>>"just plop them down" <<
That wasn't advice, it was merely a statement of what the non-audiophile music listener can do and still be happy.
I was talking about sound, not gear. Any gear suggestions are strictly for purposes of reaching goals in sound.
Phil |
>>I do not feel Druid is "beamy" in negative auditory sense<<
Like the beamy nature of the original Quad ESL, Druid's directionality is boon to some, bane to others. Every beamy speaker ends up controversial at least in part for that property. I leave it to others to decide whethr directionality is bane or boon to them. It's less suitable to HT2.0, for example than it is to single-seat audiophile nirvana. There's no point in arguing either way with someone who embraces or rejects beamy directionality. In Druid it's not a problem for me, and for the system I use them in, there is asset value to its directionality. But then I have another system with Definitions, so I don't have to choose. For the more typical buyer building one system, I think most people with find Soul gives them more latitude than Druid, to satisfy both precision audiophile cravings and whole-room satisfaction for group-oriented sound. Another reason that Soul will outperform Druid for the precision audiophile is that it is plain and simple a fundamentally more accurate speaker before you ever get to the fiddly stuff. It's possible -- POSSIBLE -- that some people familiar with both will feel the Druid is more euphonic to them. No arguing with that. But Soul more accurately represents music as you'd hear it live, for requency accuracy, detail transmission, and dynamic reasons.
Phil |
>> I must say that I loved the perceived euphony of the Druid. Are you saying that I might feel it has gone or just lessened slightly?<<
I'll try to separate characteristics here. Druid has known midrange response anomalies that give it a bit warmer-than-real sound, which combined with the soft top end render it sounding what some people refer to as "dark." The v4-08 upgrade substantially removed this but traces still linger. If that kind of euphony is what you like, Superfly will lose it conclusively in favor of better frequency accuracy and clarity without ever sounding cold. You can always restore some of that darkness by mating the speakers to the right 300B amplifier;>).
HOWEVER, if the euphonic character you love is more like your reference to "...Ben Webster blowing a real horn stood in front of you...," well, you're going to get that, just more! That tonal density and ability to represent the full bite and burr of a horn with the musicality of having small dynamic changes utterly transparently revealed, and the holistic sense of a horn fully represented rather than torn apart by a crossover and represented by different drivers your head has to put back together -- that's "better" than Druid, conclusively.
More frequency accuracy combined with absolutely no loss in tone. In fact, you'll gain tone along with an even quicker jump factor and bass extension that retains transient definition as low as it goes.
I can't say yet about base Soul, but you have to look at Superfly as expanding the polar graph of favorable attributes of Druid while taking some kinks out of the circle where Druid had consciously-chosen, restricting compromise.
Does that help?
Phil |
>>However, at 10WPC Soul is underpowered.<<
Ten watts per channel would be too few for me but I think as a blanket statement this isn't a valid claim. I'm pretty sure Bill is extrapolating frm his experience with Druid & Essence rather than actually having set up and heard Superfly. But if your room is not too vast and your specific 10/10w amp has enough drive, 10 watts per side may be quite satisfying on Superfly.
Though Druid & Soul are rated same in their efficiency spec, dynamically Superfly sounds jumpier and audibly more lively than Druid. Further, Superfly's deeper & better bass response yields a better sense of completeness at a given volume level, where the Druid listener might turn up SPL in an effort to get the same satisfaction, closer to maxing out the amp's dynamic headroom.
10 watts are 10 watts as we measure them, but as we hear them differences arise for reasons too numerous to detail in a message written on an iPad from a beach. For example, I put a vintage Bedini 25/25 class a amp on Druids and found it dynamically outclassed by an 8w/ch (if that) Acoustic Masterpiece M101 single ended KT88 amp. The amp/speaker relationship with a Zu single FRD speaker involved is far more influential than with most mainstream audiophiles speakers. You don't have the Apogee problem of some amps not working or blowing up. Instead almost anything works but some combinations are extraordinary and yield performance well exceeding spec-driven expectations.
Hence Gerritt and his love for the Yamamoto A-08.
If I had to guess, I'd venture that the First Watt amp for Superfly is the M2. But I have little doubt Gopher is getting real music from his FW-F amp. Superfly is the liveliest Zu speaker to date, and my preferences put aside, I can understand the 10 watts buyer not wanting a single watt more, if the rest of the amp is special on this speaker.
Phil |
>>One of the things I haven't seen here is how people might define the Superfly in relation to the Presence.<<
I've had a pair of Presence in my own system for more than a day during a Zu Los Angeles tour. Presence was not a "Griewe" model speaker but it was sort of a "Druid with Sub" in that it had a single FRD and supertweet, ala Druid, with a half-Definition sub-bass array. It was the least jumpy Zu speaker but had near-Definition levels of deep bass performance.
Presence sounded very smooth, still retaining the overall euphonic "darkness" of the Druid sound, but never sounded quite as light on its feet as Druid. Overall, if amplified well, Presence scales and is quite complete in the music it can represent well. But being fairly flat down to about 30 Hz, Superfly's bass has none of the trace disconnect between main driver and integrated subs, and has plenty of bass energy for most domestic rooms. Superfly will sound faster, jumpier, more vivid and immediate than Presence. Presence will sound more relaxed and stately and more euphonically shaded in its tone.
Presence is larger and more difficult to accommodate in many rooms. It's $8,000 vs. $2,600. I do much prefer Presence to Essence but also prefer Superfly to Essence. Presence was more Def Jr. than Super Druid, so a lot of its advantage is in laying the solid foundation of truly deep bass if your room can make use of it, while the main band had all the great tone and focus attributes of Druid. The X factor here is, how would Presence sound with the Superfly FRD and appropriate revision to its supertweeter and associated filter? Presence upgraded in Superfly fashion should be formidable in its own right and clearly better than Superfly alone, including for reasons of the broad, smooth front baffle.
Phil |
>>My 10wpc Firstwatt F1 sounds better to my ears than my Dynaco ST-70 (Zu recommended)<<
It's not surprising you'd prefer the F1 over the Stereo 70. A stock ST70 is certainly pleasant but in modern teems also quite flavored, however euphonically. It has very soft bass and extreme top end, and while it has energy, it doesn't deliver slam.
There are many circuit and parts modifications that push a more accurate sound through a ST70s excellent output transformers, but anyone expecting the transparency, bursty dynamic vitality, improved bass and extended treble along with traditional midrange appeal from an unmodified ST70 -- especially from a speaker as wideband and revealing as Superfly -- will be sweetly disappointed. it can be made quite good, but there ar many more contemporary alternatives.
I know Zu has recommended Dyna pairings wih Soul for people who want tube characteristics inexpensively, and that's right. But if you're starting with a FW F1 as your reference, you'll have to hear something more compelling than a stock ST70 to sell you on a tube amp, I think. And I say this as a former owner of many stock and modified Dyna 70s.
Phil |
>>You need 40-50W minimum.<<
I recently had another experience that undermines any notion of a hard-and-fast rule about minimum power requirements for Zu speakers. Again, for the record, while I understand the enthusiasm some people, including Sean Casey and Adam DeCaria, have for the sound of 2w 45 SET amps (they've brought a Yamamoto to my own systems to try to convince me of it's viability as a match), flea power isn't sufficient for me. Some people will be thrilled with sub-ten-watts amplifiers on 101 db/w/m Zu speakers. However, I use 25w SET on both my Zu systems, 845 in one case and 300B PSET in another, in an open plan house where rooms aren't fully bounded. One room is 20' x 14' x 8.5'. The other is 22' x 12' x 10'.
I recently had a chance to buy a pair of NOS Quad II Jubilee mono block tube amps. The Quad II is, I've long maintained, the most SET-like push-pull tube amp. It's also only marginally more powerful than classic SET single tube designs at 15w each -- less than the big glass 845s and any number of PSET configurations. I don't need this pair of Quads; I just bought them because I wanted to own them.
The Quad II becomes marginal into low impedance speakers, but it's still quite viable into the 6ohms Zu Definition. Into 12ohms (Druid) and 16ohms (Soul) it's in its sweet spot, and a sweet spot it is. I heard a pair of Quad II on Druids a few years back, in passing, but not with a chance to listen closely. I put the current reissue as well as rehabbed originals on my list of recommended amps for Druids and Presence, particularly. But now Ive been able to listen for days on end and not only are these amps tonally beautiful, revealing and convincing but they are more than sufficient dynamically on Druids -- and by extension, Superfly. I will make a point of hearing them on Superfly soon, but I already know the answer, given my familiarity with the similarities, differences and assets between Druid 4-08 and Supefly, and the Quad II behavior into 16 ohms.
Designed in the early 1950s for it's 1953 debut, the Quad II represents Peter Walker's sense of innovation and responsibility against the backdrop of a still-struggling Britain in recovery from WWII. It's a simple circuit that wastes nothing in terms of resources. The amp was designed to be affordable in a nation still oriented to scarcity, built into a maximally-efficient packaging footprint requiring minimal sheet metal and parts. But nothing was skimped in the critical transformers.
Sure, today's legacy-informed Quad company has added 40w and 80w updates to the classic Quad II topology, bringing Tim DeParavicini to the task of improving on Peter Walker's elemental design from nearly 60 years ago. And of course they offer an excellent reissue of the original Quad II which is affordable by modern high-end standards.
I normally consider 15w below my satisfaction point for amplification with Zu speakers, but the Quad II upends that bias. Even a highly-dynamic Blu-Ray soundtrack isn't too much for it, in a room of my dimensions noted.
Phil |
Dave,
The Quad II circuit combines a long measure of the holistic presentation and tonal purity of a fine SET amp, with some of the bottom end discipline of a push-pull amplifier, without the excesses of either. My Audion 300B PSET mono blocks are the Golden Dreams -- their top amp. The Quad Jubilee mono blocks are not better than the sensational Audions, but they are much closer than the price disparity suggests. The Quad II was a very simple circuit -- there are only 13 caps and resistors in each mono block signal path, the rest of the componentry being tubes, transformers, choke and power supply filtering. They are the most SET-like push-pull amps I've heard, ever. The Quad II also is optimized for a 16 ohms load, so Druids or Superfly are perfect for them. Definitions less so.
I'm not enthusiastic about most 300B SET amps. Most are sweet and rich but also slow and euphonic. Audion's SET amps are an exception, being fast, transparent and beautiful. There are some others too. I haven't heard Dignity Audio, so can't directly comment. The Quad II circuit has some bass bloat compared to many more contemporary tube designs, especially those using diode rectification. But compared to the majority of SET and PSET amps, they are relatively controlled. The Quad II is also very quiet compared to most SET. For someone with Zu levels of efficiency who also wishes to avoid the noise, bass euphonia and tube exotica of SET, I think Quad II reissue amps are both a great buy (assuming a good preamp) and aurally beautiful. The reissue QII mono blocks are faithful in circuit and execution, plus there are reasonably good KT66s again, along with good 5881 subs.
If you can find a pair of Jubilee amps, their price may be off-putting, but that is the most convincing Quad II version I've heard -- some cryptically dismissive reviewer comments notwithstanding. But that's no reason not to buy the current ~$3000 Asian-built reissue. It's excellent in it's own right. And anyone fearing 15w just won't do it for them, the KT88 Quad Two-Forty emulates the II's simple clarity with more punch.
I haven't yet connected my Quad II Jubilees to my friend's Superfly speakers. I should get a chance to do that soon. But I know intimately how well they do on Druid 4-08 so extrapolating to Superfly isn't difficult. They will do even better. My Audion Golden Dream mono blocks are out for service. I'll have them back i. A week or so, at which point I can resume hearing the Quad IIs surprising me. I recommend the Quad II in reissue, Jubilee or rehabbed original form, for Zu higher impedance models, without reservation. The match to Definitions is more conditional due to the 6ohms speaker impedance. I'll be digging into that match, against 845 mono blocks, over the next week or two.
A pair of Quad II with good tubes will sound less "vintage-in-a-bad-way" than a stock Dyna Stereo 70. You can tune the sound somewhat via tube substitutions: more reticent with 5881 output tubes; a little more assertive with a GZ34 rectifier tube. I'm anxious to try the Shuguang carbon/polymer KT66, which should sound vivid and incisive. The Quad II has input sensitivity I'd 1.4v for full power, so put a strong line stage or preamp in front of it. I've been listening to the Jubilee amps in my Druids system for over a month. They could keep me happy indefinitely in that speaker.
Phil
Phil |
>>Is anyone here affiliated with the manufacturer in any way?<<
CW,
You must mean to ask about there being over 300 responses to the original poster in this thread, correct?
I think everyone here is either a Zu customer or someone interested in learning about Superfly from people who have heard it, or its close relatives. If being a Zu customer makes any of us "affiliated," then yes. If being a customer just means that alone, then no. I haven't seen anyone from the company post in this thread.
Soul Superfly is an interesting and capable speaker at a price lots of people can handle. It just generates interest, and this has proven to be an inquisitive group.
Phil |
Dave,
I'm familiar with the Harbeths. The Quad II Classic monoblocks *may* meet your dynamic needs if you are satisfied with what you get from the 300B amp, but understand that the Harbeths' 6 ohms impedance isn't optimal for the Quad IIs, which put out maximum power 8 - 16 ohms. Power output erodes quickly below 8 ohms, markedly below 4 ohms.
The Quad Two-Forty removes risk of being unsatisfied dynamically while delivering the essential Quad valve sound. The 12 ohms Druids and 16 ohms Superfly are virtually perfect matches for the Quad II. Plus the Harbeths' passive crossover will introduce additional drag on your perception of dynamic life compared to crossoverless Zu (which is a bit different from calculated dynamic range at a given speaker efficiency/amp power).
Phil |
Superfly price is as it was. Zu has a code problem on the web site that they, for whatever reason, haven't been able to fix.
The new speaker should be startling for the $1000 entry price, but it doesn't undermine Soul or Soul Superfly. They'll continue to be worth their price differential over the new entry model. Sean and Adam have a long-standing objective to deliver a truly Zu-worthy affordable dorm speaker. It looks like they've hit enough breakthroughs in their supply chain to make it happen without giving up the Zu FRD. We get details next week.
Phil |
I'm confused by this pricing as well. Omen ends up being a dorm speaker for 6 weeks, after which the people it's aimed at will opt out, and the existing audience for Zu will opt for Soul or Superfly. They are moving quickly on reflating their business, which is good, but it looks like Zu isn't thinking everything through before pulling trigger.
Phil |
Jack,
Sean recently characterized Omen to me as "Druid 4-08 in a three foot package," further explaining that Omen will have the essential sound of the D4-08. I don't know how bass response in the new cabinet will compare with Druid 4-08s that are correctly adjusted for floor-plinth gap, but even partial Greiwe loading would provide a proper foundation. So at $999, having all other attributes of the Zu FRD in a crossoverless configuration with a dynamic supertweeter, Omen gets presumption of excellence from me. Plus, I've been an advocate of "guitar finishes" for speakers, so I think the transluscent stain on maple shown in the promo photos will look great.
How the market will respond to the speaker at a higher price later in the context of the rest of Zu's line-up remains to be seen but the target market should find Omen startlingly good against the mass market alternatives they can audition and buy locally. Druid 4-08 sound was remarkable at a much higher price 2-1/2 years ago. I think it's a safe bet to order, and, no...I don't see a competitive nor better speaker for the price.
Phil |
>>...Superfly in the RMAF room to especially in light of the comment they tweeted that it was less than refined and not especially detailed. This doesn't chime with much that's been posted here....<<
I wasn't at RMAF and haven't heard Omen yet. But knowing the driver differences and other details, this isn't difficult to explain. First, hotel rooms are notoriously poor spaces for sonic optimization and don't closely match domestic conditions. Zu has a longstanding history of disappointing show conditions. Search comments on their show appearances for the past five years or so and nearly every public hotel demo results in minor or major eruption of controversy over their sound. Second, the high output driver in Superfly has an especially vivid sound fresh, that can be a little raw and forward until fully broken in. It gets more beautiful with break-in, without losing it's dynamic energy. The driver in Omen is closer to Druid Mk4-08 spec, which ships mellower then Superfly's and opens up with break-in, becoming more vivid and alive. The starting points are different with respect to the sonic attributes of early-stage aging. Most hotel construction tends to aggravate the rawness of the incompletely broken-in Supfly driver while havi somewhat more benign effects on the more Druid-like Omen driver that blossoms with age.
Sean believes the slight cant of Omen's front baffle is sufficient to mitigate the too-low placement of its super tweeter, and suggested to me that the cabinet can be further leaned back a bit by placing the front spikes on shims. By any measure this is a kludge, but Omen isn't intended to be perfect. It's intended to make a properly-packaged Zu FRD based speaker affordable, compact and easy to own. It might be that Omen is disappointing to some people who already own current Zu speakers, as Tone and Essence always were to me, though some who may have favored Druid over Soul or Essence will prefer it. But to the first time buyer coming into the Zu or even hi-eff fold for the first time, it should be appreciated for being the gateway to a complete and more satisfying reorientation of hi-fi priorities and results. Generally, an affordable Zu FRD speaker driven by a great amp at higher cost will yield more convincing music fidelity than a higher-cost conventional speaker driven by mass market amplification.
Phil |
The Ampino's power will decline to 12-15w/ch into the Superfly's 16 ohms impedance, and perhaps to 15-18w/ch into Essence. But Essence is 4db less efficient than Superfly. On balance, aside from Superfly being the better-sounding, more tuneful speaker of the two, it will also make better use of the Ampino's power and intrinsic dynamic aliveness, which you'll no doubt appreciate in a large room. I have no doubt that the Superfly super tweeter will be a much better match to this transistor amp than the hot ribbon on Essence. as I've written before, Essence is the least Zu-like speaker, duet the combination of the ribbon super tweeter's less toneful harmonic output, and the unfortunate dialing back of the Zu FRD's intrinsic dynamic capability to accommodate the less efficient ribbon. You end up with an audible dynamic muting relative to the 101db/w/m speakers, and then a slight tone disconnect between the FRD and the super tweeter. Superfly is a thorough improvement over Essence regardless of amplification, but especially so for Ampino and it's ilk. Superfly will also sound more expansive and explosive in HT use.
Phil |
All other quality matters being equal, monoblocks are always worthwhile.
The Zu single FRD speakers have tremendous application elasticity for pure music uses. It's efficient and easy-to-drive and get good sound from a plethora of modest amplification options, beginning in the $$hundreds. But it has revelatory and tone density characteristics that can take good advantage of premium amplification many times the cost of Omen, Soul, Superfly, Druid or Essence. My Druids system has amps that are more expensive than what's in my Definition 2 system. Sure, somewhere there's a threshold where further expense in amps doesn't make sense for $2600/pr speakers like Superfly. But that threshold stretching credibility is much further out than most people would think, once you're committed to the holistic presentation of a single-FRD Zu system.
Essence is the problematic model in terms of pushing the amp/cost envelope, due to the mild loss of tonal intensity from the de-tuning of the FRD, and the discontinuity between the FRD and the chosen ribbon tweeter, but if your frame of reference is other speakers, rather than other Zu speakers, even that difficulty recedes. But the outer limit for amp cost to mate with Essence is nearer than it is for Superfly or Druid 4-08.
If you're not up for evolved 845 SET and their associated cost, a completely safe, tone-rich, beautiful choice for Zu speakers with 12-16ohms impedance is Quad II Classic (or rehabbed vintage) monoblocks. The Shuguang Treasure KT66z black bottle tube performs beautifully in them. The Quad II is the most SET-like push-pull tube amp I know, owing to its clever design simplicity and execution. And as hifi goes, cost is fairly modest. There are are others. I recently heard gorgeous sound from a Bob Hovland-modified Glow amp, its el84 5/5w easily trumping a number of megaprice amps, within the Glow's surprising dynamic range, on both Druid 4-08 & Definition 2. But $20,000 SET monoblocks don't sound like overkill either. Tremendous application range in amp options.
Phil
|
Coltrane,
(I can't help but think of "The Royal Tennenbaums" starting with that salutation...) First, a half-century D'Angelico will sound fab through a plastic computer speaker, but that wouldn't nearly do it justice! You're a fortunate dude. But yes. Try it with one speaker before a pair, and via a tube guitar amp. The combination of speed and tone density from the Zu FRD beats a 12" guitar speaker except for someone wanting cone breakup -- the Zu driver is too hard to drive into that condition. My Archtops, solid bodies, 335s and all my amps gain tone through the Zu FRD, and if you leave the super tweeter unmasked on a Druid or Superfly, it makes a great speaker for an acoustic guitar amp.
I keep my living room hifi relatively uncluttered, but my secondary Druids system has both hifi SET monoblocks and a couple of tube guitar amps in close proximity at all times.
Phil |
>>Superfly is the best transducer of guitar I have ever heard<<
Among hifi speakers, without a doubt. I'm a 42 year guitar player. Even in Druid 6 years ago, it was guitar reproduction that first made me pay attention to what Zu was up to.
Now, for a treat, rig a guitar cable to connect the output of a tube guitar amp to your Superfly. Mask the super tweet with thick cardboard or something & listen to that FRD as primary guitar speaker...
Phil |
Can you elaborate about:
".....Then the decorator arrived...." ?
Phil |
It's not my experience that Zu break-in is anything other than progressive and uni-directional. That is, it's a one-way street with no backtracking wih the singular exception of significant thermal changes.
Zu itself has had the experience of doing 200-400 hours of intense factory break-in only to ship speakers from Utah in the winter months and have them arrive sounding stiff and not broken in. Sean has contended in the past that break-in of the internal cabling (especially the dielectrics) is actually more of a factor than limbering of the driver, but cold exposure can make the driver break-in paramount. I'm in Southern California, so I probably don't have the same range of temperature swings as you, even if I left my windows and doors wide open for weeks. If nothing else changed, I have to guess this is your issue, and it will be temporary. Also, if you are using vinyl, the same thermal factors can truncate bass response of a phono cartridge, too. Assuming nothing has happened to your amplification, it seems a temporary problem associated with an environmental change that a hundred hours of any band using a large Marshall stack can overcome.
Phil |
Mike (Mahughes),
I've been buried in work and away from here for weeks. How are you doing with the re-break-in of your speakers after cold weather shipping?
With Superfly, variances in the floor gap are far less critical than with Druid, which was the point of the full Greiwe implementation via internal pyramid and "finger vents" on the underside of the cabinet. What's your progress?
Phil |
