Anyone listen to Zu Audio's Definition Mk3?

Keithr,
I realized quite a while ago that it`s hard to predict what combination of components will sound best to a particular listener.Your Def IV(on paper anyway) is 6 db more sensitive than my Coincident speaker and should mate even better to the lower watt amplifiers. I have a 100 watt (60 watt in triode) and a 40 watt amp(20 watt in triode) both are push-pull circuits.In my system both are bettered by an 8 watt SET.there`s no substitute for hearing amps in your own system. you are right in that YMMV 'strongly'.

Glory, still awaiting elaboration on your leading comment about Def 4s stock footers. What should I be thinking about? Stillpoints? Equarack footers? Wave Kinetics footers etc?

Spirit,

Def4 is snappier than Def2, which was pushed toward some tonal reticence when the excitable cabinet of Def1 was corrected. Everything up to roughly 12khz is output by the FRD (including whizzer). So a lot of what people hear as high frequencies benefits from the rather large performance gains realized from the nano-cone and the oomphier motor. Def4 brings back Def1's snap without the cabinet talk, with more speed and tone. The revelatory traits of 4 are instantly recognized over 2.

The Radian brings refinement to the very top end, much better spray, and restores real beauty to everything it outputs compared to any other dynamic super tweeter I can recall. All the detail; none of the irritation. But I think most of what will alleviate your perception of softness will come from the nano FRD, with the Radian playing a vital supporting role. The combination is forgiving of SS amp top end. Your Hovland combination is very good but you have to be prepared for the possibility that your perception of your electronics may change.

For example, the slightly forward tone of the Klimo Merlino Gold preamp was a perfect complement to Def2. Even with CCa tubes however, through Def4 that forwardness wasn't an asset. Small but actionable. So I changed that out for a 6sn7 preamp, and the system was a system again.

Phil

Charles - yes, the 300b was noticeably "better" in my set-up. However, I have a huge space to fill, very long speaker cable runs (they are buried under the floor), and the Ancient Audio 300b seems to be a bit over-built. I enjoyed both the 45 and 2a3 amps, but they seemed strained.

Phil, your comments continue to reassure me, since contrary to correct procedure, I've gone ahead and ordered the Def4s without having auditioned them first. I've been generally so impressed with the 2s over the last 5-6 years, that the promise of major performance improvements while maintaining all that's already so great about the Zu house sound, with yours and others uniformly positive comments makes me feel I haven't taken a major risk.
My new rim drive tt/linear tracking arm combo is checking out nicely, pretty happy with my cd, and my amps have never let me down (emphasised by your take that the 2s have contributed to lack of bite, not the Hovlands).
My remaining upgrades are possible change in cartridge direction to Soundsmith Straingauge, or keeping Zu 103/Transfiguration Orpheus, and updating phono stage, and then major look at racks/uprated balanced power.
I'm positive that the Def4s are going to give me a really fresh perspective on sound quality, and finally direct me to being happy with overall sound and end in sight for 15+ years of upgradeitis!