Anyone listen to Zu Audio's Definition Mk3?

Agear,

A system is always holistic, else it's not a system. I don't think anyone -- and certainly I don't -- changes or adds compenents without adjusting the context.

When I listened to ASR in my system, I used all-copper cables first; reverted to silver-content for reference, but I had no expectation that silver would be the right context for an ASR amp. I listened with eight different phono cartridges on three turntables with five tonearms. And I listened to a variety of digital sources. But none of that mitigated the basic character of the ASR, which was undesirable to me.

The interactions that affect perception of ss gear aren't any more numerous nor fewer than those that affect perception of tube gear. Glory chose an amplification migration that I'd find unsuitable or more to the point, drifting *away* from convincing music presentation. I'll also note that every step along the way Glory contended in these forums that each amp was his destination, only to become further dissatisfied. If that happens with the ASR, what then? The trial and restlessness is often the indicator that the path is wrong. But if Glory is happy with his ASR, his cable choices and his Zu based system overall, I have no quarrel with that. It's his to enjoy on terms he sets for himself.

Phil

Sorry 213 but each amp I moved from had a reason other than dissatisfaction. The OTL amps were head and shoulders above the noisy/colored sound of the SET amps I had. Heat from the Tenor amps drove them out of my FL. Home.

Musical to you may not be musical to me but there is no way with the system you have built around the Def4 you can get better results than I have with my Def2. It takes T&E and $$$ and lots of wisdom to build a musical connecting system. I wish it were that easy to P&P Zu speakers in a Ford Focus system and get HE results.

Moral of the story is one must build, from the wall out, with SOTA gear to hear the Def speakers at their best. Having so so gear on a Def4 will not make it sound better than a Def2 with Nano drivers that has from the wall out HE gear.

Enjoy your system as I do mine.

Over and out.

Glory,

>>Musical to you may not be musical to me but there is no way with the system you have built around the Def4 you can get better results than I have with my Def2.<<

You're welcome to that opinion. If you have a Def2 system, it's going to be pretty good even with the gear you've chosen. I'll only say I'd rather have listened to my own Def2 system, and more so still with the further upgrade to Def4.

>>Moral of the story is one must build, from the wall out, with SOTA gear to hear the Def speakers at their best. Having so so gear on a Def4 will not make it sound better than a Def2 with Nano drivers that has from the wall out HE gear.<<

I suppose that's the "moral" to *your* story. Who agrees on what's state-of-the-art? And what's the correlation to cost? And then what's the correlation to convincing musial realism in domestic reproduction? For as long as I've been involved in this interest, I've found the three quite weakly correlated, no less so today. I'll say that over 90% of all sound represented as "high-end" to me has instead impressed me as musically and aurally dysfunctional. Have you heard Def4? I'm guessing not. There are *many* combinations of gear absolutists won't consider "SoTA" that with Def4 will produce greater musical realism than Def2 -- even with HO or nano drivers -- such are the advances in total system performance. This is the paradoz of Def4: it is more revealing, more transparent, more dynamic and yet even mediocre CDs and LPs sound better in every respect than on Def2. You only hear in contrast how much Def2 you hear with that speaker in a system, compared to the marked and further neutrality of Def4. I think you will grasp this when you eventually upgrade. Until then, you're selling conjecture.

Also, a prior post hasn't made it to daylight. I mention in it that it's been years since I've used an NAD M55. In any case I make all my serious judgments from analog.

Anyway, we disagree. I have my path; you have yours.

Phil

213Cobra, and other users of the Def4s, can you fill me in a little on the 5 way sub bass adjustments on the back of the speakers. This obviously differs re the solitary volume control on the back of the Def2s.
What I would like to know is if each control is independent of the next, or whether adjusting one parameter affects the previous/next setting. If each setting affects previous/next settings, then there is a whole lot of never ending tweaking to be done. Or is each dial adjusted and set with an apparent correct setting for the spkr/room interaction for that dial, and no influence on others?

Spirit,

I answered this question in a previous post. The five sub controls are interactive primarily insofar as the outcomes of anyone one control's settings acoustically may (likely will) influence your preferences on some of the others. If you change the hinge frequency, you may want or need some adjustment to the PEQ or the level, or both, for example. The phase setting may be more benign to other preferences but even that can influence level, PEQ and hinge preferences. What I wrote in my prior answer was that I do not see the five tuning options as being unnecessary complicated nor preventative of finding appropriate bass performance reasonably quickly. The new control options are not so simple as having only one level knob, but are far less tweak-inducing than a full spectrum parametric EQ and X-over combination. I think Def4 is pretty easy to dial in, and the controls are sufficiently intuitive to be usable by both experienced and novice owners. The primary enabling or inhibiting factor is the user's awareness of what to listen for, or whether they have either an intuitive or finely-honed sense of what sounds "right." Unless, that is, you're measuring, have the gear, and understand what's actionable in the resulting analysis. Not to mention, how obsessive are you -- do you know when to quit?

Phil