Decision between Zu Definition OR VS DB99

Well, Jack, in fact crossovers have always been blatantly in evidence and intrusive to me, so I have no reason to expect that I won't hear it in the DB99. What's changed is that the ABSENCE of a crossover in the middle in Zu's speakers has made my prior acceptance of crossover attributes moot. I haven't ever heard a speaker with a crossover, in over 30 years of listening, where it was anything other than a necessary evil. So I'm sensitive to that and have lived with it. Now I don't have to and neither do you or anyone else if you choose not to. The thing is, we've all heard speakers stuffed with crossovers. Not many have heard tonally accurate speakers with 16Hz - 22kHz or better range, and lots of dynamics, with no crossover in the midrange. So until you hear that and determine whether and how that absence affects your perception of fidelity, you really don't know what it means for you. I don't know whether it will make you want to burn your VS speakers, but it might. I can say that even very simple crossovers like inside Sonus Faber speakers introduce the same kind of deleterious consequences I described.

All I wanted to know was what the crossover points are in the DB99 for the SOLE purpose of understanding whether there is a crossover in the midrange signal path, as with a conventional 3-way, or not, as in a Zu. I gather it's the former from the obfuscation in your post.

If VS has managed to put ten pounds of RC network in the path of the midrange signal and end up with that presence having no negative consequences, then my hat will be off to that company's designers. I'm entitled to my doubts. I had doubts about Zu speakers too, before I heard them. That didn't keep me from appreciating their excellence.

A last thing. I have seen in many threads of these forums that ownership of an item somehow disqualifies someone's objectivity. That's a deeply flawed assumption. We all have been through a raft of equipment changes. Most audiophiles show very little loyalty to anything they buy. McIntosh or ARC brand-loyal consumers excepted. Truth is, I have the means to churn if I want to. If a speaker out-innovates Zu and delivers a significant leap in performance over what I have, I am fully willing to write its praises, whether or not I choose to make a change. This is experiential for me, not ideological. I have simply described Definitions for the original poster, and answered some other questions that arose in the thread, and gave some guidance as to what to look for in VS when comparing the speakers. If you read carefully, you will see that I was comparing Zu speakers to what is generally experienced with otherwise good speakers that use passive crossovers in the conventional way. With respect to the VS speakers, the requisite 'ifs' were present and accounted for.

Phil

213 Cobra, with respect I really think you are making too many assumptions on the effect the DB99's crossover has on its sound without hearing them first. Of course you are entitled to your opinion, but I think you *really* need to hear them before writing long-winded diatribes as to their supposed deficiencies to Zu (even if you inserted the word "if" as if it were just an afterthought).

There is nothing wrong with loving your speakers, and I don't think it discounts your opinion in the least. What I *do* think is that you should keep your observations limited to the speakers you have heard (owned or not). This takes nothing away from the Zus, it just does not attempt to catagorize the sound of the unknown in the process.

All that said, it sounds like you have found exactly what you are looking for in the Zus... Congrats!

Happy listening,

---Dave

Phil, I listened quite attentively to the Zu's at the Rocky Mtn Show in Denver a couple of months back. First time was not charm for me and several others in the room,, though I promised myself another audition in a setting more appropriate.

I too am an audiophile for 30 years, plus. I make it a point to listen to the latest, whether attending CES over the last 8 years or so, the Stereophile Home Show, now the Denver gathering,,, or making it a point to visit the "hi-end" brick and mortar stores in every large metropolitan area I visit,, in this country and abroad. My eyes and ears remain open! I too have developed a keen sense for the dyanmics, transparency, imaging, soundstage, and accuracy. I'm a club member Phil and wholeheartedly and passionately endorse the dB99's as you do the Zu's. Take a listen to the 99's,,, it may change your world!

Jack

At ease. Nothing to defend here. If you like your speakers, That's fine. I didn't hear Phil attacking the DB 99s at all. What I got was a physics lesson. "No crossover" is superior to any crossover, whether it is Wilson's, Von Schweickert's, or Bose. I feel the same way, having just replaced Goldmund Dialogues with crossover slopes in excess of 60 db per octave.
For my part, this is an invitation, not a challenge. There is something better available. Find out now or find out later. Zu has moved beyond convention in providing a grounbreaking new product. If you aren't interested yet, that's also fine. In time, however, this one will find it's way to your house because it isn't an arguable gimmick like bi-wiring. It's a whole new ballgame.

At RMAF I think I would not have liked Definitions either. The reason being that the room was too small to allow enough distance between the speaker and the listener. If you're too close to Definitions, your perception of tonal balance will be torqued by unintegrated treble energy. As I described in prior posts, I recommend people buy Definitions only if their listening position allows 10' or more of linear distance from the face of each speaker; 9' might be OK. There may be room and power amp factors that could be adjusted to make closer listening just as satisfying, but I haven't found them. The disparity between reaction to the Druids and the Definitions at that show pretty much bears this out. I've never taken any hotel demo very seriously. At the VTV show here in SoCal, I really didn't hear any convincing sound from anyone at the show, but in a relative sense the Druids were fun to listen to and the crowds seemed to enjoy them. So, it surely is understandable, Jack, that the first time you heard Definitions wasn't convincing to you.

If the DB99 were described as a design eschewing any crossover elements in the midrange signal path, I'd be motivated to go out of my way to hear them. But with a crossover in the signal path of the midrange, it becomes just another speaker, perhaps nevertheless worth hearing when I can. However, the consequences of a crossover are not going to change. They can only be ameliorated. For example, I used to like a Sonus Faber Cremona and Amati. But in the context of a crossoverless Zu speaker existing in the market, they are no longer interesting or satisfying for me. Curiously, no one has yet answered my question about the crossover points of the DB99.

No one has so far contested my assumption the DB99 has a crossover in the signal path to the midrange. Which tells me the DB99 is an attempt to build a better speaker on conventional architecture. OK, as conventional architecture speakers go, it might be very good. However, frankly, that approach hasn't yielded much progress recently and I've been at this long enough for it to have become a dead-end. Anyone considering both speakers should understand what they're really comparing. If, fully informed, their decision is in favor of the VS over Zu, I have no argument with that and wish them the best.

Phil