>>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
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