsense. If you know what real instruments sound like in real acoustic spaces, then you can select an appropriate recording and the Zu will either sound correct or not sound correct. Nothing to learn or unlearn, you'll just know it.
Thanks for clearing up my misconception of the phrase "full range driver". I now understand how the term is used within certain subcultures of the audiophile world and the Zu driver definitely qualifies as a FRD by their criteria.
I've been following the Zu threads and the claims being made by so many of the 'users' are reminiscent of claims made by users of other 'unusual products' in threads long deleted. Contrary to peaking my interest in trying something new, I find them (over enthustic, non-sensical, and overly aggressive, user comments) a complete turn off.
Perhaps the Zu products are all that they are claimed to be but I doubt that I will go out of my way to find out absent some great revelation by a truely independent source. I have a feeling that I may not be the only one with this reaction. :-(
No, it's not nonsense. Your dismissal is. First, it's less and less common for audiophiles to actually know what real instruments sound like. More and more people in this hobby are short on or even bereft of significant experience listening to live, unamplified music. But let's assume you're not among them, nor is anyone else on this thread.
No speaker is a perfect reproducer. Hence, psychoacoustically, we allow the suggestion of fidelity by hifi to inform an illusion of fidelity that we infer from what comes out of the speakers. If you have been listening to speakers all your audio life that contain crossovers, multiple drivers with division points in the middle of the major spectrum of music information, and other design attributes that introduce phase incoherence, transient inconsistency, tonal aberrations and confused spatial portrayal, BUT the basic frequency linearity measures and sounds pretty good, then you become conditioned to believe that the suggestion of fidelity that includes these anomalies is acceptable. You might even love the sound, on a comparative basis.
Suddenly, for the first time you hear a speaker that simultaneously either eliminates or sharply reduces inconsistencies of transient behavior up and down the frequency range, phase incoherence, tone-stripping, etc., and it can sound "wrong" while you process a new presentation.
I was at HE2006, where 95% of the speakers used in systems had all of the problems I mention above. The dynamic behavior was shaped like an hourglass, with pinching as any sound approached the crossover points. Vocals on the vast majority of otherwise reasonably frequency-accurate speakers lacked body relative to the instrument sounds below and higher. You heard the throat and not the body, from singers. The attack and the surface composition of an instrument's notes, but not the tone. Yet many people admired the sounds they were hearing. I just watched in the Zu room. I saw many obviously very experienced audiophiles enter, sit down and listen. It was common to hear some variant of, "Whoa, something different is going on here," and then the listener would sit back and adapt to perhaps the first holistic sound presentation from a loudspeaker -- room problems aside -- in their audio career. And BTW, this happened with some industry professionals who represented other, more expensive and even very good, loudspeakers at the show. People who listened to one cut of an album or less usually didn't get it. Listeners who lingered for a few, usually did.
Look, all of us who own Zu speakers were among those whom used to accept the speaker industry's prevaling notions of quality. We owned a series of speakers that represented the best from those prevailing ideas of fidelity, within our budgets. Maybe along the way we embraced an industry maverick, like Quad ESL, planar speakers or Beveridge. And then one day, we either heard Zu or we made a decision to try it, blind. Almost all of us went through some variation of the initial experience of having to unlearn what we had been conditioned to accept, expect and tolerate from a loudspeaker in order to get music out of it.
The question this raises is, Why is a genuine advance that suggests an audiophile has been looking in the wrong places for good sound so controversial to some people who haven't even heard it, and so smoothly embraced by those who bought, many of whom are highly experienced with hifi? What's the difference between you and me?
"Conceptually, Zu has an issue with their lineup. We jump from $2,800/pr for the Druid to $9,000/pr for the Definition (add $1,000 for the Pro which removes the internal bass amp, replaces the four rear-firing woofers with higher-excursion units and makes bi-amping mandatory)"
Undertow- An extra $1K to remove the internal amp and changes the woofers? Seems like it should be the other way around. Do they give you an electronic crossover? What kind of amp is the internal unit (power/design), and who makes these higher-excursion woofers?
People who listened to one cut of an album or less usually didn't get it. Listeners who lingered for a few, usually did.
That is certainly believeable. But, earlier you or someone else suggested that it could take weeks or months to "get it". That's what I think onhwy61 was declaring to be nonsense, and I would have to agree.
One of the differences is that I am not predisposed towards particular design concepts, whereas, I believe you are. You're enamored with what Zu represents, namely zero crossover, phase coherence, etc. Nothings wrong with that, but it is a predisposition that in all likelihood biases your opinion about the speaker's sound. By your own admission you read about Zu before you heard them. For initial listening I think it's better that someone know absolutely nothing about a product. Whether it's solid state or tubes, how many drivers, is it sealed or ported, or anything else relating to the design. The sole criteria should be how it sounds. Not knowing what you're listening to could open you to how components sound as opposed to how you think they should sound.
I don't think someone can be considered an experienced audiophile if they aren't intimately familiar with the sound of real instruments.
As far as I can tell, there isn't much controversy about Zu loudspeakers. They've had a number of very positive review, users talk highly of them and there design is based upon well accepted principals. What is somewhat controversial is the over the top defensiveness of some Zu uses. Seemingly anybody who has listened to the speakers and ends up not liking them cannot say that without having their opinion, experience and ultimately their credibility attacked. Zealotry alienates more reasonably minded people.
Condescension also doesn't win many friends. Really, just think how much happier you would be if you just thought more like I do.
Hwy- You speak with forked tongue in cheek. I agree with some of what you say. Being one of the zealots to whom you so reverently refer, I can't deny being over the top. The area where I disagree is your comment that we assail any and every dissenting voter. If you read the comments that draw fire, you will notice that they are frequently observations eminating from people who are completely unfamiliar with the speakers but make cavalier incorrect assumptions nonetheless. An example:
Isn't the Zu best setup with a low watt/single ended tube amp? How many of us are interested in low watt tube? So this speaker is geared toward a specific customer. Sure its not limited to single ended, but its IDEAL for low watt tube. Bartokfan (Threads | Answers)
When I saw this, I hastened to squelch such an inaccurate statement before it circulated too much. Typical dealership marketing has the benefit of resident experts in the form of salesmen. Whether or not they are experts is a topic for another thread. Nonetheless, they provide an authoritative source for dissemination of (hopefully) accurate factory info. Zu isn't using that resource so us Zuists take it upon ourselves to try and keep the record straight.
Personally, I don't care if you think Zu has a crossover but I would like to preserve the claim that no crossover shenanigans take place within a very broad midband. It's a talking point which is factually accurate whether or not it coincides with certain interpretations of the term. In another entry I pointed out that my Dad says he's bald but I can see that he still has a couple of stray hairs. Should I call him a liar? And how would he feel if I did? Sometimes small details are better left small.
And, finally, please note the distinction between someone who is experienced and someone who is expert.
I think you confuse offense and defense. Zu owners are engaging the market with what we've learned, not defending decisions already made.
You presume too much if you think that design preferences determine what I like in audio gear. I approached Zu with skepticism of what the result would be, knowing that prior crossoverless implementations have been unsuccessful. I was willing to buy my first Zu speakers unheard and unseen, because I have the means to risk it, and I have the experience to triangulate what I can expect. Even if the purchase failed, I knew I'd learn something. Despite a disappointing history of attempts to build crossoverless speakers for high-end audio, Zu looked encouraging due to the development of the FRD. However, everything else I've ever owned and enjoyed in a loudspeaker contained crossovers, with many crossoverless alternatives which I rejected.
Similarly, I've owned solid state, push-pull tube, SEP, SET, OTL amplification. I currently use SET amps in both my systems but that doesn't prevent me from admiring, lusting for and considering McIntosh MC1201 transistor, autoformer-output, 1200w monster monoblocks. I wouldn't have expected to like them on paper, but they are sensationally good amps and couldn't be more different than what I own now.
I had a design bias toward belt-drive turntables, but my mainstay Luxman direct drives have outlasted all challengers of the belt-drive kind. I was predisposed to LCD for HDTV but bought plasma instead.
I bought Zu speakers at a penultimate moment before purchase of two systems built around Sonus Faber Cremonas, which are multi-driver and use crossovers. No doubt, if I had not found Zu, I'd be as enthusiastic of SF if mated to the right amplification, and you will find if you research my posts that I have recommended Sonus Faber and Reference 3A to others here, along with Zu.
So your presumptions of me are uninformed and in error. I have in fact practiced what you preach, for nearly 40 years of hifi purchases.
Once again, I and most here do not have any issue with someone who has listened to Zu and does not like them. I have no argument with Boa2, for instance. The people whose credibility has been attacked are those who challenge or attack Zu products while having never heard them themselves. That's almost always the bone of contention here. That is not a matter or expression of zealotry. It's a simple matter of working to keep the facts straight.
I have to ask, because if ever answered, I lost track: Have you ever heard Zu speakers, Onhwy61?
We who own Zu products are not condescending. We don't think we're better than you and I haven't seen any suggestion of such a proposition. We don't care if you hear the speakers and don't like them. We do care about misrepresentation (and by the way this is true for any other little-known product I choose to support) and we reject the doubts of those who undermine the discussion with claims uninformed by actual listening. Questions on the other hand are welcome. You can see a wealth of posts by Zu owners explaining to people considering them, what to expect, how to optimize set-up, and how the speakers work. It's just basic user knowledge-sharing. And if you follow our various postings you can see similar effort put into other products as well. It's not a Zu-specific phenomenon. I and others here are patient in explaining how to get better sound, as our posts should amply indicate.
As for happiness, I haven't noticed any deficiency of it in my life. And the combination of Zu + Audion amplification + the magical Denon DL103D or a good universal disc player like the NAD M55, used as conveyance for putting music in my home, only raises its incidence.
"First, it's less and less common for audiophiles to actually know what real instruments sound like. More and more people in this hobby are short on or even bereft of significant experience listening to live, unamplified music. But let's assume you're not among them, nor is anyone else on this thread."
How dare you presume what I know and listen to...you know what audiophiles do?
You have been trying to defend Zu against the ignorant. How is this served by ignorant and broad sweeping statements as the above?
You must have a verified phone number and physical address in order to post in the Audiogon Forums. Please return to Audiogon.com and complete this step. If you have any questions please contact Support.
