Anyone listen to Zu Audio's Definition Mk3?


Comparisons with the 1.5s and the others that came before? Getting the itch; again......
128x128warrenh
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.
This thread may already be hopelessly derailed, but I just wanted to share that I took advantage of the Def 4 excitement to secure a steal on a pair of Definition 2s which I intend to upgrade with the nanotec drivers like Glory's pair.

I don't expect it will be as good as the Def 3/4 speakers, but I'm quite excited to pick it up this weekend and am happy to be returning to the Zu family.
Well, my Def 4s have arrived in the UK, and are going to be the subject of a professional review before I get my hands on them.
Like the majority of people listening in real world environments, it's just not possible for me to do extensive room treatments let alone a dedicated space.
I reiterate again the significant improvements my bass attenuator (one cubic foot subwoofer type box) and industrial balanced power unit have made to my sound. I really can't go down the road of anything else since there is furniture, book/record shelves, ornaments etc to consider. I would urge other A'goners to look at subtle solutions such as mine before splashing major cash and construction on more radical solutions; indeed on another audio forum board, the SpatialComputer Black Hole attenuator when tested handily outperformed passive bass traps. With my new superbly performing record player, and the Def 4s which should integrate even better into my space, I feel I don't need to investigate any further.
Keithr,
It does seem you and phil are true buddies and there`re no hard feelings. Despite the compromises you`ve noted with phil`s room do you enjoy the music when listening there?
Regards,