Decision between Zu Definition OR VS DB99

Gregm, your post is based upon speculation, not having heard the Zu Definitions (which you graciously admit). Unfortunately it contains some errors.

Nealhood, Zu offers a 60 day money back guarantee and in fact insists that you keep the speakers for that long so you give them a chance to break in. They sound great with tubes and are OTL friendly.

Gregm - Zu makes all their own drivers. Each cabinet contains 4 x 10 inch powered woofers in the rear. Each front sports two 10 inch mids and a super tweeter in the MTM arrangement you described. These present 101 db efficiency at 6 ohms. This is a nearly resistive load so it is very amplifier friendly.
Actual listening seems to support their claim of 16Hz on the bottom. I found imaging to be very good and depth of soundstage very convincing. I hope to be buying a pair of Definitions very soon. Meanwhile, I bought the Druids. These are much more cost effective than the Defs but with 5 fewer drivers per side, they don't quite do the same thing.

Essential, old sport, a most unfortunate misfortune in my post seems to have inopportuned you. Which, pray, are the erroneous points? The mistakes (as opposed to the errors)?

BTW, if you own (or have used) Zus, can you give a quick summary of actual sound characteristics?
Jokes apart, it's really a very intriguing design.
(BTW, don't want to be seen as bashing the VS -- I just happen to be interested in the Zu). Cheers

Thanks Macrojack. I had overlooked that there are 4x10" woofs per side (rather than 2). So much the better. I expected the imaging properties to be good - I just want to know if they present a pin-point/ "reductionist" image (which I doubt) or a more holographic type. Fm what you say, the latter seems to be the case.
Using two wide-range drivers is what intrigued me -- they cover a very large range downwards and I wonder how they dealt with intermodulation and coupling the two.

BTW, looking at the Druids I can understand your interest in the bigger model. BTW, the yr spkrs have a different tweet and a heftier hi-pass filter than the Definitions.
Cheers

For what it's worth Gregm's identification of how the 99's sound from the specs is spot on. Meaty/dynamic and very good sound imaging. I would add that with the 99's rear firing tweeter with ambience control one can adjust for pinpoint or focused imaging to more dispersion with the turn of the dial. Sound stage depth/width/highth are all there. Singer is in the room. I would add "clean" to the descriptor list for the 99s.

Still-- gotta be someone out there who has heard/compared both. How about those who have attended audio shows?