Anyone listen to Zu Audio's Definition Mk3?

>>There is not a single system that doesn't benefit from at minimum treating first reflections and a bass trap or two.<<

A system will benefit, but the room may not cooperate if its primary purpose is living in it. I'm completely supportive of the idea that music can be a first priority but audio might take a back seat to functional or aesthetic priorities of a primary living space. Put another way, I'm not replacing an original oil painting or a limited serigraph with a damping panel at a first reflection point, regardless of the sonic benefits. And bass traps present their own problems. I have yet to see one that's invisible, which is not the same as "hidden."

>>Audiophiles imo are lazy and want to buy cables, vibration, racks, points, paint, contact solution, green markets, etc and ignore the room too often. Like teflon dialetric is going to make a bigger difference than the room.<<

I can always hear these allegedly smaller influences through the room, regardless of the room compromises. The acoustic context and the electronic delivery chain have distinctly different influences and effects, and one can be improved without improving the other, to very good result, compared with doing nothing. There's a limit to everything. Does a $10,000 rack make sense? Not often and not for me, but somewhere there's an audiophile who thinks so and it's not because they're lazy. On the other hand, changing my turntable mounting made transformative improvements that no amount of room treatment can duplicate. These other electro-mechanical investments help in ways the room cannot.

>>In fact, I honestly don't think you can be a true audiophile without working to achieve basic room acoustics.<<

If by this you mean there is such a thing as an audiophile absent interest in music -- lover of sound for the sake of sound alone -- sure. Then I'm not an audiophile and neither are most people here. A musicophile who wants to have convincing sound through audiophile means can draw his or her own lines. By this definition, one can't be an audiophile without also committing to a dedicated listening room because anytime hifi is placed in open living spaces where living functions make audio considerations secondary, "basic room acoustics" will not be optimized. Putting audio absolutely first is the primary disease rendering hifi irrelevant and arcane to the larger population.

>>Phil's room in particular suffers from a small sound stage, lack of detail, and separation of instruments due to slap echo and lack of bass trapping that he mentions above.<<

I don't agree in this sense: My sound stage is as big as is appropriate for the room. Particularly since Def4s have been added, the soundstage is, when the music warrants, the full width of the acoustic space, and the full hieght, too. It shouldn't be bigger. It's not small compared to soundstaging in a smaller room. But it's not as large as a 25'x25' space either. In such a space, I hear some sound images as bigger than life, and I don't want that either. I hear no greater separation of instruments in similar treated room systems like yours, but then I have lots of experience listening through my room, so nothing to adjust to. I have yet to hear any detail on Keith's system that I can't hear on my own *though the presentation of detail is differrent* for many reasons, ranging from the space itself and placements, to sources and intermediate electronics. I've already said I don't think detail is under-represented in modern hifi -- it is mostly over-detailed, especially in digital. My system mitigates this in meaningful ways, and it's not the room doing it, but the system is more highly resolved in texture, finesse and tone.

>>Some day I will toss a few panels in the truck to take over and play with for a few hours....it will be an interesting experiment.<<

Let's see.

>>The difference in sound with and without will be similar in any room. That's because you can't cheat physics.<<

The actual sonic results are reduced in rectangular rooms. Physics of acoustics notwithstanding, just as measured results of gear don't anticipate how important a characteristic will be to perception of it, I've never heard a rectangular room go runaway, but I have often heard this in square or nearly-square proportion rooms. Our rooms don't sound as deviated from "flat" response as they are, and rectangular rooms are more forgiving of the physics violations, as we actually hear them. Guess what -- every performance you ever heard live was compromised acoutstically, too. And so was every recording. Ever been in an acoustically perfect recording studio? Ever been in one that is highly imperfect? Robert Johnson recorded in a hotel room and his musical influence continues to be cumulative. He sounds vivid and ultra-present on those deeply flawed recordings. Sun Records was far from an acoustically perfect studio. The realism captured in a legion of acoustically flawed studios before multi-tracking and out-of-control multi-mic'ing became the norm is stunning to hear against contemporary context.

Phil

Thanks Charles. A system thread is forthcoming. One key element about rooms and room tuning is that it takes a team approach with multiple sets of ears/minds. It is very difficult otherwise.

If I had a first order problem like that, I'd minimally treat it too.

But I don't. I have normal US sheetrock-on-frame aberrations: some rising bass response, a little slap echo, some excitable sheetrock glare when I run Duane Allman or Hound Dog Tayler a little hot. But the tonal integrity of the system and room is solid, and imaging is as good as it gets...

vs.

Per my numerous demos, Phil's room in particular suffers from a small sound stage, lack of detail, and separation of instruments due to slap echo and lack of bass trapping that he mentions above.

It sounds as if your room would in fact benefit from tuning. Again, the room game should be a team approach otherwise you can get lost in self-deception. There have been times when I thought I was cooking with gas and a fellow phile visits to provide a contrarian viewpoint.

The difference in sound with and without will be similar in any room. That's because you can't cheat physics.

and

Audiophiles imo are lazy and want to buy cables, vibration, racks, points, paint, contact solution, green markets, etc and ignore the room too often.

True and true.

Phil, is the Zu Dominance more immune to room issues? Do you think it will fix things when replacing the IVs...

Keithr writes,

"Per my numerous demos, Phil's room in particular suffers from a small sound stage, lack of detail, and separation of instruments due to slap echo and lack of bass trapping that he mentions above. He chooses not to go down that path, but knows he has a compromise in place (that's he's ok with, of course)."

Like the Wizard of Oz when the gang finally saw what was behind that huge curtain making all the loud and strong banging noises. Just a little guy blowing a lot of smoke.

In my book that is not a musically convincing place to be.

Goes to show you can have all the facts and figures down and the techno talk going on with big flowery words but when it comes to building a MC system from ground up the end result is not up to snuff.

Folks- Phil and I are good friends, but have disagreed on room treatment for the past few years. (ie. I knew he would write a sizzler to my response and it doesn't offend me)

Agear- 100% correct analysis. Philes need to work together and Phil has actually helped me tune my room for the better--our recent exercise in speaker placement/toe-in made my image more natural size-wise and overall much better sound. I have bass issues due to size and because the room can't pressurize (due to adjoining hallways). We also played with some furniture placement and figured some stuff out about my fireplace that I need to do something with. In general, audiophiles don't criticize enough and that leads to lazy sound. I was very happy when he said he thought images were too big- as that confirmed my suspicions as well.

It also effects our amp choices (getting back to the point of this thread)-- Audions don't provide the impact or bass depth that they do in Phil's room and frankly I had them for a month, with tons of tube changes, etc and they still didn't do it for me. I believe they work better in his room due to untreated/rising bass response. I also believe this has also been the case with a Zu Dominance owner who tried the same amps and now has FirstWatt SIT1s- and who also has a Rives treated room. In fairness, my room needs pushier bass due to size, but a PP 15w set of quads with a design from 1953 was much more dynamic and bigger bass than 25w Audions. Go figure.

Also, Phil has been asking me for quite some time to take out some of the room treatment, so I finally did it a few weeks back - and haven't seen an audiophile that shocked in quite some time. His comments above sum up the differences well in my room. The $500 in panels we took down had more of an impact than ANY cable or preamp I've tried, hands down. Unfortunately the ceiling tiles aren't easily removable, and they provided the largest difference that we couldn't judge that day- I hate low 8' ceilings!

That all said, I 100% stand by my comments as it relates to detail/sound stage. My Wilson/BAT system with no room treatment had similar issues that I didn't realize until I hired Rives. Smaller sound/image, less separation, etc. I can hear it instantly. For one, when I listen to an orchestra--i can separate where the clarinets are in the soundstage with tremendous accuracy. That only happens when slap echo is reduced. We know from measurements, that his room has rising bass response---so we know a bass trap will help tremendously clear up a muddied mid range. The effect will not be small.

Glory- this isn't a knock on Phil specifically like you insinuate. I think any untreated room has all the same issues. What have you done to alleviate room issues btw?

I 100% believe audiophiles need to focus more on the room BEFORE vibration, racks, cables, etc. Typical rectangles have up to 30db swings---that's just life. I'm not saying those other things don't matter (I am just starting to play with them now). And I'm not advocating only dedicated rooms. But bass traps can be done custom that match the room architecture, art panels now exist that look exactly like paintings (the GIK ones I own are ok, but there are much better/expensive options), in-wall acoustic panels are now sold, ceiling clouds can match certain decors- or custom soffit ceilings can be made. Bookshelves provide reasonable diffusion and there are window treatments that look good and help out. It's not hard--it just costs more perhaps.

but hey, that's just one man's opinion. I will update our thread after Phil/I's experiment in his room at some future date. to put it another way--I have NEVER heard of an audiophile who didn't praise room treatment more than any other "upgrade" once done. not a single one.

Each of us has priorities. My personal goal was great music through a two channel audio system within a pre-specifiec budget and in a room that was designed primarily for aesthetics (furniture, artwork, etc) and general livability (off-axis listening) and not designed primarily for audiophilia. I also selected components for aesthetics as well as for sound, hid wires behind cabinetry and under the floors, etc.

Could it be improved by room treatments? Perhaps. But these room treatments would necessarily affect the visual appeal of the room; and this is a compromise that is not acceptable - to me, at least.