Zu Soul Superfly

I have a suggestion regarding Zu Soul threads.

I recently spent a decent (read really significant) amount of time reading through all 6 pages of 285 posts and would like to make a recommendation that we subdivide the Zu Soul discussions into some primary sections.

I realize that Audiogon is not set up, first and foremost, as a discussion forum so this is not as easy to manage as it would be on other purely (primarily) discussion based audio forums. I also realize that threads can take on a life and direction of their own! Not much can be done to control that.

There is a lot of great information and debate within a number of the posts in the Zu Soul Superfly thread. And it would be great to be able to access some of these specific posts and areas more directly and with greater ease. Ideally, these sub-sections would grow to be more specific, pertinent, robust, and would dig deeper into the topic.

For example, one of the major discussion areas within the Zu Superfly thread is amplifier matching and synergy with the Superfly, another is general amplifier recommendations for pairing with the Superfly, and there is also a lot of coverage of the F amps. Each a possible dedicated thread in its own right.

Another example is impressions of the Superfly by owners who have received them. To this end, I have submitted a thread on Standard / Superfly Owner Impressions. Perhaps the primary posters in a particular area could take on creating a specific thread for the area that they have contributed most to.

Please know, that I do not want to de-rail this thread in any way. It has been a pleasure following its twists and turns and especially the sparring between 213Cobra and Zannon and I have learned a great deal through it. I will be happy to repost my thread/post under a streamlined Thread Header system that works for all.

Let me know what you think.

- David.

The thread has posted and is titled:

Zu Soul Owners' Impressions: Standard / Superfly

and is listed at Audiogon under:

Community/Audio Reviews/Speakers

>>You need 40-50W minimum.<<

I recently had another experience that undermines any notion of a hard-and-fast rule about minimum power requirements for Zu speakers. Again, for the record, while I understand the enthusiasm some people, including Sean Casey and Adam DeCaria, have for the sound of 2w 45 SET amps (they've brought a Yamamoto to my own systems to try to convince me of it's viability as a match), flea power isn't sufficient for me. Some people will be thrilled with sub-ten-watts amplifiers on 101 db/w/m Zu speakers. However, I use 25w SET on both my Zu systems, 845 in one case and 300B PSET in another, in an open plan house where rooms aren't fully bounded. One room is 20' x 14' x 8.5'. The other is 22' x 12' x 10'.

I recently had a chance to buy a pair of NOS Quad II Jubilee mono block tube amps. The Quad II is, I've long maintained, the most SET-like push-pull tube amp. It's also only marginally more powerful than classic SET single tube designs at 15w each -- less than the big glass 845s and any number of PSET configurations. I don't need this pair of Quads; I just bought them because I wanted to own them.

The Quad II becomes marginal into low impedance speakers, but it's still quite viable into the 6ohms Zu Definition. Into 12ohms (Druid) and 16ohms (Soul) it's in its sweet spot, and a sweet spot it is. I heard a pair of Quad II on Druids a few years back, in passing, but not with a chance to listen closely. I put the current reissue as well as rehabbed originals on my list of recommended amps for Druids and Presence, particularly. But now Ive been able to listen for days on end and not only are these amps tonally beautiful, revealing and convincing but they are more than sufficient dynamically on Druids -- and by extension, Superfly. I will make a point of hearing them on Superfly soon, but I already know the answer, given my familiarity with the similarities, differences and assets between Druid 4-08 and Supefly, and the Quad II behavior into 16 ohms.

Designed in the early 1950s for it's 1953 debut, the Quad II represents Peter Walker's sense of innovation and responsibility against the backdrop of a still-struggling Britain in recovery from WWII. It's a simple circuit that wastes nothing in terms of resources. The amp was designed to be affordable in a nation still oriented to scarcity, built into a maximally-efficient packaging footprint requiring minimal sheet metal and parts. But nothing was skimped in the critical transformers.

Sure, today's legacy-informed Quad company has added 40w and 80w updates to the classic Quad II topology, bringing Tim DeParavicini to the task of improving on Peter Walker's elemental design from nearly 60 years ago. And of course they offer an excellent reissue of the original Quad II which is affordable by modern high-end standards.

I normally consider 15w below my satisfaction point for amplification with Zu speakers, but the Quad II upends that bias. Even a highly-dynamic Blu-Ray soundtrack isn't too much for it, in a room of my dimensions noted.

Phil

David,

Interesting post as is your other post on the subject. I actually think it just is what it is and if there is a demand then other threads will thrive.

However... cracking photos. Convinced me I was right to not go for cosmic carbon but lovely to look at nevertheless.

Mike

Hi Mike,

I think it is smart to make the investment in a finish that works for you.

The percentage seems large, but is off of a small base amount.

So much less expensive than working a decorating budget for a room around a pair of speakers.

What finish did you go with?

- David.