Decision between Zu Definition OR VS DB99

The Zu Definitions require a larger room than as used at RMAF in Denver in order for the drivers to integrate and allow enough breathing room for the woofers, so comments about the sound there should be discounted.

Bornie, many may not be aware of your affiliation as a Von Schweikert dealer, as was the case in the Speaker Asylum when you posted as Jack B there.

Both speakers have their proponents yet are quite different, so home auditions are very important. I have no connection to either company.

Brian,

No disclaimer necessary to encourage someone interested in a pair of speakers, who hasn't listened to them, to audition before deciding which speaker system to buy. I think if you read my posts above, their is no hidden agenda or message other than,,, listen to the VSA db99's for yourself before deciding on a purchasing decision. And that goes for the originator of the thread or anyone spending $10k+ for speakers,, and I believe Phil agrees.

Brian, I'm curious if you've heard the dB99's? With or without super tweeter? Show conditions or home setting? Your impressions?

Jack

Bornie writes >>No disclaimer necessary<<

Wrong!! Anytime a dealer is endorsing or recommending a product here without disclosure, it is unfair to all of the readers. Beyond that it is highly unethical.

If Bornie is a VS dealer, it's imperative he makes it known very clearly.

WC65mustang, agree 100%. To airily dismiss the disclaimer after being called out is being disingenuous and misleading. It is quite one thing for an argument in favor of a component to come from an amateur/enthusiast and another for a dealer/mfg/distributor to say the same thing.
If he can't be candid about such a thing what credibility do the rest of his statements have?

Wc65mustang,
I agree completely. Not only did Bornie not identify his prejudice but it appears he never intended to. Only when he was outed by another member did he own up and even then he claimed it wasn't necessary.
That explains why he did not address the topic of crossovers that Phil raised. His intent was to advance his agenda rather than the discourse the rest of us were pursuing.
Having experienced the "no crossover" presentation, I fail to see how anyone could dismiss the concept so readily. At least now I know why one person did.