Anyone listen to Zu Audio's Definition Mk3?


Comparisons with the 1.5s and the others that came before? Getting the itch; again......
128x128warrenh
Glory,
your response is very strange,wetting pants? angry SET uwners? What are you talking about? It was 'clearly stated that we as listeners are going to have different opinions and taste. Why would your view of SET amps upset me(it does`nt) or other owners, or affect my joy with them(it does`nt). If you`re as happy with the ASR amp as I`m with my SET then you`re doing great. You do come off as a bit immature with your responses.Why does this have to be an either/or situation with something as simple as amplifier chioce,good lord!
>>The burning question is whether the Def 4s fit into this category? There is an inconsistent witness here. Telling people to drop 13K on a speaker and not to sweat the rest is a good sales pitch. I have no doubt they are excellent speakers.<<

This is a reasonable objection but it's not an accurate representation of my view. First, I am not telling anyone to drop $13K on a pair of loudspeakers unconditionally. Some people who already own Def2 should keep them. Some people who have a total spending ability only marginally above the price of Definition 4 should have a system built around Zu's Soul Superfly or Omen Def or some other speaker instead. But if any given individual appreciates Def4, can afford, and wishes to buy a pair, it's one of the speaker's strengths that more modestly-priced amplification and sources can successfully leverage the clarity and beauty of the speaker. As anyone who's read my various Zu-thread posts over the past several years knows, I advocate going heavy on emplifier quality with any Zu speaker, but I also hear many affordable integrated amps successfully used with Definitions, and more than a few high-end systems using the $995 Oppo BDP-95 universal disc player as the sole digital source. Prospective buyers should understand they can get very fine sound making one premium purchase with Def4, plus two moderate ones, if that's their choice.

>>Phil, it is not a pernicious gesture on Gary's part to suggest that you can maximize the 4s potential with different gear.<<

It's not "different" that I argue against. The pernicious notion is that Definitions can't be their best unless expensive "SOTA" gear is used with them, which Gary directly stated. People stay away from hifi in droves because of this elitism, and anyway it's wrong. This industry we buy from has many examples of spectacular cost and allegedly SOTA gear completely failing to deliver value or even good results at unreasonable cost. There is a further pattern of escalating cost gear only delivering another variant of coloration -- cables being a primary offender. Worse is the implied intolerance for the ideas of value and restraint. Glory's initial diatribe attacked the idea of building a balanced system of controlled budget, that might leave some of the speaker's potential hidden. Ignore our differences over ASR, for that was the sideshow. It's not unique to Glory. This attitude arises in many debates here and on other audiophile forums. His central theme was to denigrate balance and restraint in system building. I didn't agree that the choices I made result in lower fidelity but that wasn't elemental to the discussion. Glory was explicit: If you're not using a variety of more expensive gear with Definitions, in his analogy you're driving slowly in city traffic in a Ford Focus. The notion that you can't optimize and enjoy a $13k speaker unless you also add a $25,000 amp and $6,000 speaker cables is killing high-end audio faster than it can find new customers. But it is also incorrect.

>>I hate to ask but are you a dealer/distributor for Audion?<<

No. Not remotely. Not for Audion nor anyone else. I work in software/internet. The Black Shadow I had to repair was my own, and I only know who bought what when people who ask my advice then tell me what they did.

>>If I have caused you SET owners to wet your pants in anger because I hear them as colored/ loud with weak balls than please forgive me for I meant no harm.<<

No one is angry. The objection is the blanket dismissal of SET as weak, low resolution and noisy. Some SET amps are sonically colored and undynamic and in fact that was all too true for most throughout the 90s, during the first ten years of the SET revival in the US. It's why I was late to embrace them. But now there are SET amps that at least with a 101db/w/m speaker are not lacking assertiveness nor are they colored any more so than an ASR is colored in its specific way too. When you hear one, you'll understand. I would respond the same way to someone who said all transistor amps are grating and spatially flat because all the transistor amps they heard sounded as described.

Phil
Hi Guys,
I don't mean to hijack this discussion (which I find both very informative, educational, and humorous at the same time), but does anyone actually have the mkiii's? I am considering the upgrade. My most recent Zu speaker was Omen Defs with upgraded Mundorf SIO Caps, internal silver wiring, and the HO Drivers (not the nano drivers).
Besides the obvious improvement in bass, what else can I expect different from the Omen Defs? I found the OD's to be spectacular with both SET and Solid State and they excelled with great recordings, especially with vocalists, jazz, and acoustics. However, rock, mediocre recordings, and anything over a moderate level was fatiguing to my sensitive ears (tinnitus).
What sort of change for good or bad would the Definition mkiii bring to the table? Would they be better with less than stellar recordings? Would they be better with rock? How about sound staging and imaging? As I said, I am very sensitive to high frequency etching due to tinnitus and the tweeter is the same in both speakers. I did find it a little harsh for me at moderate volumes with electric guitar, cymbals, etc.
As I had the Omen Defs with the same internals as the mkiii (same wiring and caps), the only difference is the Nano Driver and the Bass Modules. I would really love to hear all your thoughts on this as I want to make sure that I'm making the best decision or if I should just save up for a few years and get the mk iv?
Thanks alot guys.
I'm getting close to making a final decision to go up to the Def4s, hoping to have a buyer for my 2s sorted. Ironically the one aspect that has held me back from full satisfaction with the 2s ie bass integration has now been sorted out with the SpatialComputer Black Hole in my Def2 setup, so much so that I've really had to be convinced that the single down firing sub in the Def4s will take me a significant step beyond even this. Phil with his really cool in depth description/analysis really has boosted my confidence here, since I am likely to buy without audition first (sharp intake of breath all around!).
What I have found most illuminating is Phil's description of the greater spectrum of frequencies covered by the new nano impregnated FRDs; they seem to extend deeper into the bass and higher into the treble, which was not even a consideration of mine when trying to work out if the Def4s were likely to outperform my Def2s. The idea I get is that this takes further workload off the sub bass and supertweeter, but since these new drivers too are improved, integration esp. and outright performance are all lifted.
In conclusion, I was initially really worried that the Def4s may have turned out to be a dilution of the unique tone dense signature Zu sound which I (and plenty of followers here) am addicted to, but thankfully they appear to be a reinforcement and step beyond what I love already.
Phil, can I trouble you for a summary of what you're currently finding as the Def4s unwind (btw how fast does the sound open up, how many hours before they'll give of their best?)
Morganc,

I don't have Def3 (I do have Def4 and I had Def2). What you really need given the hearing sensitivity you described, is Def4 with the Radian compression supertweeter. But if that's out of reach, you can expect rock at high SPLs to sound less fatiguing in Def2 or Def3 compared to OmenDef, because of the much better cabinet structure and materials in Definitions, and the resulting sharp reduction in cabinet talk. The glare you experience now with rock music in the OD's MDF and simpler cabinet will be gone from Def3. I expect mediocre recordings will be more acceptable becauce high frequency information up to about 12kHz is produced by the FRD, and the nano drivers deliver cleaner, smoother detail than the older FRD, including the whizzer's performance. The nano drivers are a relatively large improvement over the earlier gen Zu FRD in OD.

Further, if you buy Def3, you could discuss with Sean the possibility of wiring internally with Mission instead of Event, or he might suggest a custom cap choice for the high pass filter to the supertweeter. Last, with Def3 you get the B3 connector. If you use Zu speaker cables and have them terminated with Speakon, the B3 continuity all the way to the amp will further refine and smooth some of what irritates you on the top end. And there again, you might consider Mission instead of Event's silver content.

With the powered sub-bass array in Def2&3, you will get a further 1/3rd octave of bass, if your room supports it, and the tunability of sub output from Def4.

Phil