Anyone listen to Zu Audio's Definition Mk3?


Comparisons with the 1.5s and the others that came before? Getting the itch; again......
128x128warrenh
>> is the Zu Dominance more immune to room issues? Do you think it will fix things when replacing the IVs...<<

I heard Zu Dominance (the only pair in existence) in the home of a very generous, friendly and questing Zu customer, with also a discerning collection of music. We had corresponded periodically over the past year when he approached me for advice on recommendation from Zu. The system built around Dominance speakers is in a Rives-treated room, and it is a dedicated listening space, and a very comfortable one.

One of the owner's first comments when we entered his room was to explain what Rives had done and then to say "I think they went too far and I'm still thinking about what to do next...." With that we turned on his system

No speaker is immune to room issues, but some are less affected than others. When Sean Casey first told me a few years ago what he was thinking about for his super speaker, I was wary. Three FRDs, two supertweeters, a big built-in sub. It had the potential to be an overbearing speaker in most domestic settings. As executed, it isn't at all. Dominance has more acoustic power and scale available to the room than the smaller Definition, but it is as fleet, precise, delicate and agile as any small monitor. It is both large and beautifully focused. That focus and immediacy mitigates, but does not obviate the room.

I am unlikely to ever buy a pair of Zu Dominance. It is the best speaker I know of commercially available at any price, and is easily the best speaker I've ever heard, on balance, in over 40 years of being active in high-end audio. But it is a more visually and physically imposing speaker than I am likely to want in any domestic setting I'm likely to live in. Perhaps I'll get closer to Dominance by buying Experience sometime. But would Dominance "fix" my room if I bought them? Sorry. The room would still retain it's basic acoustic flaws.

Some perspective is in order for this discussion.

I've never said that I don't understand nor that I don't believe room correction is influential. I understand it perfectly, and there are both physical and DSP remedies. All of them are imperfect, too. My low priority assigned to professional room correction is a choice of principle and aesthetics. In any residence of mine, there will never be a dedicated listening room, no matter how much available space there is. Music via hifi is part of the social experience of being in my domicle, and that's not going to change. So the systems are in the living areas and if there is a choice forced between a 1st reflection panel and a Nieto painting, the 1st reflection panel loses that contest, no matter how much good it would do sonically. There's only so much wall space.

I've never heard a system for which the attributes of the gear couldn't be heard through the room, so whether a room is treated or not, the signature of the assembled hifi prevails. A related point is that the many people who came to hear music in my home who then left asking how to get "that sound" were not deterred or distracted in any way by the fact that they were listening in a room only marginally corrected by furnishings of the room. I have, by the way, heard the room empty, and it is radically improved by the way it is furnished. Improved enough, and it has no runaway tendencies.

So, while I have found most treated rooms quite unnatrual in significant ways, for anyone who wants to put room treatment as a first priority, it's an act of free will so have at it. But if people *ask* me whether I advise them to start there, my answer is no, for reasons already stated. I also, as you've seen from repostings of some other opinions I've written, don't want to participate in any trend that reinforces the notion that hifi for music is a geeky, solitary pursuit more regarded as pathology than enlightenment. But that's me. I'm an evangelist for the interest, and I'm actually more interested in bringing more people in from outside our community, than in influencing people already in it.

One more thing: I've known a lot of audiophiles with treated rooms over the decades I've been involved with this interest. One observation that comes to mind is that I expected a preference for room treatments to also result in more system components stability or longevity. But that's not what I've witnessed. Audiophiles with treated rooms have in my experience tended to be more restless about their gear than people who don't prioritize acoustic optimization. Is that coincidence or correlation? I don't know. But I haven't seen room treatment lead to greater apparent satisfaction nor more settled owners in the hifi realm.

And, Glory, my private email traffic from people asking my help has gone up due to this latest run of this thread, even today since Keith's criticism of my room and priorities. So, you know....I'm demand driven. I don't mind people asking for help, and I don't mind people ignoring me either.

Phil
>>Despite the compromises you`ve noted with phil`s room do you enjoy the music when listening there?<<

If someone comes to my house and can't enjoy the music here, it's their defect, not mine. Seriously; no one has ever not enjoyed listening to music in my house regardless which house, which gear, or what the power grid was doing that day. Keith will answer for himself. Ask Danny Kaey, reviewer for Positive Feedback. Ask Sean Casey, founder of Zu or his front guy, Gerritt. Ask anyone who has been to a Zu party at my house. Ask Gary Alpern, importer of Audion, Human Audio and several other lines. Ask the many people who bring CDs and LPs to my house because they want to hear it here. You've all had the same experience!

When we banter here about room differences we are not referring to impediments to the enjoyment of music! Keith an I are nearly 25 years apart. Our disagreements on politics and economics are much wider than over anything audio. He tunes his system against some of my preferences and his room is difficult even corrected. But none of this has anything to do with whether I enjoy music at his residence, especially when he has something that's new to me. For cryin' out loud -- we have both put ourselves in the same realm by building systems around the same speaker -- Zu. That makes us far more similar than different in what we're seeking, in the grand scheme of hifi alternatives. We both use tube amps as a preference. He sidelined my first amp recommendation (SET) for my third one: Quad push-pull.

This whole hifi discussion goes off track radically when people begin to wonder whether music is enjoyable on two systems and rooms that have more in common than in difference. We are discussing relatively arcane deltas that emphasize and exaggerate differences beyond which most people even in our community would consider actionable. There are no emergencies in hifi, other than your system not working at all.

I remember how much I despised the sound of Cerwin Vega and JBL in the '70s. Awful aural assault & battery but when the stylus dropped on The Band or Gregg Allman or David Bromberg or Neville Marriner & the Academy at St. Martin in the Fields in a friend's apartment playing through those awful speakers, enjoyment of the music was never in doubt.

Give me a square -- even cubic -- room and I'll still find a way to mitigate its problems non-exotically, and however much I can or can't normalize the acoustics, I'll still find familiar bliss in the music I play in that space.

Really, if anyone *ever* visits my home and doesn't enjoy the music I'm playing (or they asked for) because I have a bass rise, some acoustic bounce and only a 14' x 21' space with a coffee table and a flat screen.....well.....they aren't getting the Pappy Van Winkle's 23 either, and they will be welcome to depart disappointed.

Phil
Phil,
My suspicion was that keithr 'does' enjoy listening to your system.This is really the whole point of assembling a system in the first place;'enjoyment' and the 'emotional' involvement it is capable of. I`d love to hear your system and music selections one day.I believe room treatment applied judiciously can be very useful given certain conditions.Like anything audio however it can be a hit or miss proposition.This is an area of audio where the obsessive concern can 'potentially' run amuck if one is`nt careful.
Regards,
Of course I enjoy listening at Phil's place. That's not the real question at all. I'm going over there soon for a vinyl evening in fact...something that I decide year after year to not pursue in my own system, yet still enjoy.

Funny, the thing I most dislike in Phil's Zu Definition-based system is the 845B tube, as is well documented on these pages/forums.

But there is always potential for better sound and I feel the improvement in his room if he decides to pursue it would be much larger than expected.

I think the easiest way for folks to begin is to buy a pair of GIK tri-traps for cheap and stick them in the corners. They are removable when company arrives. If they do nothing for you, return them.
One last thing- people with dedicated rooms and lavish treatment have the potential to go overboard and try and remove every frequency anomoly and Rives in particular has taken some flack on boards and ended up with some unhappy folks. (I did a L1 existing room, so mine was incremental by nature).

But that doesn't mean the basic concepts of reducing slap echo and early reflections isn't a worthy cause.

Also, just like anything in this hobby--people become very picky and have high demands from acoustic companies. These audiophiles are just as bad as the "cables changed my life" crowd that put new cables on a cooker once a week and spend 10k on a system worth of copper.

Room treatment, just like speaker placement, can be changed and variable to tailor to likes/needs. Start easy and see what you like.