2. speakers
  3. 1313267854

Zu Druid MK IVs vs. Essences

I'm trying to decide between these two speakers and, after reading lots of reviews and impressions on-line, I'm more confused than ever. I'd like to hear what differences Audiogoners have experienced between the two. Of course, I'm not looking for the final word, or consensus - just folks' subjective impressions.

I won't get to audition either speakers, because I'm in northwest Wisconsin and a bit isolated. But I've bought a fair number of speakers without hearing them, so that doesn't worry me. I like revealing speakers that are a bit upfront and I'd rather have scintillating highs and great mids than thundering bass. I even like a little thin-ness in the bass.

Thanks in advance for any impressions you can offer.
128x128klein_rogge
sebrof's avatar
sebrof
837 posts
 
Docks, not sure who you are referring to re: Buyer's remorse. I've never heard Druids.
I'll assume at this point that you do not like the speakers for other reasons than the way they sound, or the way they measure, since you insist on ignoring what I and others are pointing out. If you disagree that the testing methods are flawed then say so and give reason. Otherwise we get it - Druids stink and you have the graphs to prove it.
I could care less. They may very well sound bad. I'm just suggesting there may be more to the story that makes the graphs you keep referring to invalid. That's all, really.
gsm18439
895 posts
 
It is curious that Zu speakers so often engender negative comments, commonly by individuals who dismiss or do not bother to understand the design and engineering concepts behind the speakers and who have not heard them, categorically dissing others who enjoy them.
213cobra
885 posts
 
>>Is that all? Those measurements suggest way more issues than that...<<

Druid, at then $3600, was not as linear as the later $11,000 Definition, Zu's second speaker. But then no one expected it to be. It has a somewhat warmer overall tone than Definition, Superfly and Omen Def. But it was accurate as loudspeakers go, and smooth rather than ragged in its response. The lack of a floor under the partial Griewe loading scheme affects the full range driver's performance well into the midrange.

Most speakers yield a test graph more ragged than they sound, BTW.

Phil
docks
43 posts
 
213cobra -
Because its one of the most terrible responses ever. =/
Not only is it's bass response poor, its mids and highs are poor. The floor excuse just doesn't cut it.
This is just plain old colored sound IMO shouldn't rest in any persons home that is serious about music reproduction.
naggots
115 posts
 
Docks.......have a look at the date on the soundstage review.....sorry i said stereophile but thats where i saw it..

2002

What has this got to do with DruidMk4/08 or any of the new zu speakers????

As I said before you dismissed me......different drivers/cabinets/hi-pass.....

The Anti Zu brigades love brandishing around these measurements........2002 using an Audax tweeter and completely different FRD.

The Speaker in qusetion is a MK4/08 not the MK1.......these measurements are possibly why the Druid evolved to the MK4 ;)
More to discover