[JohnnyLightOn]

Executive summary: The reviews of these speakers are accurate.  They’re the real deal.  In my opinion, they’re very revealing, rewarding good recordings while making some poorly-recorded rock music less enjoyable.  They’re visceral and give you the sense the musicians are in the room with you.  Some people may prefer a more polite sound where the music has less of an impact and doesn’t reach as far out into the room.  I thought I preferred that kind of sound, but once I adjusted to the Zu’s, I now prefer their presentation.

I attended Zu Cable’s speaker demonstration on August 20 at the Beverly Garland Hotel in L.A.   As these speakers are only available direct from the manufacturer, and have not yet become so common that multiple owner reviews are available, I’ll try to give my best impression of what I heard based on the four hours I spent with the Tone, Druid, and Definition, as well as the Method subwoofer.  I’m not as experienced an audiophile as most of you, so please keep that in mind.  This is my way of giving back for all the input I’ve received, because I know that impressions of this speaker line are needed right now.  Also, as I don’t have the time to do a few passes of edits, this may be a bit disjointed.

Adam DeCaria, Zu Cable’s co-founder and co-designer, brought their whole speaker line.  He and Rob from Zu are super-nice guys and put on a great demo.  The format was very relaxed, basically consisting of giving the 20 audiophiles who came the opportunity to hear any CD they brought on any of the speakers, while occasionally adding technical comments in response to what we were hearing.  Adam was also available to answer any technical questions at length.  They were also kind enough to bring a pair of their Tone monitors to give away.  Alas, I didn’t win, but after hearing them I really (REALLY) wanted to bring them home.

For background, my current system consists of the a Squeezebox-fed Ack dAck 2.0 DAC, Onix SP3 push-pull tube amp, and Onix Reference 1 monitors.  The night before the demo, I listened for the first time to a CD on my home system that I’ve enjoyed many times on my laptop, Ben Harper with the Blind Boys of Alabama, There Will Be a Light.  It sounds great on my latop through Bose Quiet Comfort 2 headphones.  But after ripping the CD to FLAC and then hearing it on my system, my heart sank.  It sounded terrible, a combination of compressed, fuzzy, maybe overmodulated...really disappointing.  My amp and speakers have only 20 hours on them, and I have bad cables (very old m*nster), so I was hoping that it was either the break-in or the cables.

I brought this CD to the demo.  When I walked in, they had the Definitions hooked up to a Rogue Zeus 150w push-pull tube amp and Opera Consonance CD player.  I won’t go into specifics because they’re available elsewhere, but the Definition is their top of the line speaker, 2 (nearly) full range drivers, 1 super-tweeter, 4 active-powered woofers, $9000.  They put the Ben Harper CD on and it sounded...just as terrible as on my system.  Which brought me to a realization that I am still having trouble accepting, but that I’m pretty sure is true: on a great system, with revealing speakers that can astonish when presented with the right material, poor-quality recordings can be unlistenable.   I asked Adam to pull this CD after a minute, and asked him to put on a remastered version of The Who’s Quadrophenia, the track called 5:15.  This sounded substantially *worse* on the Definitions than the Ben Harper did.  The horns and guitar were downright screechy, like nails on a blackboard.  If I owned these speakers, I would have to listen to this remastered Quadrophenia CD only in my car.  But don’t worry, things get better (read on).

Next, they put on my CD of Gerry Mulligan Meets Ben Webster, a jazz saxophone duet (I was the first one there, so it was open-season on the Definitions with my CD case).  By this time a couple other audiophiles had arrived.  As soon as the first track started playing, everyone there was enthralled.  This was a standard CD of a 1959 recording, and it sounded fantastic.  It was like a veil lifted off the music.  The Definitions have the sense of presence and intimacy that single-driver speakers do, but without the drawbacks.  I use these descriptions deliberately, because they sound exactly like standard audio company propaganda and also like website reviews, but from my impression on Saturday they are accurate for all the Zu speakers.

There’s something to be said for speakers that can make any music sound great, such as the 15 year old B&W Matrix 3 Series 2 I offered without selling on Audiogon last month.  But the tradeoff is in this case worth it to me.  I would rather hear my Gerry Mulligan CD sounding the way it did on the Definitions than be able to enjoy all the poorly-recorded CDs in my collection.  My guess is that most audiophiles feel similarly, and will accept this tradeoff.

After playing the Definitions for a few tracks, Adam put on the Tone monitors.  These are one full range driver and one super-tweeter (12khz and up), $1800.  Here’s one way to sum up the Tones: they played for almost an hour, yet no one there asked to hear one of the larger speakers, and there was ample opportunity to make such a request.  This was not a small room, and the Tones filled it with sound.  When you sat in the sweet spot, which was about 2 chairs wide (my best guess, with the Tones positioned in all of 5 seconds of dragging them into place by Adam), the imaging snapped into focus.  But I walked around the room several times, and the sound from all parts of the room was excellent and completely enjoyable.

There’s a similar sound throughout the line.  With the Druid you get substantially more bass than the Tone, and with the Definition you get yet another level and depth of bass.  With Gerry Mulligan playing on the Tones, I got the same sense of hearing his saxophone at its most pure, with a palpable sense of realism that I’m not used to hearing on other speakers.  They’re also, like the Druid and Definition, extremely fast.  The Tone did not have bass slam or impact.  You could hear the bass, but you could not feel kick drum thumps or acoustic bass plucks in your body (remember, this was a very large room).  I got the distinct impression that the Tone’s bass was more accurate than the bass on my Onix Reference 1, which sounded tilted up in comparison.  The Tone’s bass had great tone and timbre.  I like not needing a subwoofer on my Onix system, and do enjoy their strong bass.  But the sound of the Tones made me want them, even without as sub (until I got the funds to add one), as my main system speaker. I only have room for monitors at present.  I want a monitor that can play my whole music collection, and I want a monitor that doesn’t need a sub, but I made a mental note that if I won the Tones that were given away on Saturday, my Onix gear would be going back to Colorado (note that the Tones are almost twice as expensive as my speaker/amp combo).  I would run the Tones off my JVC F10 receiver until I bought a SET amp for them.  They are very addictive, and once I heard their sound I wanted to keep hearing it.  Incidentally, it took me about 45-60 minutes of listening to decide that I understood and liked the Zu speakers’ sound.

Rush’s 2112 on the Tones was a little harsh, with no kick drum impact.  I would not call the Tones “rock speakers.”  But on softer or slower music, or well-recorded music, they’re so great that I would want to hear that sound every day.  Pink Floyd’s Dark Side of the Moon on the Tones again had no physical impact, but had a tuneful bass and sounded natural.  

Overall, I think the Tones could use a sub, but they do not need a sub.  When the Zu Method sub was turned on with the Tones, the entire presentation smoothed out and relaxed.  It was seamless.  Unfortunately, I didn’t get a chance to hear the Method on rock music, so I don’t know how it would sound.  It’s two 15" subwoofers in a sealed enclosure for $2500.  I know I couldn’t buy both the Tone and the Method, so I asked Adam about how other subs integrate with the Tones, and he felt they were easy speakers to integrate other companies’ subwoofers with.

A customer brought an Almarro 5 watt SEP tube amp.  Another good indication of the Zu line is that this little amp (it was about the size of a hardcover book) was left in the system in place of the Rogue Zeus for almost the entire rest of the demo, with no change in output volume.  The Almarro sounded more congested at high volumes and not as quite open as the Zeus, but had a smoother, more liquid and more pure sound.  Either amp could run any of the Zu speakers.

The Druids on hand weren’t fully broken-in yet, and also they were the speakers we listened to the least.  That’s unfortunate, because they’re probably Zu’s best sellers, $2800.  Right now they’re offering 10' of very nice Zu speaker cables with the Druid at that same price (this can be increased in length for extra $$).   The Druids had the same sense of speed as the Tones, but with much more bass impact.  One person there brought a Yello CD, which is electronic music with a pounding beat and crisp highs.  On the Druids - with the 5 watt SEP amp - it sounded fast, strong, deep, musical, 3D.  In short, awesome.  With no sub, electronic music with that little amp on the Druids was very impressive!  With the Method sub the Druids go lower, but the bass is plenty there without the sub.

The Definitions had more of a sense of air in the music than the Druid, due as 213cobra told me to the more complex crossover between the nearly full range driver and the supertweeter on the Druid.  They also had the same sense of speed as the others.  If you had any Zu speaker, the Definition would be the one to choose.  It’s more airy, even faster than the Tone and Druid, and has a built-in sub.  But the Druid is 1/3 the price and still sound great.  As with the Tone, the Druid’s off-axis sound was very enjoyable (as was the Definition’s).

The Definitions had impressive low bass.  On 5 watts with Patricia Barber they got very loud and still had the same clarity and speed and intimacy as the Druid and Tone.  Pink Floyd’s song Learning to Fly sounded a little better - smoother - with the Almarro amp than with the Zeus, but again I don’t wasn’t satisfied with this recording on the Zu speakers.  My B&Ws are much better for Floyd, they would really smooth things out and turn the harshness into silkiness, but they could never have the immediacy and visceral connection to the music that the Zu speakers have on a good recording.  On the Yello electronica CD, the Definitions sound was jaw dropping - faster than any speaker I've ever heard, while being incredibly clear and impactful.

On a few recordings, I heard an intensity of sound from the Definition that was a bit off-putting.  It sounded a bit like a single driver speaker shout.  But - I can't overstate this - it was only for a few notes.  I would be hearing a recording and there would be a blast of horns or a few notes of electric jazz guitar that would be too strong and slightly piercing to me.  I'm used to more polite speakers, and I didn't find this to be a big drawback.  I do not like speakers that shout and for 99% of the listening I did, the Definitions didn't.  I'm soft-shoeing this because it needs to be, it's not a big deal.  But if you think you really, really need a polite speaker, these might be too intense.

Fit and finish of all three speakers were beyond reproach.  They were solidly built, with no visible seams.  Their standard black matte finish is high quality and doesn’t call attention to itself.  I like the look as much as my piano black Onix Ref 1 speakers with 14 coats of lacquer, and they won’t show fingerprints or dust nearly as much.  The Definitions were finished in semi-metallic matte red, which also looked excellent.  The Druid and Definition have almost the same profile from the front, with the Druids appearing even a bit bigger.  The Definition puts out a lot of sound for its size.  

So much of what’s available in the form of reviews on the web and in magazines does not seem trustworthy to me.  6moons, in particular, seems to give a great review to every component.  I bought one of their lauded products, the Onix amp-speaker combo, and am still breaking it in.  I think it will be excellent gear, especially for the price.  But Srajan’s review seemed over-the-top to me.  It’s hard to figure out from these reviews what the components actually sound like, and it requires sorting though multiple praises for the designers/manufacturers as well as reading between the lines.  Srajan highly praised the Druid, Method, and Definition.  And you can plainly see that Zu is one of 6moons’ sponsors on their website.  But I can tell you that his praise for Zu speakers is obviously deserved, and his review is accurate.  This is comforting, at least to me.

There are a few Zu owners on AC, including 213cobra, who was at the demo.  He’s a great guy and an extremely knowledgeable audiophile, as you can see from his posts.  The Zu owners tend to be True Believers about their speakers.  They talk in such a passionate way as to make one question whether the Zu speakers and these audiophiles are some kind of strange match that might not work for most people.  After the demo, I don’t think they’re overstating their case.  These are not the one speaker that can do it all, and I don’t think there’s one that exists.  I’m sure there are some audiophiles for whom the Zu will do the trick, and some for whom they will not.  But my hearing them on Saturday was enough for me to understand why their owners talk about them the way they do.  I would love to have any of their speakers, and hopefully I will.  

Please don’t read too much into this listening impression, after all I haven’t lived with these speakers.  If it sounds over-the-top, the same as I complained about above, it’s based on having been really happy with the sounds I heard.  Maybe I can forgive the website reviewers’ enthusiasm now that I’ve written this.  If you were at the demo, please post your comments!  I really want to know what others thought of these speakers.

[213Cobra]

Johnny,

Good post on your listening impressions. I have one point of clarification regarding the differences between the Druid and Definition treble performance: There is no crossover in the normal sense between the Zu FRD and the supertweeter. I.e. the FRD does not take its input from the business end of an RC filter. The FRD rolls off naturally and the supertweeter is rolled in on a filter network. In the Definition, the supertweeter's network is simpler than on the Druid, in part because the FRD - tweeter - FRD arrangement allows the tweeter to be partially managed acoustically by its proximity between the FRDs. On the Druid, the network is more complex due in part to the absence of this option for managing the tweeter's waveform. Zu may have other reasons to explain this as well. The effect is to give two speakers that are unmistakably products of the same design philosophy meaningful differences in upper range character.

I think if you had had more time with the Druids on some of the recordings where Definitions seemed too vivid to you, you may have favored their balance. The room sounded quite good for an untreated hotel room, with excellent proportions and reasonable damping, but it did have a discernible honk and snap to it, even evident during some of the louder conversations. For anyone who gravitates to a polite presentation, a pair of broken-in Druids or Druids + Method are probably the preferred prescription within the Zu range.

Phil

[lonewolfny42]

Thank you JohnnyLightOn for posting your listening experience. It sounds like an excellent demo....nice report !!!

The Druids on hand weren’t fully broken-in yet, and also they were the speakers we listened to the least.

[/list:u]

This intreeges me....this demo was planeed for in advance, as the one coming up in PA....Zu, why not have a pair thats been broken-in already ???    [/list:u]

[miklorsmith]

JohnnyLightOn - great review!

213cobra - I'm planning to upgrade from Druids to Definitions soon.  I do find the Druids to be evenhanded or polite, though not in any disturbing way.  Are the Definitions ragged or edgy at times, as wide-rangers tend to be?  Especially with rock music, the Druids rise above the pack, but am I trading some rockability there?  I only listen to about 20% rock, but when I want to rock, well you know. . .

[213Cobra]

I certainly cannot characterize Definitions as "ragged or edgy" under any circumstances. If anything, they sound even more relaxed and effortless than Druids on rock or any other high-density music. However, Definitions are more revealing, even higher resolution speakers than Druids, so your amp must be very clean and your sources must be good. However, I find the amp is more important than the source. The Definition will lay bare any amplifier failing, and equally put a bright light on an amp's sonic beauty, if it has it. On the other hand, the speaker is tolerant of a very wide variety of sources. As was proven with a guest's Almarro A205 amp at the Los Angeles demo, you don't have to spend a ton of cash to get gorgeous musical sound from Zu speakers, including Definitions. One thing I hear with Definitions is that many sources are better than their reputation. Conventional loudspeakers and complex crossovers, along with consequences to the amp/speaker relationship, aggravate the deficiencies traceable to sources and let's face it -- not every cheap source sounds bad and not every expensive one sounds good.

So in putting the emphasis on the amp in a Defintions upgrade from Druids (also noting that many amps just like that Druid 12 ohm load), I am not pushing higher expense as a necessary prerequisite. Just good judgment on having a fast, clean, revealing, dynamic, musical amp with good discipline in its bass behavior. As the Almarro proved on Saturday, that could be an $800 amp.

Net is, you're not trading rockability upgrading from Druids to Defs. You will get more transient impact, you will feel more energy and drive projected into your room, and dynamics will be a shade more convincing still. What you do trade away in moving up to Definitions is the intimacy of near-field listening, which the Def isn't as suited for. Defs will rock and flex your skull, but you will want a little more distance from them to feel everything wash over you. Give the Defs 50 hours of solid play time before you start to judge how they will settle in with your room and gear. If they sound ragged beyond that time, you probably have a problem upstream that just wasn't reaching you before. If you're allergic to vivid (NOT bright) exxxxxtennnnded treble energy in the mix, Druids + Method fill the bill. Given the variable quality of rock recordings, some might seem less satisfying on the more revealing Defs, but not because the speaker ain't rocking.

Phil

[miklorsmith]

Thanks!  I was a little worried, but now I am excited and just a little nervous.  I really love the Druids with my system, which is a Modwright CDP, Modwright pre, and Red Wine Audio dual-mono Clari-T.  

I'm sure the amp has the juice, since it does with the Druids.  I'm sure the voicing and presentation (generally) are right up my alley too.  The fact that there is "more Druid" available makes me all a-twitter.  Reservation?  The system has great synergy now and changing speakers is one of the greatest opportunities for upsetting the apple cart.

Why change then?  I'm driven by a constant desire to seek and find the clearest portal to the recording.  As much as I love the Druids, they are mute below 40 hz.  I like rock and ambient music, with much information at the depths.  I could run a subwoofer or two, but integration with the Druids would be tough since they are SO unique.  Zu says no sweat, but I fretted much over how to achieve great, deep stereo bass.

The Definition provides the bass without two more big boxes, more amplifiers, and potentially endless integration issues.  Here's where the potential lies for a $9k speaker to be a true value.  No extra amps, no extra subwoofers (16 hz subs ain't cheap even for HT), no extra speaker cables or long runs of RCA cable.  They allow you to use smaller, possibly less expensive amplifiers for mains and don't crowd your room with gear.

It's very exciting.  It still won't be too soon but I just can't wait.

[213Cobra]

I completely agree on your latter summary of the benefits of the Definition configuration. It delivers more fidelity in its footprint than anything else I know of.

The only subwoofer suitable for the speed and character of Druids is Method. It's not huge but it's not small and I agree, stereo bass is best. Two of them require considerable space and cost-wise you get within striking distance of Definitions.

Phil

[G.ear]

JohnnyLightOn, thanks for your insightful listening impressions of the Zu loudspeakers.  Thanks to your comments along with 213 Cobra's, I am finally starting to get a sense of what this speaker line in general and Definitions in particular are about.  I am intrigued more than ever.

I do hope that some other attendees to the demonstration might chime in here.  When a product is as uniques as these appear to be, there is no such thing as too much information.

Dean

[Paul_Bui]

Johnny,

Thanks for posting an honest truly audiophile review.  I suspect the Defs revealed a weak link in the playback chain while playing those CDs which otherwise sound good on your lap top.

[JohnnyLightOn]

Thanks for the comments on my post, everyone.  I'm very glad to hear it was useful.     And thanks for the clarification, Phil.

Johnny

[rumplestiltskin]

I also attended the Zu demo at the Beverly Garland.   I've been searching for some time now for my first high end system, and my experience is pretty limmited so choose whatever size grain of salt you think appropriate here.

The Tones were very impressive.  I've got no experience with monitors, but I was surprised at the amount of bass and sheer high quality sound that  those small boxes flooded the room with.   However, they dissapointed me in their definition and clarity on some simple acoustic material.  For example, flute passages could sometimes have an oddly muddy feeling that was quite surprising given how impressive these speakers were overall.

The Definitions were wonderful, but at nine grand they're out of my league.  They need no sub, and one of they're great strengths is the way they can render brass instruments- completely and utterly astonishing.

The Druids, as have been noted, were not broken in sufficiently, which is a shame because they were the main reason I attended the demo.  To my ears they had a very veiled sound, due I assume to a lack of break in, that made it difficult to get an honest impression of them.  While they have surprisingly good bass considering the numer of drivers, for the knid of music I listen to, the Method sub would be manditory.  It integrated seamlessly with both the Druids and the Tones, by the way.

As has been mentioned, these speakers do not do well with poor recordings.  Both rock and classical music seems to suffer pretty badly, if the recording is not excellent.
I also have to say that on complex classical music, they didn't do as great a job of presenting  and tracking the different threads of the music as I was hoping they would.  This was certainly true of the Druids, and possibly a result of the lack of break-in, but I felt a little of the same with the the Definitions as well.  They shined with small ensamble works, jazz, popular, and often their rendition of vocal work was extroadinary.

These are just my first impressions however, and I would feel very uncomfortable judging these speakers without a more controlled private demo.  Overall, I think they're well worth  a serious listen.  And its no small thing that their high efficiency permits what seems like total freedom to run whatever amplication you like.   I would jump at the chance to hear the Druids at their best.

Oh, and lastly but certainly not leastly, the people from Zu ran a great demo and I think they would be an absolute pleasure to deal with.  I have no doubt that their attention to the customer would be stellar.

[G.ear]

rumplestiltskin,

I also have to say that on complex classical music, they didn't do as great a job of presenting and tracking the different threads of the music as I was hoping they would.

Was this impression true of the Definitions as well as the Tones and Druids?  Which power amps were in the system when you felt they were lacking?  I don't have any real reason to believe it was amplifier related, but just curious.  It would be easy for me to believe that ten inch drivers might not do the low treble region optimally, but I don't know that either.

Dean

[zybar]

My criticism of the Druids may be too harsh based on the fact that the speakers were not broken in, but guys, this was a Zu demonstration in one of the largest cities in the US. Zu should have provided the best examples of what they have to offer, and not have expected us to imagine how the Druids might have sounded had they been properly broken in, set up, or whatever.

It amazes me that time after time companies schedule these demonstrations and don't show up with broken in gear, don't take the time to set things up properly, etc...

That's the equivalent of me showing up with "draft" Powerpoint presentation and telling my audience to just imagine how good the presentation "could" have been if it was the final version.      

That being said, sounds like the Definitions might be worth a drive to hear them in Penn. in the near future.

Thanks for all the great posts.

George

[JohnnyLightOn]

I think the guys at Zu were let down by a local distributor or dealer who was supposed to break in the Druids but didn't.  Don't hold me to it, but I overheard something that led me to believe this.

[213Cobra]

Correct. The Druids at the L.A. demo were not fully broken in. A pair was sent down to an electronics veondor partner over a month early, for break-in and amp matching, but due to a number of late-breaking factors, the breaking-in of the Druids didn't happen as planned, and the show ended up not being co-sponsored either.

That said, by Saturday when I was there, the Druids sounded close to normal to me but I thought the Rogue amp was definitely NOT commensurate with the speaker. The sound clarity improved significantly with the single-ended Almarro that was available that day. We heard many excellent recordings on the Druids and some mediocre ones, and results were as I'd expect given the recordings. And to me the influence of recordings was no better or worse on the Tones and Definitions. For me, the Rogue amp correlated to the moments of disappointment in a relative sense.

The LA show was to be a trial run for a larger co-sponsored show between Zu and a tube line. Had that proceeded as planned there would have been a broad array of tube amps on demo. For me, the Rogue amp had all the liabilities of a high-tube-count push-pull, high-power amp and its advantages were not needed by Zu speakers.

Phil

[213Cobra]

I wasn't at the Zu event on Friday night, but knowing how rapidly the sound changes during early break-in, I am not surprised by comments from those who attended on Friday.

By Saturday late morning, I heard a different pecking order, wherein the Tone was amazing for its cost and size, but still not quite on par with Druid in any way other than perhaps that it's soundfield was more expansive though less focused, than Druid. Tone is an incisive speaker by any measure.

The Definition is clearly better than both its little brothers, as it must be. Since no one was blindfolded nor were the speakers screened, the psychological factors of hearing what was coming from the little Tones were undeniable. You also had some of the normal effect of the small baffle and point source illusion of a small speaker.

Again, even though the Tone shares the Druid's 12 ohm impedance and drivers, the Druid, perhaps because of its network and the Griewe loading, is the most idiosyncratic of the three and requires a person-variable length of orientation compared to the other two. People hear what they hear and interpret accordingly. It is possible and reasonable that some people will prefer Tones to even broken-in Druids, especially when Method option is factored in, but by Saturday and as that day wore on the Druids did progressively slip into the natural pecking order of the line. Clearly, fully broken-in Druids and more amp options than a large push-pull amp on Friday night would have ameliorated this controversy.

Phil

[jcoat007]

I own the Druids and am in search of that "magic" amp to pair them with.  I have been talking to Adam at Zu to get his impressions of the various amps he has heard with them.  He keeps telling me that the Zeus is the best he has heard with the Druids.  He also really liked the First Watt F1.  

I find it interesting to see so many people saying the Zeus/Druid pairing was less than ideal.  Perhaps the lack of break-in has something to do with it.  Perhaps it's just a case of what sounds good to one person, sounds bad to another.  

I currently have a Butler 2250 and a First Watt F2 that I am evaluating.  While these are very high efficiency speakers, I like the Butlers power on certain kinds of music.  I was listening to AC/DC the other day and with the Butlers in the mix, drums just punch you in the chest.  The Druids just move more air and load the room better with more power.  

With the F2, I get spooky imaging, clarity and resolution unlike anything I have ever heard in my system.  Extremely musical, and extremely revealing at the same time.  The problem with the F2 is that, for me, it just runs out of steam.  It's like a Ferrari that can only go 60 mph.  Sure it's fun, but every now and then you want to go 150+, even if it’s for only a few seconds.

I'm thinking about the new Aleph J, or perhaps an F1.  Maybe the AudioSector Patek SE.  If I could get all the things the F2 does well, but with more power, I think I would be in happy land.

[RoadTripper]

Owning the RedWine Clari-T, it shouldn't come as a surprise that I suggest you give it a try.

I have the modded one with upgraded caps and stepped attenuator. Not having much of a reference point, I could be wrong. But, listening to the Dallas Wind Symph. last night on Reference Recordings was the most impactful presentation I have yet heard of those recordings. And I have them as my top demo CDs for power, and knock down impact.

[213Cobra]

JCoat,

You seem to like meaty solid state amps with finesse. If you want to emulate the F2 but with more drive, perhaps consider the Channel Islands D100/D200 and the Monarchy SM70 Pro monoblocks. Certainly, Aleph is a good place to start too.  I like Adam and his speakers yet I am mystified why he likes that Rogue Zeus. It wasn't just a Druid/Rogue problem -- the inertness of the amp spoke through all the Zu speakers. OK, maybe mystified is too strong a term. Adam likes punch and the Rogue is punchy, and for what it is it's pretty good. But it's comparatively deficient in expression, tone, subtlety relative to a fairly powerful single-ended amp. Sean had suggested to me an 845 SET for the Druids and he was right -- whether as an SET or Parallel SET for more power, that tube can give you a lot of what you seek. And ASL now has a push-pull 845 (the AQ1009) monoblock pair over 60 watts each, which might please you too. It's pricey for a Druids setup but the Audiopax monoblocks will definitely deliver on all counts.

Phil

[rumplestiltskin]

rumplestiltskin,

I also have to say that on complex classical music, they didn't do as great a job of presenting and tracking the different threads of the music as I was hoping they would.

Was this impression true of the Definitions as well as the Tones and Druids?  Which power amps were in the system when you felt they were lacking?  I don't have any real reason to believe it was amplifier related, but just curious.  It would be easy for me to believe that ten inch drivers might not do the low treble region optimally, but I don't know that either.

Dean

I can't say for certain that I felt the Definitions fell down in that area, but only because  I didn't listen very critically to the them since I knew going in that they wern't in my budget.  Also, most of what was played on the Definitions Friday was rock and pop and some swing rather than high octane symphony stuff.  So I must apologize if I've unintentionally slighted the Definitions on that score.  Understand, I'm not saying they're great, (although some of their more remarkable qualities will jump out at you regardless of how close one listens)- just that I didn't pay close attention or play any of the music I brought along on them.

Were they better than the Tones and Druids?  Absolutely.  Stunning.  But I'd have to have a more serioius listen to them with some familiar cd's to say anything intelligent about them.