Decision between Zu Definition OR VS DB99

Duke,
I appreciate your evenhanded approach to this topic. Could you specify what you like and don't like about the Druid and Definition separately as they are a bit different? The Defs, for instance, do receive subwoofer support from below the mid array. The Druids, on the other hand, achieve their bass response from a downward firing transmission line, a sort of bass horn.

Hi Macrojack,

What I like most about the Druids and Definitions is that they don't sound like speakers. Their presentation is definitely free from something that most speakers are doing wrong, and as mentioned above I think it has to do with radiation patterns, but I could be wrong about that. They are a welcome relief in that respect.

On music that I'm familiar with I thought I heard a peak somewhere in the midrange region that modified the tonal character of voices, along with a lack of energy somewhere in the "presence" (lower to mid-treble) region, and the clarity and articulation were not what I'd hoped on complex vocal or orchestral arrangements.

In the bass region, the Definitions sounded fine to me - the bass wasn't overdone, which I appreciate. It's easy to get carried away and want your 16-Hz capable speaker to let the world know it can do 16 Hz even when the music barely dips down to 40 Hz. I am skeptical of the bass extension claimed for the Druids unless they get substantial boundary reinforcement.

The bass thing on the Druids doesn't bother me; it's easily addressed. And the minor tonal issues don't really bother me much either, for the ear becomes accustomed to and ignores minor tonal bumps and dips, and besides who's to say that my ears weren't calibrated for my own speaker's colorations such that I was totally mistaken in my assessment. But what I perceived as a lack of articulation on complex passages is something I don't know how to address. Maybe it's a break-in issue or associated equipment issue; I've only heard Zu speakers under show conditions. The Definitions might have been a bit better than the Druids in this respect, but not as much as the price difference led me to hope. I still think the Druids are very competitive in their price range, but in my opinion the Definitions aren't quite as competitive in theirs.

The Druid in particular breaks new ground as far as efficiency combined with acceptable bass extension in its price range, and frankly I do like the topology of the Definitions very much with the built-in powered woofer section. Both are exceptionally compact speakers for the level of performance they offer. I like the horn-loaded tweeter, as that blends much better with the 10" fullrange driver than a direct radiator would have.

I'll admit that it's quite possible I haven't heard either speaker performing at the level its happy owners routinely experience in their homes. And perhaps my expectations happen to zig in an area where the Zus happen to zag a bit. Obviously these speakers are doing some things very right to have engendered the following they have.

Duke

Duke,
I hear nothing very negative in your comments. As a Druid owner, I guess I would have to say that my speakers are about fun. They're just so musical and so high on the PRaT scale that I just notice my toes tapping and disregard any concerns about accuracy. Others have said that they are linear, precise, accurate, faithful, cohesive, etc., and they may well be. I find them to be engaging. As for bass, I didn't have much extension until I experimented and it turned out that in my room they worked best right up against the front wall. Also, it is important to gap them properly from the floor in order to optimize the Griewe loading. The Zu boys have been over the top motorcycle enthusiasts for most of their young lives and as a result of that passion came upon a fellow named Ron Griewe who is a former editor of some biker mag. This Griewe fellow had conducted research over many years in the area of flow and displacement in motorcycle exhhaust. Sean and Adam recognized the potential this held for speaker design and purchased the rights to apply his findings to their designs. This is a large part of why the Druid performance is so much bigger than the speaker itself. Srajan stated that the Druid was equal to his AG Duos in almost every way. WarrenH is correct when he recommends trying them at home. The Definition is no more fun than the Druid but it offers a more solid state friendly impedance curve, more downward extension, better resolution and more compactness than you get in a Druid/sub arrangement.

Has anyone here used the Lamm ML2's with the Zu's?

Show hotel listening conditions are compromising to every piece of gear exhibited, but are especially challenging to loudspeakers. I've heard Zu at 3 shows and while they were more than competitive relative to other speaker exhibitors under the same conditions, the sound available in the peculiar floated construction of hotel buildings was not more than a fraction of what's attainable at home.

Zu has sometimes exhibited with speakers that were not fully broken in, and during the break-in period, there is definitely some peakiness to midrange tones that levels out. That trace of horn-like shout you can hear when brand new, is real and disappears.

MJ mentioned that he thinks the Definition has a more solid-state-friendly impedance curve. While the Def's impedance curve is smoother over frequency range, most solid state amps will sound smoother and more musical into the Druid's 12 ohm load, though they will be down on power while doing so.

The 38Hz bass performance of the Druids is not dependent on proximity to boundary reinforcement. They will do that in the middle of a room. The boundary that counts is the floor, where the gap spacing for the Griewe model is set. On Mk4 Druids, Sean specs a CD jewel case thickness worth of gap. Tiny deviations up or down from that make significant differences. On older Druids, that gap should be about doubled. Narrowing the gap will make the bass drier and tonally less rich. Widening it will soften bass definition and introduce a fatter bottom. Amp characteristics can be countered with some slight tuning.

I agree with Duke that the absence of crossover likely has benefits additional to the ones I've previously cited as being obvious, but in general a crossover speaker sounds regressive after hearing the octave-to-octave consistency of Zu.

Phil