Anyone listen to Zu Audio's Definition Mk3?

Phil,
It`s both refreshing and informative reading you contributions to this long but interesting thread. i found your exchanges with glory quite telling, you were coherent,reasoned and mature. You did`nt denirgrate his system as he did yours(he came off as loutish and childish). You gave your honest impression of the ASR Emitter without insulting him or questioning his judgement(it`s always to each their own). I`m glad that`s over.

Your preference for SET amplifiers mirrors my experiences and conclusions. There is no absolute best amplifier, all topologies and genres have some degree of trade offs(no exceptions). What the good SET amps do better(IMO)natural presentation(not canned), tone,harmonics/overtones and simply more convincing realism is most compelling and persuasive for me. SET amplifiers won`t please everyone. Others will be happier with solid state,OTL,class D or what ever.There`re numerous paths to excellent sound.SET just does it better for me.

Regarding balanced AC transformes,I use the BPT-BP 3.5 Signature Plus(over the last 3 years)and I`d give it the highest recommendation. My entire system is plugged into it without any downside, it will only improved your already excellent system.Phil are you familiar with the Takasuki 300b tubes? I replaced my Shuguang BT tubes(very good) with the japanese 300b, it`s a 'stunning' upgrade from an already high level tube.
Best Regards,

Meant Takatsuki notTakasuki.

Charles, its a little boorish of you to simultaneously celebrate Phil and denigrate Gary in the context of what is now old news. Furthermore, we are free to share our views without some pc overlord with his ruler and rulebook in hand. If you actually read through the thread more carefully, it is plain to see that they both expressed pointed sentiments about the issue at hand: how to get the most out of your Zus. Phil is more professorial and slightly tangential, and it is easy to miss the implied judgements. Gary said he had a Ford Focus front end and wire. Phil told him he had gone in the wrong direction in terms of amplification and had wandered away from the true.... I don't see any differences here.

Finally, as to the world of SETs and Zu: Gary and I both know a Zu owner who auditioned the Audion gear (based on Phil's advice) and felt it was noisy, overly colored, had loose bass and simply got in the way of the music. He now owns SS. Hmmm.

I referenced a British psychology study in Mike Lavigne's system thread and it is very apropo here: "British researchers found that wine tasting was influenced by ambient music. The adjectives used to describe the same wine changed based on music chosen." So, our opinions may speak more to our listening habits, age, and other intangibles rather than pure discernment on electronica.

Regarding power conditioning. . . Do you use power conditioning on your Def 4 plate amps as well as the front end electronics?

Thanks

Marc,

>>...as a direct drive advocate yourself, together with an ever increasing band of followers, do you feel that direct drive (or idler drive) if implemented correctly will always trump belt drive, or as belt drive advocates argue that it is a synergy of everything being well engineered, speed stability being important but not totally decisive over the whole package (materials, isolation, motor quality)?<<

Keep in mind, I am not specifically an advocate of direct drive. There were plenty of bad DD TTs made; frankly most did not sound very good. It was easier to make a reasonably good sounding belt drive inexpensively than it was to make a good sounding cheap DD TT. I settled on a particular DD TT that was exceedingly well implemented. Each drive technology has attributes and sonic character that can be right and musically persuasive, if the TT is designed and built well. The cliche' characterizations that belt drive sounds relaxed (but lazy), direct drive sounds energetic but brittle and idler drive sounds vivid and dynamic but is noisy and erratic have some truths in their origins, but instances of each violate the generalizations, as the aging Luxman PD444 refutes standard criticism of DD.

Today, you can spend anywhere from a few hundred dollars to the price of a house on a turntable. It's hard to recommend without knowing where in that cost continuum your appetite to spend lies. The top end of the market, like so much of high-end hifi, is unmoored from a sense of proportion. After all, the vinyl LP medium itself is not only quite flawed, but even now, specialty production of vinyl LPs yields *highly* variable quality. So is it worth having a $150,000 turntable? Is it worth building a turntable foundation into your house, anchored to bedrock via caissons -- rendering your turntable in part a stethescope on the planet? Only someone who is prepared to allocate resources at that level to spin a vinyl disc guaranteed to not be flat or perfectly concentric can say whether its worth the spend to them. A lot of the five and six figures machine shop exhibitionist turntables I've heard don't convince me, but then the Continuum Caliburn proves a lot of cash can be well spent on spinning and tracking a $20 disc.

TW, Walker, DaVinci, Kuzma, many others have highly credible turntables that are departures from the decades-old AR/Linn/Thorens suspended chassis belt drive architecture. You can't possibly hear all of them comparatively, nor own even a representative sample today. Again, I prefer to keep thing simple. If I were buying today to replace my Luxmans, my short list:

Brinkmann Oasis -- no need to look further for DD. It's as perfectly implemented as it gets.

47 Labs Koma w/ Tsurube tonearm -- counterrotating twin platter is a terrific idea and the belt drive system is taut, dynamic.

Acoustic Solid Wood Reference -- massive platter riding on plastic-lined bearing for intimate fitting, in a thick multi-plex wood plinth and driven by a precision outboard motor via monofilament.

VPI Classic 3, for reasons mentioned previously, though it loses points for forcing its unipivot tonearm upon the buyer.

EAR -- the magnetic drive is intriguing, and Tim DiParavicini has yet to design anything inferior.

Then you have to solve the problem of what to place your turntable on. I could add others, like the Opera Droplet LP5.0, Tritium, vintage Micro-Seiki, on and on. But these that I've listed are investments of reasonable proportion (in the realm of high end audio) that won't disappoint. You'll just have to listen to some representative contenders from each drive technology and decide what's convincing to you in the differences of degree between them.

I'm not in favor of vacuum hold down. I was involved in the final development and productization of the Souther Linear Arm 30 years ago so I have a special appreciation for linear tracking tonearms, but I don't prefer the relatively massive current implementations nor their complexity. And anyway when you can get something as pure, simple and well-made as the Schick 12" tonearm today, a Tri-Planar, a Graham, or Brinkmann's 10.5" or even a Rega RB1000, know when to quit.

So, no -- DD won't always trump belt drive. Idler can be beautifully implemented but it won't always prevail either. There are excellent examples of all the primary drive systems -- even magnetic. But unless you're willing to buy blind, knowing any of these are going to sound good, you'll just have to listen and find out what characteristics are most convincing to you. Nothing, at any price, is going to be perfect.

Phil