Phaelon - no offense, but I do not understand your statement that "one of the things Im taking away from the above posts is that a primary virtue of these speakers is that they play loud." They have tremendous tone and dynamics and presence. They play big, but they do not play loud unless you crank up the volume. Yes, they are capable of loud volumes, but I never listen at loud volumes; and at night and weekend mornings I listen at low volumes. Yet, they still have the same tone, and they still have presence without being played loud. They do have a long break-in period, and they do take months to evolve. I have a 300b SET, and it is simply sweet. |
No, they do well at normal listening levels as well. I too am in a condo, though Im itching for a single family home with a purpose built room, and most of my listening takes place at sane levels.
A few people have commented in this thread how the definitions come to life at lower volumes... do a little skimming, especially through 213cobras posts. |
These have been on my list as audition speakers when replacement time comes. But one of the things Im taking away from the above posts is that a primary virtue of these speakers is that they play loud. Since I live in a condo and never try to listen at live levels, would it be advisable for me to remove these from my list? |
Yes, I have to agree with the above. I've never owned zu's that didn't evolve slowly over months. The good news is that the Def 4s sound pretty decent out of the box (unlike my previous Defs), but they will go from good to great to awesome over the course of time. Play them at louder volumes when you are away if you can. I put on raucous music while I was at work and this has sped up the break in. And while you don't have to crank them as loud as previous Defs, they still benefit tremendously by sustained, louder than normal volumes. I don't think chamber music at polite volumes will ever cut it. |
I've noticed that slow break in with all Zu speakers....especially if they are played at low to moderate volumes? |
The Def 4s evolve over months, not days or weeks. It is necessary to be patient. |
Hmm, expensive tubes, and just when you thought you could get off the constant, pricey, upgrade path...
Back to the matter at hand, the Def4s. These really are chameleon like, and require a LOT more work than the 2s to get right, but BOY is it all worth it when they're singing. My main downside is that I'm struggling to get my analogue to sound of it's best. My new tt with the Def2s roundly trounced my digital, but with the 4s I can't quite dial analogue in right yet, and my EMM Labs cd is in pole position, sounding just great. I'm finding that with the quantum leap in transparency possibly my cart or phono stage loading is awry, but am sure I will get there. I'm very tempted to audition the Soundsmith Straingauge cart, possibly the fastest most transparent cart on the planet, which I think may well complement the 4s nicely.
These babies are a lot more sensitive to set up - I'm finding they really like a lot of toe in, and the bass adjustments sound great with factory presets. IMHO don't be tempted to boost the bass too much, otherwise a real disconnect from the FRDs will result.
I'm happy to say I'm "getting" the treble now. Initially I felt it was still too reticent, like the 2s, but as I've got used to them, the HFs are really opening up. I love how the treble really is a natural extension from the FRDs and not spotlit at all. This is all adding to the sense of realism across the board.
My only slight feeling of disapointment is that they sound a little more subdued than the 2s at lower volumes, puzzling since the efficiency rating is still 100db+. I am finding the need to turn the volume up a little more, which is an issue during late night sessions. It may be that the gains in transparency and detail is slightly offset by a decrease in density.
Will post further as get to know them better. |
Roscoe: No it's the black version..... And I've only played them for a few hours, so I don't have many impressions yet, other than they sound good so far:). To my eyes they do look smaller than the prior Shuguang Black Treasures that I had.....maybe I'll start a different thread for this discussion......sorry for the distraction guys...... |
Morgan, The Psvane MkII is the grey colored tube? How do you like it? I haven't been able to find much info on the Grey MkIIs, nor many sellers of the MkIIs. |
Sorry Zu owners for the 300b tube discussion but I just had to respond to morgan`s earlier post. Morgan the EML mesh is considered excellent and upper tier(I hav`nt heard it myself). The Psvane is said to be a bit better than the Black Treasure version(so it`s very good). Havent bothered with the 6EM7 at all.Phaelon is right, the premium 300b tubes are worth the cost.
Regards, |
I am comparing at present a pair of EML Mesh 300's to the Psvane 300 mkii. Both are sounding excellent in my current system. I would love to hear a pair of the Japanese Yakatsuki's! Maybe a Christmas gift to self :)?
BTW any of you guys with the Franks: Have you rolled the 6EM7 or 5u4g tubes? |
"The absolute best IMO the Takatsuki TA-300b(japan) very expensive(1800 USD) but elevates the Franks to the truly sublime tier, just superb.
I just want to ad my voice to Charles1dad and GSM18439 concerning the top tier 300b tubes on the market. If you have a 300b tube amp, I cant urge you strongly enough to set aside your disappointments with all the overblown hype that youve heard used time and time again to promote audio products, and give these a try. I havent heard the Takatsukis yet but if I had, before I invested in the Sophia Royal Princesses, Id probably be a member of the choir. It's very easy for me to imaging preferring a modest amplifier with these tubes than a significantly more expensive amplifier with more commonplace tubes. The difference is that profound. |
Gsm18439,
Funny, you must have replied to morgan`s post just before I did. We had the same thought about the Takatsuki tubes.O f course I agree with you.
Regards, |
I`d think the Melody AN 211 and the Coincident Frankenstein are going to sound quite different from each other,yet both would likely be excellent and special in their own way. That would be a very interesting comparision with the Zu DEF speakers.No loser in this match.I have`nt heard the Melody 211SET but I`d bet it`s fanstastic.
Morganc, what 300b tube are you using? I`ve had my Franks for over 3 years and have used EH Golden Grid(ok) Western Electric re-issue(just ok) Black Treasure,(very good) Sophia Royal Princess(excellent!). The absolute best IMO the Takatsuki TA-300b(japan) very expensive(1800 USD) but elevates the Franks to the truly sublime tier, just superb.This amp runs the 300b 'very conservatively' and will extend the life of the expensive tubes. Just something to consider.You`ll hear every bit of this superior tube with your transparent Frankenstein.The Sophia Royal Princess is close to the Takatsuki`s performance and better than the other tubes mentioned above.
Regards, |
Not to divert the thread, but those of you who use 300b amps, should check out the Takatsuki 300b tubes that are made in Japan. Pricey, but amazing.
One other comment based on Phil's obervation about break-in. . . . in my experience, the Def 4s continue to evolve in a positive direction for months . . . even though they undergo prolonged factory break-in before shipping. |
Yes the Metrum is quite nice. I do have an AP-2 for the Metrum but I'm waiting for a replacement Metrum as the Coax went out on mine........
But yes, loving the Franks and it would be great to compare our two systems.....211's vs 300's! |
Keith,
I'm kind of glad to read this as I ended up backing out of an Almarro 318 at the last minute, and have wondered at times what that synergy could have been with my upgraded Def 2s.
You got new Franks, Morgan? Awesome! Wish I were on your coast to hear that rig of yours.
It seems like you're liking that Metrum as well... very cool. |
Keith,
I have found two excellent amps with my Def III's: Art Audio PX-25 and my recent acquisition the Coincident Frankensteins. I find the warmth of the Franks to be a perfect complement to the Nano FRD's. The Franks give up a little of the bass of the PX-25, but not much. Of course, that is in my system which is very detail oriented with the Metrum Octave DAC, the Allnic L-3000 Pre, and the Def III's. |
an update on Def4 amps. One of my Quads went down and so I picked up an Almarro 318B here on the 'gon. I found it a poor match with Zu Definitions. The amp wasn't strong enough in the bass and clearly favored midrange and smooth type sound. It may work with monitors better, but it was one of the worst sounding amps I've heard on Definitions *in my system.* In it's price range, the SEP Mastersound with NOS tubes was much better to my personal tastes.
just landing this afternoon is a Vac Phi Beta, KT88-based, super integrated. I am hoping it will be the cat's meow once appropriately tubed. I have owned a Vac Phi 200 before which sounded a bit SS, but didn't use Black Treasure KT88s on it (which is a large upgrade on my Quads)--the Phi Beta has a full 6sn7 linestage inside that should complement it very well.
i do reminisce quite a bit about FirstWatt- if the SIT2 was 20 watts, I'd probably still own it. |
Cool to hear I'm not alone on the image focusing. I did some listening last night, but it was pretty passive while I read.
Things do seem a bit more dialed in though and I think I can attribute the lack of pull from immediately after the change to a combination of my general mood at the time and things needing to settle again after being disturbed. |
Gopher, thanks for the info on how the upgraded drivers were to be placed (I did not have instructions when I did it several weeks ago - I put a matched pair in each speaker). Just made the change tonight and it definitely better defines the images in my Omen Defs. I don't notice any other changes, but it was a worthwhile 15 minutes. |
Well, I made the change and I think I perceive a difference. Seems like the stage is a bit wider and more open with images being a little better defined... maybe I'm imagining it, but I feel like I'm usually a little more emotionally stirred. |
Alright... I swapped 'em.
The amp is warming up now... I guess I'll see how things sound when my son conks off to bed and I can turn on some tunes. |
I'd swap 'em. More important to have left and right matched instead of top and bottom |
Phil or anyone else,
Is it a big deal if I put the drivers in the wrong place with my Nanotechs?
I installed a matched pair in each speaker rather than matching the top and bottom drivers. I didn't realize this was wrong until I read the instructions that are on the upgrade kit section of the webpage (instructions didn't come with drivers).
Should I bother pulling two out and swapping them or is it no biggie? |
The least "alive" Definition was the original Def2, before the 2010 HO drivers. And still, at modest levels it was comparatively excellent at representing full tonal body and presentation of graceful detail with dynamic contrast. Definition 4, and all the ZU speakers with the nano FRD generally, are as effective as you're likely to hear in being able to present aliveness at low SPLs.
The one caveat is -- *after reasonable break-in.* If you buy them new, especially during cold shipping months, they will not immediately bloom at low SPL, even if the apparent volume is there. But they limber up, and do what you want.
As for the resolution of Def4 compared to "conventional" speakers: I have in the past seen some reviewers compliment Zu speakers, with the one aside that in some words or others, Zu in general does not give you "ultimate resolution."
For older Druids and original Def2, there was some validity to that observation, though I argue reviewers who felt that way were mostly accustomed to intensely *over"-resolved loudspeakers, which is a common trait throughout high-end audio today and for much of the past decade. But in Def4, the combination of the nano-FRD and the Radian 850 supertweeter, I think Zu resolution is as high as you'd practically want, and I say this as a former electrostatic speaker listener, and my headphones are Stax.
A lot of what audiophiles hear as "resolution" is either rising top end, ringing and resonance, and crossover artifacts OR it's simply from recordings that are so inappropriately close-mic'd as to render the recording completely non-representative of how you'd hear the same music performed and heard from even the closest practical listening position.
I have no lingering resolution hunger in my mind's ear, when listening to Def4s with commensurately resolving amplification.
Phil |
Gemini, I can't comment on the Soul, just the Def2s and 4s. I'm not hearing any decrease in liveliness, the extra transparency of the 4s' FRDs is providing even more life at low levels in my system, minimising any remaining veil to the music occasionally apparent with the 2s.
Maybe 213Phil can offer his 2 Cents... |
Thank you, Spirit, that helps. I currently have the Soul Superfly with the new Nano drivers and they need to be cranked up quite a bit before coming alive, and I also feel that flea powered SET's would not be the best option for the Soul. I don't quite understand the technical reason for the dfference to the Def. IV's which you describe but it is certainly good to hear. |
I believe it's resolution at low levels is exemplary, a lot to do with it's famous tone dense presentation, high efficiency and lack of crossover.
Density of tone means that the sound is fully fleshed out from low, late night volume levels, whereas with a lot of more expensive speakers (the Kharma's esp IMHO), the sound only "gels" at reasonably high SPL's. So there is no real need to turn the wick up unless you want to, and music can really be enjoyed at intimate listening levels. Additionally high efficiency and an easy impedance curve means that low watt tube/SET's which excel in the more personal type of sound really find a great synergy with the Def4s (and all other Zu models I believe). Finally, no crossover means no sucking of energy out of the presentation, and with the FRD's covering a broad spectrum of frequencies, this adds to the holistic presentation at low to moderate SPL's.
All of this results in excellent resolution, the 4s being a real leap fwd compared to the 2s. Having heard Pro Acs, B&W's, Magicos and Wilsons etc. over the years, IMHO the Def4s give nothing away in terms of resolution.
But that resolution is portrayed in a different way to most other spkrs, cheap or uber expensive, on the market today. |
I would be interested in how well the Def. IV comes alive on lower spl levels and how well its resolution is overall as compared to more conventional speakers. Can you shed some light on this please? |
Sorry A'goners for my delay in my last posts re the Def4s, but "real life" intruded over the last week. I've found that as I've gotten older, and family/business issues become more serious and intrusive, I more and more really crave the serenity that a great audio system gives me, and my stress can melt away while listening to my regular diet of 3 albums a day.
Anyhow, covered the FRDs mids and bass, last thoughts are on treble. Here I'm a little less decisive in raving about the 4s. This is only since previous comments stated it to be qualitatively a leap beyond the 2s whereas in my room it is more of an evolution.
What I always loved about the 2s was the absence of the sort of spotlit treble evident in so many high end spkrs, and I do feel this characteristic isn't changed dramatically by the 4s. Now I know that this is a flavour imposed by the FRDs, and since the mids are SO much more transparent and delicate in the 4s this is likely what I'm experiencing with the treble. Again, high frequencies aren't overt until dominant in the program material, and then the music soars into the ether.
So my final conclusions. This is an AMAZING speaker, and a leap beyond what the 2s were able to offer. Most importantly, the new FRDs really introduce an electrostatic like transparency and delicacy to the addictive tone dense sound that we all love about the 2s, with no down side.
Bass is really impactful, more tuneful and much more integrated into the whole. Treble is less noticeable as a step up, but this may be the point: the FRDs covering it are so brilliant on mids on up that this character into the highs is all part of a subtle blend.
I was SO fearful upgrading sound unheard, but all has been allayed. The 4s are an absolute giant killer, imho really treading onto the territory of uber spkrs over 4x the price, but maintaining and enhancing the addictive tone dense Zu sound that no other spkrs seem to approach. |
Absolutely, Gopher. So, I've covered the all important FRDs. Now onto the bass. Any reservations as to 4 x 10" woofers being replaced by a single 12" dedicated sub were blown away by the rapid realisation that the full bass extension of the 2s had been retained with a greater speed, agility and tonal differentiation in the 4s. Finally I'm able to integrate the bass much better into my room, and vitally, it integrates itself much better with the FRDs. This really makes for a seamless mid-low spectrum, and much more spatial and temporal microdynamic presentation, especially revealing of bass ambient clues (eg the edge of organ notes as they reverb in the recording space) and bass impact (eg differentiation of individual kick drum/piano hammer strikes). The boogie/party factor is all present too, with fantastic PRAT. Rest assured, the bass of the 4s is of a whole magnitude better than the 2s, and you will not find it wanting. I'm sure the more substantial weight/bracing/plinth of cabinet is making a major contribution here. |
"Initially this appeared to be at the expense of tonal weight, but on further analysis I just wasn't used to the massive speed of these drivers. The old drivers in the 2s sound earthbound on reflection."
I had the same concerns at first with the nanotech drivers, but as I grew more acclimated and juggled a few tubes to compensate for the new signature, I arrived at the same conclusion as you. The weight and body is there--the speed and nimbleness is just initially misleading. |
Ok, time for the second part of the early listening experience with my new Def4s. At present I'm only listening to cd, and as an analogue fan, any extra enjoyment when listening to the necessary evil that is digital is a massive plus.
I previously referred to the more sophisticated sound of the 4s compared to the 2s, summarised by a massive increase in transparency and delicacy, no doubt a direct result of the improved full range nano drivers. Initially this appeared to be at the expense of tonal weight, but on further analysis I just wasn't used to the massive speed of these drivers. The old drivers in the 2s sound earthbound on reflection.
The great thing is that once adjusted to this extra speed, you realise the delicious full bodied balance of the 2s is maintained into the 4s, and the ante is really upped by this lightning fast transient response. So now we can have tonally dense, the trademark Zu sound, in combination with a lot of what electrostatics have to offer. I'm not sure I've heard such a magic combination even in uber spkrs like Wilsons and Magicos. I was really fearful the Zu sound might be "tamed" in the 4s, but this extra transparency really has just enhanced all that the 2s had to offer.
So, that's a summary of 90% of what these marvels have to offer. Next I'll discuss the bass, and fear not, there'll be LOTS to discuss here... |
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... |
Thank you, 213Cobra. That puts it nicely into perspective. |
>>...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 |
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! |
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. |
I am following this thread with interest because I am also thinking about upgrading to the Definition Mk. IV. In this context I was astonished to read Danny Kaey's review in Positive Feedback of the excellent DarTZeel amp with 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? |
So, this has nothing to do with Def Mk 3, but I did finally get f3 amp to pair with Zu Druid Mk 4 and would thought I would write it up for others.
I try F3 because I wanted to try SET class A topology and did not want to use tubes. F3 is reasonably priced SS amp with that design. I use my peachtree as DAC and Pre. Druids are high-passed with dual subwoofers.
First, I was worried about low wattage but it is not a problem. Speakers can be driven very loud, and I do not hear mid-range compression I have heard with low W amplification in the past.
Second, once again I see why druids are so revealing. Phil123 is right, amplification choice makes a difference. All of a sudden discover I accidentally had one speaker wired out of phase. Did not notice much difference with peachtree, big difference with F3.
Third, off-axis listening is now fantastic. I mean crazy good. BY off axis, I mean I am sitting at 90 degrees to speaker and cannot even see driver, but it still sounds so much better than I did in past. THis is the big mystery, I have no idea how this is even possible.
Four, at low volume, you get very rich texture and good dynamic range. It is surprising how much you can get even though music is very quiet.
Five, at normal/high volume, the sound is neutral and very clear. Maybe a little hyper-clear. I don't hear any particular emphasis on high or low frequency, nor does attack seem over emphasized or decay too strong. I would not describe it is particularly fast or articular or lean. It is just very clear. It is light like buld that is slightly too bright, or glass prescription 0.25 too strong sometimes. I re-adjust toe-in and this softened presentation a little without losing clarity.
Six, dynamics are excellent, micro and macro.
Seven, tonal texture is excellent.
Eight, sweet spot somehow became much bigger. This was the one thing I wanted to change about my system the most and I am surprised it was done with amp.
So, I am happy camper and have learned something. I may try omen defs later this year, but as sweet spot problem is fixed it is not as high a priority. |
Fantastic, Mrpaul. Much as I love my 2s, treble was always a conundrum. It appeared to be absent in the traditional hifi style of presentation ie not spotlit at all. Just a wall of highly communicative dynamic tonally rich midrange. Then a percussion instrument or high pitched string would appear to remind me, yes, treble info is there after all, just v. reticent. Bass integration was a real issue too until I invested in the SpatialComputer Black Hole, and now I have less reservations.
It's so reassuring that greater resolution thru the frequency extremes augmented by greater performance of the all-important FRDs are keeping all that is great about the 2s but taking things to a better all-around package.
It's interesting that with me, satisfaction with the Zu sound means that I'm "hearing" the xover in other spkrs, even those at the very high end. Once smitten by the Zu sound it's hard to go back.
These really are going to have to be my final spkr upgrade, and I'm really stoked for a week on Monday! |
Hi Spiritofmusic,
In my system there is no loss of the "seductive Zu tone". If anything it is more dense and fleshed out due to the increased mid-range resolution and improved bass and treble. Instruments sound more natural and realistic. With these improvements I find myself listening to a lot of older, less stellar recordings and enjoying them greatly. I think you are going to like them very much. It's hard to describe how much better they are across the board than the 2s.
Regards, |
Hi Mrpaul, you're the most recent owner to praise the new Def4s. Mine are to be installed in exactly 2 weeks. They've been out for a pro review, so should be no bedding in issues.
I've bought them blind (deaf?) w/out audition to replace my beloved 2s, so this unanimous thumbs up is filling me with (cautious) confidence.
The thing I am most concerned about is whether there is any loss of the seductive Zu tone dense presentation, with perhaps a move to a more spotlit hi fi type sound.
I would hate it if improved treble extension, midrange transparency and bass control in the 4s led to a hyped up exaggerated presentation I moved away from in the first place going to Zu 5 years ago.
Deep down your comments as well as Phil's and Gopher's should mean this fear is unfounded, but as in so much of audio, new very rarely means truly improved. |
Morgan,
I have the generic shuguangs, but after further discussing the tubes with 213cobra, it appears the "Preferred Series 274B" that tubestore sells for $30 have a stronger vacuum and may be 'better.'
If it were me I would drop $20 on a generic pair immediately and if I liked what I heard, keep them as a backup and get the better ones when I got around to it. |
Morganc,
Do the nano drivers render the Zu more neutral or revealing than the Pendragon ? Was the Frankenstein 'warmer' with the Pendragon(is this speaker perhaps voiced warm?). The Frank`s sound does change significantly depending on choice of 300b selected.I`ve used EH golden grid,W.E. reissue version,Sophia Royal Princess and Takatsuki-TA 300b. Each tube actually makes the Frankenatein sound like a different amplifier.
The Sophia RP is excellent,the Takatsuki is simply sublime!
Regards, |
Thanks Gopher. I'll give that a try! |
Morgan,
Looking at the tube compliment of your amps I see 274Bs are acceptable. Buy a simple pair of Shuguang 274B rectis online--you can get them for $10 each if you shop around, and see if that brings you exactly what you're looking for. I'm blown away by what that cheap recti is doing in my AN211 as is a buddy of mine with them in his Tubeguru F2a monoblocks. |
Yes, the Frankensteins are sadly gone. They didn't match well with the Pendragons, but they would be an ideal match with the new Definitions' nano drivers. You are spot on and I've been on the lookout. The warmth of the 300b would be IMO ideal. Having said that, the PX-25 is very nice and paired with my current system, I have a very nice, musical presentation with a very wide and deep and holographic soundstage. A little more warmth is the vocal range and I would be very happy! |
Morgan,
Are your Franks long gone? I imagine those would be dreamy with Def 3s... |
