Anyone listen to Zu Audio's Definition Mk3?

Just because our speakers are very efficient doesn't mean they can't benefit in some ways from additional power. I used to really enjoy running my Soul Superflys with a Redgum RGi120 ENR integrated (Sean Casey is actually borrowing it now) which probably pumped over 155wpc into them.

I also heard a Cherry amp putting 700wpc into a pair of Superflys and was quite surprised by the pairing. The scale and effortlessness of the smaller speakers was remarkable.

Excellent review of the 4s just published on The Audio Beat. Roy Gregory concludes that they are virtually unbeatable value for money at their price point, on a par with performance of some spkrs twice their price. He also feels that they balance a wide ranging set of virtues normally hard to achieve by the majority of spkr manufacturers. His only less than stellar comments refer to a touch of possible harmonic leaness thru the frequency range. Even with this it is not so much a shortcoming of design, but part of the compromises all designers have to balance to achieve the desired end result in sound quality.
So if I am not mistaken, the first in depth pro review of what may prove to be giant killers in the field of spkrs, and likely to set the standard even in the $30000+ category.
And the best news? These are the very pair that are being installed in my loft on Monday! Happy days!

>>...more than 200 watts which he ran successfully on his Def. IV speakers. On paper this seems like overkill or even a mismatch? Can someone perhaps shed some light on this?<<

Putting aside all the usual reasons why a Zu speaker sounds good and performs well -- crossoverless full-range driver, high efficiency, etc. -- what makes it just about in a class by itself is the main driver's combination of high 101db/w/m efficiency with high power handling. Last I heard, no customer has ever blown a Zu driver in the field. It's remarkable enough that Zu rates their speakers for amps from 2w - 300w, but frankly you can put 1200w McIntosh MC1.2kW monoblocks on them. The advantage of using high power with an efficient speaker that can handle the power is freedom from dynamic restriction in any practical sense. Or put another way, the sense of dynamic ease and effortlessness with the perceived ceiling on peak clarity removed improves the clarity of even single notes from a piano or a close-miked guitar or cello, for example.

Now, this is only worth so much. Most high power amplifiers don't sound as authentic in the essentials of tonal fidelity, spatial representation, event precision and octave-to-octave balance as a truly well designed low power amp, but there are high power contenders. So if you find a powerful amp in which you like the proverbial first watt, and the rest of the watts retain that clarity and beauty, then a Zu speaker will show you the added benefit of dynamic ease. However, if the powerful amp isn't listenable for you, then no perception of dynamic ease will draw you to it over a better, smaller amp.

The big Mac autoformer-output amps work well with Zu. The Dartzheel makes sense. I prefer and recommend 25w 845 SET amps over 2w triodes. On the other hand the best solid state sound I've heard so far comes from 10w First Watt SIT-1 monoblocks biased hot and I have not heard great sound from big 200+w push-pull tetrode and pentode amps by any brand. So you should sometime have the experience of hearing a great amp on Zu that happens to be powerful, and you can rank-order the relative benefits for your space. And your music preferences. If you listen to a lot of EDM or electronica, you may have a different view of the value of high power than someone listening to indie rock and jazz, for example.

Most high efficiency speakers don't even give you the option of finding out.

Phil

Thank you, 213Cobra. That puts it nicely into perspective.

Well, the Def4s have arrived, and I'm still taking stock of them, so my considered response will take the form of a few postings. I thought I'd leave a few initial impressions. First aesthetics; I'm SSSOOOO glad my girlfriend made me go for Cosmic Carbon, it's such a good match with the Aluminium driver rings and tweeter lens, and fits my loft decor perfectly. This finish never seems to work in photos but is to-die-for in the flesh.
So, the sound. Yes, it is a cliche, but it really sounds like a different speaker, but the same. In a nutshell, it shares all the DNA of my previous Def2s with a definite increase in sophistication common to spkrs much further up the price scale.
This is most noticeable in a quantum leap improvement in transparency. There is a real "hear thru" quality to the sound, but maintaining the Zu tonal density. But now, instead of a concentration of musical energy into a sort of wall of sound, there is a more layered quality to the presentation. It's the same, but very different. This increased transparency really allows music to breath more easily than the old Def2s, which seem coarse by comparison. This is the only area where I disagree with Roy Gregory in his Audio Beat review, IMHO there is no "harmonic leaness" (about the least accurate criticism to be levelled against Zu).
But don't be fooled if my words make you think that we now have a polite, twee sound. No , nothing of the sort, and I'll explain more at my next post...