anyone heard zu definition speakers?

I owned the Druids and they are outstanding at $2,800. They were far more convincing musically than Gallo Ref. 3's they replaced.

And, at (I think) $1,700, the Tone monitors still support 101 db efficiency and the same delicious house sound the others provide.

Nealhood, agree $9K is not average joe territory, not in my neighborhood anyway. But much of this thread has been extolling the virtues of the Druid which, it has been said, may be preferred by many to the Def. At under $3K I would surmise it is not too far away from the average $ most audiophiles spend on speakers, Bose brainwashees not counted. The Gallo Ref 3, for example, has been lauded as being a great value for money and it is in the same price range.

Also, I need to pick a nit here, less so from a grammatical than a polemic standpoint, although both apply. When you say "by definition" you are implying a textbook/dictionary meaning, but then you cannot qualify the qualifier by saying "doesn't have to be". Just a very confusing sentence there dude, and that's not even considering your ostensibly Freudian-slip use of the word "definition", as in... the speaker under discussion!

Hello. Can anyone explain the difference between Zu Definition speakers and for examp. Wilson WATT/PUPPY 7 ??
I will drive them with Lamm ML1.1 90W tube amps.
How they differ and in which areas?
Thank you very much.

My Def's showed up. They will not be leaving my house, probably ever. I haven't heard the Wilsons, but I'll compare with crossover'd speakers in general.

Yes, there's a big difference. Not having the signal smashed through a complex crossover, divided up, and sent to drivers with varying properties produces a whole, organic sound that is at once warm and accurate. The inconsistencies that are (speculating) inherent in the typical multi-way design and construction processes do not exist with the Definitions, or Druids for that matter.

The brain is released from the chore of hearing these different voices and integrating them into one. Since the drivers are identical and parallel, the music reaches the ear already as one whole sound. Based on my experience with multi-ways, I don't think this is possible with drivers of different sizes in different locations made from different materials.

Their bandwidth is limitless, which the Wilsons should be. The presence region is more forward, and Treble and bass are not tipped up like other hi-fi speakers. Thus, they may not be the best for some rock music. But, I wouldn't change the tonal balance one bit, as it is NATURAL.

And, the sum is MUCH more than the parts. Anybody in Seattle wanting to hear these, let me know. These speakers WILL catch on.

Cobra (Phil) my history with speakers is longer than years given that I have been at it for 45 years. I have had many horn speaker and presently have the Acapella LaCampanellas which are horn down to 600 Hz. Previously I had the Beauhorn Virtuoso. I loved the largely full-range Lowther driver in the Beauhorns, but it needed support both at the top and bottom. I heard the Definitions at the RMAF recently and was impressed, but in their small room listening very near field I did not get much imaging which is a strength of both the Beauhorns and the LaCampanellas. Have ever heard a Lowther horn? I would be very interested in how close you think the ZU driver is to the Lowther.

Also, you say that the Definitions are the best in their price range. Does this mean you know of more expensive speakers that are better?