At RMAF I think I would not have liked Definitions either. The reason being that the room was too small to allow enough distance between the speaker and the listener. If you're too close to Definitions, your perception of tonal balance will be torqued by unintegrated treble energy. As I described in prior posts, I recommend people buy Definitions only if their listening position allows 10' or more of linear distance from the face of each speaker; 9' might be OK. There may be room and power amp factors that could be adjusted to make closer listening just as satisfying, but I haven't found them. The disparity between reaction to the Druids and the Definitions at that show pretty much bears this out. I've never taken any hotel demo very seriously. At the VTV show here in SoCal, I really didn't hear any convincing sound from anyone at the show, but in a relative sense the Druids were fun to listen to and the crowds seemed to enjoy them. So, it surely is understandable, Jack, that the first time you heard Definitions wasn't convincing to you.
If the DB99 were described as a design eschewing any crossover elements in the midrange signal path, I'd be motivated to go out of my way to hear them. But with a crossover in the signal path of the midrange, it becomes just another speaker, perhaps nevertheless worth hearing when I can. However, the consequences of a crossover are not going to change. They can only be ameliorated. For example, I used to like a Sonus Faber Cremona and Amati. But in the context of a crossoverless Zu speaker existing in the market, they are no longer interesting or satisfying for me. Curiously, no one has yet answered my question about the crossover points of the DB99.
No one has so far contested my assumption the DB99 has a crossover in the signal path to the midrange. Which tells me the DB99 is an attempt to build a better speaker on conventional architecture. OK, as conventional architecture speakers go, it might be very good. However, frankly, that approach hasn't yielded much progress recently and I've been at this long enough for it to have become a dead-end. Anyone considering both speakers should understand what they're really comparing. If, fully informed, their decision is in favor of the VS over Zu, I have no argument with that and wish them the best.
Phil
If the DB99 were described as a design eschewing any crossover elements in the midrange signal path, I'd be motivated to go out of my way to hear them. But with a crossover in the signal path of the midrange, it becomes just another speaker, perhaps nevertheless worth hearing when I can. However, the consequences of a crossover are not going to change. They can only be ameliorated. For example, I used to like a Sonus Faber Cremona and Amati. But in the context of a crossoverless Zu speaker existing in the market, they are no longer interesting or satisfying for me. Curiously, no one has yet answered my question about the crossover points of the DB99.
No one has so far contested my assumption the DB99 has a crossover in the signal path to the midrange. Which tells me the DB99 is an attempt to build a better speaker on conventional architecture. OK, as conventional architecture speakers go, it might be very good. However, frankly, that approach hasn't yielded much progress recently and I've been at this long enough for it to have become a dead-end. Anyone considering both speakers should understand what they're really comparing. If, fully informed, their decision is in favor of the VS over Zu, I have no argument with that and wish them the best.
Phil