Zu loudspeakers

[Audiophile Bill]

***

That's a three years old review of a speaker even older than the review, given publication cycles. It represents a 2014/15 state of affairs. But it's not ancient, so let's go with it. Everything you need to know is expressed here: "...In fact, I enjoyed the afternoon I spent listening to the speakers in Herb's system. As with Zu Audio's Essence speaker, reviewed by Art Dudley in October 2009, Sean Casey appears to have carefully balanced the Soul Supreme's performance to sound more neutral than its measured behavior would suggest, allowing the listener to appreciate its high sensitivity and evenly balanced midrange...." It's not the first time Atkinson has had to swallow this with Zu. It's time he thought about what he's doing wrong.

As Josef Manger pointed out in explaining his very good speakers: "Traditional loudspeaker testing is not incorrect in what it measures, but in what it does not measure." The audio testing community has very little understanding of what's relevant in quantified measurement of transducer performance wrt human perception of convincing music fidelity in reproduction. How do you think those vintage Altecs will measure, anyway?

Atkinson slips this little tidbit in: "...In the time domain, the Soul Supreme's step response (fig.6) has a superb, time-coincident, right-triangle shape, and it is in the correct polarity." It's barely a mention and yet it is a disproportionately huge influence. We know we aren't measuring the right combination of loudspeaker traits, or haven't learned how to, when you hear the awful amusicality of an allegedly well-measuring Magico, Wilson, Focal or the like. Over the last 15 years, Zu has steadily advanced the full range driver and in the upper half of the line, the equally-influential cabinetry.

BTW, the drivers in the Druid 6 are significantly upgraded further from what was in Soul Supreme circa 2015/16. And more to the point, the Druid 5 outperformed the Soul Supreme due to its more sophisticated cabinet, and Druid 6 goes well beyond that.

>>...I personally don’t subscribe at all to newer speakers being superior to many vintage designs. Ymmv etc.<<

Neither do I, nor have I ever said any such thing. If you read my original Druid 6 comments, you know I regard most of what the industry offers as unworthy, relative to the few items really worth owning. But I also know that if Altec or JBL applied the kind of rigorous updating to materials, design and build techniques to their vintage designs as Zu does to theirs, those vintage designs could be iterated into much better speakers. New for the sake of it doesn't assure positive results. Using only things that are old certainly does not, either. Sean Casey carries forward the insights and spirit of Harry Olson and James Lansing, without the materials, production and manual design constraints of their day.

Phil

Sorry all “you need to read” is a horrendously arrogant and inaccurate comment. Personally that is not all I need to read but thanks for telling me and everyone else what we need to do.

The measured performance of this speaker is poor over the usual parameters that others are typically evaluated against.

In terms of your comment regarding vintage speakers - obviously JBL are still going strong and have indeed updated their offerings using modern materials such as beryllium etc. It is also interesting that many folks who could afford the modern incarnations such as the Everests still choose to buy the vintage JBLs based on sonic preference - I think Jeff’s speakers in the other thread specifically uses the JBL vintage 15” drivers for sonic reasons rather than their new incarnations.

Anyway - I don’t want to detract too much further from the Zu programme that the thread is about.

 

[spiritofmusic]

Bill, I hear where you're coming from re measurements. Certainly Zu have been shredded on certain sites like Audio Science Forum for the poorly measuring Essence model. The amount of stick Zu and Sean took on that thread, you'd think they were a snake oil cure for baldness LOL.

FWIW, I've heard the perfectly measuring Halcro amps in a system 15 years ago, and it was a struggle until substituted by Tenors.

The Aqua Formula XHD dac came out of a recent review poorly re measurements, yet sounds superbly balanced in Blue58's system.

No doubt those who are unimpressed listening to Zu would have at least part of their disconnect explained by these poor measurements.

 

[213Cobra]

Sorry all “you need to read” is a horrendously arrogant and inaccurate comment. Personally that is not all I need to read but thanks for telling me and everyone else what we need to do.

The measured performance of this speaker is poor over the usual parameters that others are typically evaluated against.

In terms of your comment regarding vintage speakers - obviously JBL are still going strong and have indeed updated their offerings using modern materials such as beryllium etc. It is also interesting that many folks who could afford the modern incarnations such as the Everests still choose to buy the vintage JBLs based on sonic preference - I think Jeff’s speakers in the other thread specifically uses the JBL vintage 15” drivers for sonic reasons rather than their new incarnations.

Anyway - I don’t want to detract too much further from the Zu programme that the thread is about.

***

Point is, all you need to read are the qualitative comments to know that measurement anomalies are not telling. We see this again and again in audio, but in transducers particularly whether phono cartridges, speakers, microphones. If the measured performance is "poor over the usual parameters that others are typically evaluated against..." and yet the listening experience is convincing, I'm with Manger. I've yet to find speaker measurements any indication of actual fidelity. I'd like this to be otherwise, but alas...

I have no argument with sonic preference for an old Everest over new, but also understand that a vintage speaker is broken in, and a new one is not. In any case, I wouldn't own either of them.

Phil

 

[Audiophile Bill]

Bill, I hear where you're coming from re measurements. Certainly Zu have been shredded on certain sites like Audio Science Forum for the poorly measuring Essence model. The amount of stick Zu and Sean took on that thread, you'd think they were a snake oil cure for baldness LOL.

FWIW, I've heard the perfectly measuring Halcro amps in a system 15 years ago, and it was a struggle until substituted by Tenors.

The Aqua Formula XHD dac came out of a recent review poorly re measurements, yet sounds superbly balanced in Blue58's system.

No doubt those who are unimpressed listening to Zu would have at least part of their disconnect explained by these poor measurements.

Hey Marc. I might very well enjoy Zu loudspeakers - I certainly subscribe to the design ethos of widebanders sans crossover.

Also I don’t care if they measure badly either if I like the sound. But frankly I wouldn’t put it down to advanced materials science. Not sure if you have heard the Voxativ speakers but in some ways they have a similarity of approach to the Zu speakers - they are still using full range 8” cones using what is basically a modded Lowther with paper cone or their wood cone in the higher models. Field coil motors have been around since the dawn of time lol.

 

[213Cobra]

Hey Marc. I might very well enjoy Zu loudspeakers - I certainly subscribe to the design ethos of widebanders sans crossover.

Also I don’t care if they measure badly either if I like the sound. But frankly I wouldn’t put it down to advanced materials science. Not sure if you have heard the Voxativ speakers but in some ways they have a similarity of approach to the Zu speakers - they are still using full range 8” cones using what is basically a modded Lowther with paper cone or their wood cone in the higher models. Field coil motors have been around since the dawn of time lol.

***

And Voxativ sound better than Lowther in any configuration. -Phil

 

[Audiophile Bill]

***

And Voxativ sound better than Lowther in any configuration. -Phil

Unfortunately Voxativ make many drivers and it really depends which one you are talking about.

Marc and I both heard a horn speaker using a field coil Lowther for ~400hz upwards end of last year and it sounded better than any Voxativ I have heard.

 

[spiritofmusic]

Phil, as a fan of full range drivers unmolested by crossovers, and properly extended at 35Hz to over 35kHz I believe, you owe it to yself to hear the Pnoes horns w BD5 iteration FRDs.

 

[213Cobra]

Can't comment on THE Lowther you heard. But every Lowther I've heard in any implementation sounds like a Lowther and fundamentally not correct. Lowther imposes its sound everywhere you put it. I'll take Voxativ's more neutral speakers if that were my choice. -Phil

 

[spiritofmusic]

Unfortunately Voxativ make many drivers and it really depends which one you are talking about.

Marc and I both heard a horn speaker using a field coil Lowther for ~400hz upwards end of last year and it sounded better than any Voxativ I have heard.

It was pretty peachy. Low end grunt not quite my thing. But mids a thing of beauty.

 

[Audiophile Bill]

It was pretty peachy. Low end grunt not quite my thing. But mids a thing of beauty.

Well the low end wasn’t the Lowther remember. The bit you liked was all Lowther

 

[Audiophile Bill]

The Lowther Opus one doing its thing. I love it but ymmv. Zu challenge - post your vid to beat the Opus

 

[spiritofmusic]

Hmm, I'll pass on the challenge. Other than my room is DEFFO less cluttered.

 

[Audiophile Bill]

Hmm, I'll pass on the challenge. Other than my room is DEFFO less cluttered.

Go on Marc. Give us some of your finest Miles ed1.

 

[spiritofmusic]

And step on Tang's toes? Surely not.

 

[Kcin]

The Lowther Opus one doing its thing. I love it but ymmv. Zu challenge - post your vid to beat the Opus

Nice, can anyone recognize/list the melodies in this youtube video? ... definitely heard Jonas Helborg.

 

[SETDrugs]

Hello SETDrugs,

My post was answering the assertion put forth that Zu speakers have advanced the science thereby improving on older designs using inferior materials - a supposition I strongly disagree with.

As already specified up front, I am not and I repeat not a measurebator. But since the discussion is about advancement of materials and speaker science and not having heard Zu I can only cite professional independent measurements to verify such statements. The quote I posted was from the only (which I why my post specifically cited that they are hard to come by) data I could find.

That being said, the model in the article uses the same widebander and Radian tweeter it seems:

“You get the fantastic Zu103 high output nano infused full-range driver, Radian 850 based tweeter (networked with ClarityCap MR caps and Mills top-shelf MRA-12 resistor) all interconnected and cabled with Zu Event internal cabling.”

So whilst clearly other models will measure considerably differently due to crossover designs, cabinets etc. We can still “make” some things from these measurements since their bigger brothers use 2 of the same widebanders with the same tweeter using apparently minimal crossover - the crossover doesn’t appear to be trying to correct driver anomalies it seems.

Sorry to be somewhat pissing on the Zu bonfire - I personally don’t subscribe at all to newer speakers being superior to many vintage designs. Ymmv etc.

No need to be sorry. My local audiophile friend owns the vintage Altec 604 and I think it sounds great. Listening to it reminds me a lot of my Soul Supreme and in fact the editors of Soul Supreme review actually mention this similarity.

Zu can tout about all their advancements they want but the core of their speakers are still the drivers and if what Sean is saying is to be believed, its largely based on the work of the great Harry Olsen from his RCA days. Even the fabulous Radian 850 driver was originally designed by an Altec engineer who later went to work for Emilar and Radian bought out their designs and tooling.

I guess my main reasons for gravitating to Zu would be their very simple crossoverless approach and thus really preserving and bringing out the best in the critical midrange while augmenting it with a great midrange/tweeter driver. The other overlook aspect of Zu speakers compared to vintage that I appreciate would be their significant attention /R&D into the cabinets which can make or break a great design imho.

Having said this, I believe there's more then one way to design a great speaker and its best to follow your heart and listen to it in your own system. I would never put down any vintage speaker and I hope these owners will respect my decision to go with Zu.

 

[KeithR]

***
It may not matter. The most vibrant audiophile community in many parts of the world, and certainly here in the US, is the head-fi movement. High end hifi continues to make itself ever-less-relevant by taking the lazy path of selling goods to a very wealthy few, at very high average unit prices, instead of actually doing the work of creating a constituency for accessible products built to a high standard, that the great middle can afford and imagine being interested in. Bucking this incessant, vendor-driven narrowing of the interest pool for hi-fi are a broad spectrum of Chinese and Taiwanese makers, and a handful of western companies like Zu.

Amen, brother. And why the hifi market has shrunk by 50% over the past decade.

 

[KeithR]

Can't comment on THE Lowther you heard. But every Lowther I've heard in any implementation sounds like a Lowther and fundamentally not correct. Lowther imposes its sound everywhere you put it. I'll take Voxativ's more neutral speakers if that were my choice. -Phil

Phil, what did you think of the Einstein FRD speaker?

 

[213Cobra]

***

Phil, what did you think of the Einstein FRD speaker?

***

I only heard it at a show so limited exposure. The Fostex main driver is a long way from the Fostex paper cone for hi-eff FRD. It was difficult to judge definitively as electronics were all Einstein as well, and my assessments of their electronics are mixed. But speaker coherence was pretty good. I thought the powered woofer wasn't dynamically consistent with the mid-widebander but it was quick. I noticed beaming off the mid-FRD, with upper response noticeably degraded off axis. At 89db/w/m, too much power is required to match the burstiness and aliveness of Zu, limiting amp choices. Looked impressive but sonically overpriced (what isn't in German hifi?). Ignoring price and other reservations cited, the speaker is in the realm of the musically-credible.

Phil

 

[213Cobra]

No need to be sorry. My local audiophile friend owns the vintage Altec 604 and I think it sounds great. Listening to it reminds me a lot of my Soul Supreme and in fact the editors of Soul Supreme review actually mention this similarity.

Zu can tout about all their advancements they want but the core of their speakers are still the drivers and if what Sean is saying is to be believed, its largely based on the work of the great Harry Olsen from his RCA days. Even the fabulous Radian 850 driver was originally designed by an Altec engineer who later went to work for Emilar and Radian bought out their designs and tooling.

I guess my main reasons for gravitating to Zu would be their very simple crossoverless approach and thus really preserving and bringing out the best in the critical midrange while augmenting it with a great midrange/tweeter driver. The other overlook aspect of Zu speakers compared to vintage that I appreciate would be their significant attention /R&D into the cabinets which can make or break a great design imho.

Having said this, I believe there's more then one way to design a great speaker and its best to follow your heart and listen to it in your own system. I would never put down any vintage speaker and I hope these owners will respect my decision to go with Zu.

***

Sean Casey is quite forthright acknowledging he is standing on the shoulders of Harry Olson, et al. He is working in an extrapolated vector Harry and peers charted, but doing what they couldn't do, with materials and modelling they didn't have.

Phil