Anyone listen to Zu Audio's Definition Mk3?

I do use an Audion Premier preamp on one of my systems. It is an earlier generation, with full remote control (volume plus switching). The sound of Audion preamps is in the same class as their power amps. The Klimo is in one system as a consequence of once having had Audiopax 88 power amplifiers, for which Audion's preamps did not have enough gain to drive (the Audiopax having only 18 db of gain and unusually low input sensitivity, requiring a preamp of 20 - 25 db gain), and the Klimo brings similar qualities so there was no need to replace it when I replaced the Audiopax with Audion's Black Shadow.

My Black Shadow monoblocks don't consume enough power to be dynamically constrained by light power conditioning. When I had higher-power amplifiers in the past, I did run them straight from the wall but in this case there's no dynamic difference. It's a peculiarity of my present location that mild power conditioning lowers the noise floor a bit whithout dynamic penalty. In another power neighborhood my configuration might be different. I'll likely add balanced power for the power amps and when I do, I am sure I won't be using power conditioning with it.

But I'll make an earlier point again: Balance is my measure, and that includes balance between my interests. My systems are in a good state of equilibrium today. My next push is to prepare for adding hard disk playback by settling on DAC choices that also benefit optical disc playback.

Phil

Phil, balanced power really has opened up my system, and in my area we have internet booster stations, industrial power plants etc. which really introduce vast amounts of current/voltage variability and grunge into the local electricity supply. Treating the problem at source with balanced power has been a real eye (ear?) opener, so I am curious to investigate pro studio gear as well, esp. if I stick with the Hovland Radia ss 125w/ch plus rear channel amp. I think that even change to SETs will benefit esp. with any hint of transformer hum etc.
Your upgrading is going down the path of DACs whereas I want to look at a final turntable upgrade, and I am really curious to go down the idler/direct drive route, of which I have chosen a few value for money choices: Trans Fi Salvation idler with linear tracking Terminator T3Pro tonearm ($5000), Inspire Monarch which uses the Technics SL-1200 motor/drive ($7000), and Brinkmann Bardo direct drive ($8000). I gather you've moved away from belt drive. Have you found this as much a paradigm shift as moving over to SET power amps?

>>I gather you've moved away from belt drive<<

This made me chuckle. Circa 1976 I owned at once a Linn Sondek, Luxman PD444 and a Transcriptor Glass Skeleton. I've been using the Luxman PD441 and 444 turntables for 36 years. In the meantime, Linn, Pink Triangle, VPI, Mission and several other belt drive turntables have come and gone. Along the way I found the Luxman direct drives could be significantly improved by replacing the stock spring/elastromer feet with brass cones on Aurios media bearings. At the time, the Luxman PD444 was the best sounding direct drive turntable of its era, better still than the Technics SP10 and SP25, and it has remained the table to beat in my systems. I have two PD444s with the footing upgrades. So me using direct drive is not a recent thing nor a "move away from belt drive." I used both drive technologies together in my systems over the years, but about ten years ago sold my last belt-drive turntable. I haven't heard anything belt-driven to persuade me to return, save possibly the top version of the VPI Classic.

If Luxman hadn't made the PD44X turntables, I'd probably have been using belt drive all these years. The design choices made for these tables were exceptional and in some respects resemble choice Harry Weisfeld arrived at for his Classic series about 35 years after the Luxmans were engineered. The Luxman PD444 weighs about 65 lbs because its plinth sandwiches a chipboard (better than MDF for resonance control) core between a heavy iron plate and an aluminum top sheet. The drive motor, custom built by Tokyo Electric, includes magnetic repulsion for a "load-free spindle" (really, load reduced bearing), phase-lock loop and a perimeter-mass platter to smooth out any residual "hunting." At a time when an armless Linn Sondek cost $350 in the US, the Luxman PD444 was $895.

The closest equivalent today is the Brinkmann Oasis, and if I were to replace my Luxmans today, that's what I'd buy.

Now, each drive technology sounds different. I did briefly own a Thorens TD124 in 1975. Less was investigated back then about plinthing idler drive turntables in domestic hifi, and idlers had fast lost respect for their problems. But remembering the energetic drive of that Thorens, a couple of years ago I bought a nearly NOS Garrard 401, had a birch-stack plinth made for it and topped it with a Thomas Schick tonearm to use with Ortofon SPU cartridges. That has proved a sufficiently entertaining alternative to the Luxmans that I am pretty sure I'll upgrade it with a slate, slate/wood or solid wood (blocks laminated) plinth. The Luxmans have the more precise, objective sound. The Garrard/Schick/SPU produces a big, robust, bursty sound less extractive of detail than the Luxman, but more imbued with sheer emotion.

I used the direct drive Luxman for 25 years before moving my systems to SET amps about ten years ago, and then to Zu + SET in 2005. So the "shift" between drive systems had different origins. Modern SET + Zu overcame a multi-decades dissatisfaction with hifi for me. The ability to at once be relieved of the incoherence, phase anomalies and dynamic choking of crossover-based speakers and enjoy the absence of crossover grunge in push-pull tube amps, get the tonal completeness and integrity of SET and wideband drivers, with modern sonic accuracy ended the futility intrinsic to high end audio as a pursuit, for me. It was a far bigger development than choosing turntable drive systems. Since placing Zu + Audion SET in my systems, a wider range of music has been made listenable and enjoyable. My patience for truly advancing upgrades is Zen-like. And I am entirely opportunity-focused about improvements rather than chasing irritations around the edges because the central topological problems in speakers and amps weren't solvable.

It's not that I am upgrading via DACs as much as I am going to expand by adding another source, and if I can get an upgrade to optical, terrific. We're clearly, in the waning years of Redbook CD, getting more options for good sound from that format than in all the years of the format's existence up to, say, 2009. So this is worth paying attention to.

When you're evaluating turntables/tonearms/cartridges, beware the many contemporary devices that succeed in making vinyl sound more like CD. Prioritize simplicity and quality of execution. And remember, you have to live with the device day-to-day, which can be different from 2 hours in a store.

Phil

Phil, Luxman PD 444 not likely to be on my shopping list, but I'd like your thoughts on the high end tt market. Different designers seem to stress preeminence of one or two engineering principles over all others. So with SME and TW Acustic we have overengineered construction and overspecified motors; with Walker and Bergmann we have airbearing, vacuum hold down and linear tracking tonearms; with Brinkmann, Grand Prix Monaco and Inspire Monarch we have direct drive (latter based on Technics SL1200); with reconditioned Lenco L75 and Garrard 301/401, and Trans Fi we have idler drive (and linear tracking with Trans Fi).
My question is that as a direct drive advocate yourself, together with an ever increasing band of followers, do you feel that direct drive (or idler drive) if implemented correctly will always trump belt drive, or as belt drive advocates argue that it is a synergy of everything being well engineered, speed stability being important but not totally decisive over the whole package (materials, isolation, motor quality)?
Btw, I'll try to get back to Zu considerations on future posts, Marc.

Phil,
It`s both refreshing and informative reading you contributions to this long but interesting thread. i found your exchanges with glory quite telling, you were coherent,reasoned and mature. You did`nt denirgrate his system as he did yours(he came off as loutish and childish). You gave your honest impression of the ASR Emitter without insulting him or questioning his judgement(it`s always to each their own). I`m glad that`s over.

Your preference for SET amplifiers mirrors my experiences and conclusions. There is no absolute best amplifier, all topologies and genres have some degree of trade offs(no exceptions). What the good SET amps do better(IMO)natural presentation(not canned), tone,harmonics/overtones and simply more convincing realism is most compelling and persuasive for me. SET amplifiers won`t please everyone. Others will be happier with solid state,OTL,class D or what ever.There`re numerous paths to excellent sound.SET just does it better for me.

Regarding balanced AC transformes,I use the BPT-BP 3.5 Signature Plus(over the last 3 years)and I`d give it the highest recommendation. My entire system is plugged into it without any downside, it will only improved your already excellent system.Phil are you familiar with the Takasuki 300b tubes? I replaced my Shuguang BT tubes(very good) with the japanese 300b, it`s a 'stunning' upgrade from an already high level tube.
Best Regards,