|
Forums
https://www.decware.com/cgi-bin/yabb22/YaBB.pl AUDIO FORUMS >> General Discussion and Support >> Zu Omen Definition Review/944 Comparison https://www.decware.com/cgi-bin/yabb22/YaBB.pl?num=1442536105 Message started by Dave1210 on 09/18/15 at 01:28:25 |
|
Title: Zu Omen Definition Review/944 Comparison Post by Dave1210 on 09/18/15 at 01:28:25 First off, my buddy brought his Zu Omen Def's (Mk 2 rev A) down to my place and let me live with them for a week. I am truly grateful for the experience and I have learned a lot. In general, the Zu’s are quite a bit different vs. the 944’s. Below are some of my thoughts. For reference, we placed the Zu’s in the same spot as my MG944’s and they are hooked up to the 8 ohm tap on the ZMA. I love the scale of the soundstage the Zu’s provide. They project a vertical wall of sound and it is enveloping. I was listening to solo classical music and the size of the instrument (e.g. cello) appears more realistic and life like. The Zu’s make the 944’s seem like mini-monitor’s in comparison. The Zu’s sound cohesive, natural and musical. These speakers have great liquidity and pacing, which results in lots of toe tapping. The Zu images are bigger but significantly softer and less defined (less focused, more diffuse) vs. the 944’s. The Zu’s offer a natural presentation of the music, similar to a live performance. The 944’s are more "audiophile" with pin point, focused imaging. The 944’s disappear better and the soundstage is wider. The Zu’s offer greater SS depth. Surprisingly, the 944’s seem more dynamic and snappy vs. the Zu's on transients (e.g. drum hits on Take Five, House of the Rising Sun/Opus DSD). In general, loudness is ~equal to the 944’s, even though the Zu’s are rated at 101 dB vs. 94 dB for the 944’s. So, I am not getting more headroom with the Zu’s. The Zu’s wake up with volume. Again, I wasn’t expecting this with the higher efficiency. The 944’s have great presence at lower volumes. I experienced fatigue almost immediately when switching to the Zu's (I had to walk away from the system when we initially made the transition). Also, if I turn the volume up on the louder side (e.g. 80 dB) I experience fatigue. My sense is that the tweeters on these speakers beam like lasers and placement is critical to get a non-fatiguing sound (e.g. cross the speakers in front of the listening position). I have been listening to the Zu’s with both with the sub on/off and definitely prefer with the sub on. The low end reinforcement adds solidity to the soundstage and helps to balance the frequency response. Bass from the 944 transmission line is tighter and more realistic. To me, the bass on the Zu’s sounds in between a port and TL, but closer to a port. |
|
Title: Re: Zu Omen Definition Review/944 Comparison Post by Dave1210 on 09/18/15 at 01:30:01 Below is a spider graph to visually communicate my experience to date...this may change! |
|
Title: Re: Zu Omen Definition Review/944 Comparison Post by Kboe on 09/18/15 at 02:45:02 MG944s are the definition of smoothe and non fatiguing. I desperately miss mine. Zu has always appealed to me but I've never made the jump. Thanks for the comparison. |
|
Title: Re: Zu Omen Definition Review/944 Comparison Post by vyokyong on 09/18/15 at 03:42:17 Hi Dave, I listened to Zu Omen Def at the AV Show and agree with you 100% of your spider graph. It is a new trend of loud speakers design to provide bigger or large scale of singer and instruments, particularly in vertical direction. They uses double mid-range drivers instead of one. It is line array speaker design concept rather single source speaker concept. But cons of line array speakers design is losing of focused imaging. ( significantly softer and less defined (less focused, more diffuse). It is not my cup of tea. Other flagship speakers now are coming as line array speakers design concept. |
|
Title: Re: Zu Omen Definition Review/944 Comparison Post by vyokyong on 09/18/15 at 03:50:39 Line array From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia L-Acoustics V-DOSC/dV-DOSC line array at a concert A line array is a loudspeaker system that is made up of a number of usually identical loudspeaker elements mounted in a line and fed in phase, to create a near-line source of sound. The distance between adjacent drivers is close enough that they constructively interfere with each other to send sound waves farther than traditional horn-loaded loudspeakers, and with a more evenly distributed sound output pattern. Line arrays can be oriented in any direction, but their primary use in public address is in vertical arrays which provide a very narrow vertical output pattern useful for focusing sound at audiences without wasting output energy on ceilings or empty air above the audience. Modern line arrays use separate drivers for high-, mid- and low-frequency passbands. For the line source to work, the drivers in each passband need to be in a line. Therefore, each enclosure must be designed to rig together closely to form columns composed of high-, mid- and low-frequency speaker drivers. Increasing the number of drivers in each enclosure increases the frequency range and maximum sound pressure level, while adding additional boxes to the array will also lower the frequency in which the array achieves a directional dispersion pattern. |
|
Title: Re: Zu Omen Definition Review/944 Comparison Post by Dave1210 on 09/18/15 at 11:50:59 Hi Vyokyong, What is interesting in the Zu vs. 944 comparison is that my speakers are also configured MTM, but the M drivers on my speakers are about half the size of the Zu's. The 944's offer noticeably more detail/resolution and image better than the Zu's.  A few examples of line source speakers that come to mind.... Infinity IRS V  Wisdom Audio Sage Series  Scaena Model 3 
|
|
Title: Re: Zu Omen Definition Review/944 Comparison Post by Palomino on 09/18/15 at 14:03:24 Dave, I was at Eric's the other day. I like his 944/ZMA combo. I feel that speaker brings out the details and punch the ZMA can deliver. One thing I did notice was they were had a more narrow sweet spot than what I have at home. Do you find that a natural byproduct of the MTM design? Do the bigger driver Zu's also have this trait? |
|
Title: Re: Zu Omen Definition Review/944 Comparison Post by Dave1210 on 09/18/15 at 14:28:33 Palomino… I agree with you. The 944’s are very detailed, but they do have a head in a vice type effect/narrow sweet spot. The Zu’s definitely have a larger sweet spot. That said, both the Zu’s & 944’s are ‘sit down’ speakers in my opinion. They do sound very good projecting sound around the room, but I think with the two 'midrange' drivers you really need to sit down in the sweet spot to get the full effect. I think the Zu Druids (MT vs. MTM) would sound more consistent throughout the room (if you didn’t have the time or didn’t want to be confined to the sweet spot). Also, from what I recall at Axpona (Zu Omen Def’s in one room/Zu Druids in the other playing the same exact music) the Druids are more resolving, detailed and have smoother highs. But you will sacrifice scale vs. the Omen Def’s. |
|
Title: Re: Zu Omen Definition Review/944 Comparison Post by Dave1210 on 09/19/15 at 01:13:52 Also, I am noticing some sibilance with the Zu's. 
|
|
Title: Re: Zu Omen Definition Review/944 Comparison Post by beowulf on 09/19/15 at 03:05:31 Great review Dave, I especially like the graph and you gave me a real sense of both speakers and a couple of things that I wouldn't have thought such as volume being more close than expected. My previous speakers - Vienna Acoustics Webern (which they don't make anymore) were also an MTM design with the drivers around 5" IIRC. Those speakers were buiit like a brick house but the sweet spot was small, although once you put your head in a vice, quite nice. Not efficient enough for lower wattage tube amps, but they sounded pretty good with some B&K 125 watt MOSFETs. All said, the single driver Omegas that I use now have a much bigger sweet spot than both the Vienna Acoustic and also a pair of Dali Zensor speakers that have gone through my system at one point. I wish you had a pair of Omega and Tekton lying around so you could compare those with the Zu and Decware as well. That would be an interesting shootout since they are all reasonably priced and some of the best in their price range IMO. |
|
Title: Re: Zu Omen Definition Review/944 Comparison Post by Dave1210 on 09/19/15 at 22:13:03 Beowulf…I have not heard speakers from either Omega or Tekton, but would like to. Which ones would you recommend investigating? At a different price point, I am curious about the Living Voice Avatar OBX-RW and Salk Exotica speakers. |
|
Title: Re: Zu Omen Definition Review/944 Comparison Post by beowulf on 09/20/15 at 06:38:31 If I were to make a choice in which manufacturer would be the more different out of the Zu, Tekton and Omega ... I would say that the Zu and Tekton are more similar than different as their pro driver compliments plus MT and/or MTM setups seem to be similar in a lot of aspects. That's not to say I think they sound exactly the same, but I have heard both (though not in a dedicated A/B comparison) and IMO they do have some similarities and are mighty fine at what they do. But the design that stands out as more different would be the single driver setup from Omega. IMO (and just my opinion) the AlNiCo HempCone driver is better sounding than what both Zu and Tekton use. That said the soundstage of the Zu and Tekton is both bigger and they can play louder than the Omega without breaking up (we are talking one 6" AlNiCo Hemp driver on the Omega), but I believe the imaging is far better and more holographic on the Omega. I don't think one is a lot more better than the other, but it comes down to more of what one's taste is and what they are looking for in a speaker. In other words if I had Zu's and wanted to compare them to something different I would choose Omegas, likewise if I had Tektons I would compare them to Omegas over the Zu as well, as I think they are far more different than the other two. If that makes sense ... :-? Living Voice makes some beautiful speakers but most are out of my price range, would love to hear them though. |
|
Title: Re: Zu Omen Definition Review/944 Comparison Post by DBC on 09/20/15 at 17:39:05 I had been using Klipsch RF-7 mains (sensitivity of 102db) for over 10 years with the Zen and more recently a Super Zen. Thought hard about the Omen Def but in the end decided to purchase the Omega Alnico Monitors due to their completely different design approach (simply wanted to try something different). Quite frankly I expected their would be some real weaknesses in the Single Driver Design and that the Super Zen would never be able to achieve acceptable volume levels with the Alnico Monitors (93db). However as beowoulf states, the clarity & transparency are so good you get a great sound stage with very audible micro-dynamics. The best Focus I've had a speaker present in my room. Vocals & instruments all have their own space and don't bleed into one another. Not sure exactly how to explain this but the Omega Monitors fill the room so well that Volume with 2 watts really becomes less of an issue. I tend to listen at lower volumes now with the Omegas because they simply don't have to be played loud to sound great. At moderate volume they really provide a big full presentation. If you are into Jazz & Acoustic my guess is you won't feel the need for a sub at all. In my case I do a lot of Rock, Classic Rock, Blues, Blues rock, live recordings and have a larger listening space. I use a pair of HSU Mid Bass Modules (downward firing 12" low frequency drivers) to augment the low end from 50 to 200 hz, the combination is seamless and can rock. The Klipsch could play louder but never sounded this good. The Omega Alnico Monitors really are special. Don't think I will be moving away from the High Efficiency Single Driver Omega Monitors any time soon. |
|
Title: Re: Zu Omen Definition Review/944 Comparison Post by vyokyong on 09/26/15 at 03:44:19 Optimize your listening room for the best audio experience! (Room Setup) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1bbmWd00HYM Sorry for upside down picture, I try to correct but not success to correct! |
|
Title: Re: Zu Omen Definition Review/944 Comparison Post by Dave1210 on 10/01/15 at 02:13:51 The 944’s are back in my system. My reaction after the deprivation is as follows: -The 944’s offer significantly more detail than the OD’s. This was my gut reaction and it still holds true. I doubt the frequency curve on the 944’s is flat (as it says in the description) and I don’t know that anyone has taken any measurements. It might be time to get an omni microphone and see what’s going on. I already have an AD/DA USB sound card that would work just fine. -The 944’s have greater presence at lower volumes, and enable lower volume listening with engagement. The OD’s really need to be cranked up a bit to come alive and when they you do you are rewarded by a massive wall of sound. In the evening, I typically listen at 75 dB or below, and the Zu’s really don’t start to come alive until ~80 dB. -The Zu OD's don’t disappear like the smaller 944’s do, so it’s a noticeably different soundstage. The Zu’s offer greater scale, which is great for classical music. -The Zu OD's and the 944’s are about equal efficiency on the appropriate taps. When I hooked the 944’s back up, I didn’t switch back to the 4 ohm tap (Zu’s on the 8 ohm tap) and the 944’s were noticeably less loud. At first I thought my reaction to the efficiency was incorrect, but I realized I needed to go back to the 4 ohm tap for the 944’s. After switching taps, I was back in business. -I think it’s possible the Zu OD’s might be better off on 16 ohm taps. The nominal impedance of these speakers might be closer to 12 ohm vs. 8 ohms as the impedance is quite variable (check out the curve on the Zu website). Or maybe they would sound better on a Torii vs. the ZMA because the Torii follows the impedance curve (vs. trying to ignore it). -That said, my experience makes me question whether or not the Zu Druids, which are a 16 ohm speaker, would be worth listening to without having 16 ohm taps. The nominal impedance of the Druids might be more like 20 ohm, which would be >3dB loss on an 8 ohm tap. -I miss the body and meat that the Zu OD’s add to the music/images. The OD’s have a tone and warmth that make them very easy to listen to. Or maybe they just have a flatter frequency response vs. the 944’s. -I didn't add much vs. what I reported on originally, but wanted to capture it nonetheless. If I have additional thoughts I will report back. I think it’s fair to say that the presentation of these two speakers is fairly different and it comes down to preference. |
|
Title: Re: Zu Omen Definition Review/944 Comparison Post by Palomino on 10/01/15 at 13:50:40 Very nice summary Dave and helpful. I've wondered about the Zu for a couple of years and knowing the 944, your summary helps me understand strengths and weaknesses. I'd love to read a similar comparison to omega speakers if there is one. |
|
Title: Re: Zu Omen Definition Review/944 Comparison Post by Dave1210 on 10/01/15 at 17:16:17 I will look into the Omega speakers. For those that have them, is there consensus that one of the AlNiCo models would be best? In general, do single driver speakers sound good with push/pull amplifiers? Historically, I thought SET’s were preferred with single drivers, but I’m sure this is an outdated generalization. My main amplifier pairing would be the ZMA. That said, the Outlaw models seem like they would be a great fit for the little Decware amp since they are lower in impedance (4 ohm) and higher in efficiency vs. the standard lineup. Does anyone have experience with this combination? I also have the CKC for comparison. Lastly, does Omega offer a trial period similar to Decware or Zu? |
|
Title: Re: Zu Omen Definition Review/944 Comparison Post by DBC on 10/01/15 at 19:33:22 Dave1210, I own a Super Zen with the 8 to 16 Ohm Output Transformers and am driving a pair of Omega Alnico Monitors (their flagship monitor). The Omega's have made a Single Driver Believer out of me. I was confident the Super Zen would not drive the Omega's loud enough and that the Single Driver Omega's would have some obvious weaknesses. Turns out neither were true. Without a crossover, transparency & clarity are taken to another level (but not in a harsh or etched way). Can't really explain it but the music has so much more emotion at any volume that Max volume becomes a secondary issue. They simply sound great at any volume. Unfortunately there is no one place (like Decfest) to go and hear the full line of Omegas so the only ones I've heard are the ones I own. First off the Alnico Monitors are very large compared to most other monitors. Personally I would stay with the Monitor verses the floor-standing version. I listen to a lot of Classic Rock so I like it on the loud side. I use a Pair of Mid Bass Modules with 12" drivers to reinforce the low end. These are not required to make the Alnico's sound really good. Just my personal taste. The last couple months I've by-passed the plate amps in my Mid Bass Modules and am operating them in passive mode connected in parallel with the Omega Monitor speaker connections. This makes the left & right channels effectively 4 Ohm nominal loads and my Super Zen is supposedly optimized for 8 to 16 Ohm loads. The Super Zen has no problem driving the 4 Ohm load at all and sounds as good as ever. The Mid Bass Reinforcement is cleaner than ever since bypassing the Plate Amp and it's internal crossover. The system actually sounds Bigger & Louder now that the Plate Amps have been by-passed. I realize this sounds completely counter-intuitive. In any event, I think too much has been made about the Super Zen and 4 or 8 Ohm speaker loads. Others have reported very good results with a wide range of speaker loads using the Super Zen. I did a lot of research before getting the Omega Alnico Monitors. Now that I've listened to them for the past 8 months, it's obvious to me there is a reason these have been their Flagship Speaker for so many years with so few changes. I think if you want to hear their best, this would be the place to start. The Omega Outlaw Speakers are all interesting and great speakers I'm sure. But none have become regular production models and none have replaced the Flagship Alnico Monitors. |
|
Title: Re: Zu Omen Definition Review/944 Comparison Post by Dave1210 on 10/02/15 at 02:03:21 Thanks for all of the great info DBC. A couple of questions: 1) Why you would recommend the Omega AlNiCo monitors vs. the floor standing version? 2) Have you heard the Omega speakers with any of the Decware push/pull amps? |
|
Title: Re: Zu Omen Definition Review/944 Comparison Post by JazztoGo on 10/02/15 at 04:02:52 Hello I know this question was not directed to me but I have omega outlaws and I run them with zdsd--csp3--toriimkiv and I find the sound to be very full sounding and with wonderful details. Never find it fatiguing or harsh in anyway. The imaging and soundstage are really nice and make my speakers just disappear. I listen at very low volumes in the morning and I find the music still retains all the details and fullness. though with my outlaws i find that if I have subpar recordings or low mp3 that the music wont sound as goood. I currently stream tidal and notice much more music enjoyment. I am all digital so no turntable. |
|
Title: Re: Zu Omen Definition Review/944 Comparison Post by Dave1210 on 10/02/15 at 12:57:46 Thanks J2G. Sounds like you are really enjoying your Omega speakers with a Declare PP amp. -Do you have to engage the treble cut on the Torii with the Omega speakers? -What version of the Outlaw speakers do you own? |
|
Title: Re: Zu Omen Definition Review/944 Comparison Post by JazztoGo on 10/02/15 at 13:29:17 Hey there, I did use the treble knob at first but I could not tell any difference so I put it back to normal without any issues. My outlaws have the RS5 single driver and downfiring omega 8" sub. I got these speakers about a year n half ago or so. |
|
Title: Re: Zu Omen Definition Review/944 Comparison Post by DBC on 10/03/15 at 23:45:34 Quote:
Attending this years Decfest reminded me how many different amp / speaker combinations there are and how they all have slightly different flavors. Then add on top of that all the different personal musical tastes and preferences of the different attendees and it's clear why there is no single amp / speaker combo that reigns supreme. I prefer the qualities of the Super Zen but understand the attraction of the more powerful amps to others as I listened this year. We each have our own music history and musical experiences. Myself for instance I have no others in my area to share with and to listen to other systems. So I'm more or less stuck in my own Audio Bubble and try to remember that when I post here. So with that said, Dave I'll answer your first question the best I can based on my personal experience. On the question of Monitors verses Floor-standing models, Monitors have become a personal preference of mine after owning many of each. Some of the Floor-standing units I've owned produce good bass if placed closer to the walls while this can cause the Sound-stage to suffer. Pull the Towers out into the room where they image best and Bass output can fall off substantially. So the analogy I use is that of the Flying Car. It wasn't a great car and it wasn't a great plane but it was a flying car. I tend to find Monitors more forgiving when it comes to placement while at the same time they can perform very good since they are being asked to do less. OK, so the question is what if the monitor's are a bit light on Bass for your personal taste. Well first of all be thankful that you don't have a Floor-standing model that just loads the room up with too much Bass no matter where you place it (I've had that problem before). The Omega Alnico Monitors I own really produce great Tight Clean Bass in my 16" X 24" room with multiple openings into other areas of the home. Really quite amazing. Only because of personal taste do I use a pair of Mid Bass Modules to add a touch of Mid Bass Dynamics. So in my case I look at the Mid Bass Module as the Car and the Monitors as the Airplane. Both built for a specific purpose, very good at what they do and can be placed separately where they perform in a given room best. As a side note the speaker designer told me the Monitors have a bit more speed and tighter bass compared to the towers that can go a bit lower. As far as the Push/Pull amps, No I have not heard the Alnicos teamed up with a Push/Pull but my guess is someone here has the combo. |
|
Title: Re: Zu Omen Definition Review/944 Comparison Post by mark58 on 10/04/15 at 01:44:43 Dave, I've read most of this thread and have finally decided to chime in. I agree with DBC that there are so many variables in regards to gear and personal preferences that, in my opinion, reading other's impressions can only get you so far. I own several pairs of speakers and if I had to live with any one of them, I'd still be happy. I think I may have answered questions you've asked in the past but there have been quite a few folks who've been interested in the speakers I've got and thus sought my impressions. I have the following...all floor standing speakers 1) Omega Alinco 6XRS built in December 2011 but with the same drivers as the current model. 2) Omega Alinco Super 7XRS with the 7RSA driver that was one of three available driver options for this cabinet design...they are no longer offered 3) Zu Audio Souls with a single 10" driver with whizzer cone tweeter 4) Decware/Turning Point Audio HR-1s From the middle of April to the end of June I had the Omega Alinco 6XRS speakers in my main system paired with a Torii MK IV. The only minor complaint was that the high end was too extended on some recordings. In my opinion the Omega speakers all have an extended high end compared to my other speakers. With the HR-1s I've added 10 Ohm resistors to attenuate the tweeters. The Souls have a warmer presentation. I think many here prefer an extended high end and more detail...so the Omegas are very popular with this crowd. In regards to Monitor versus floor standing models...well, I haven't heard the monitors but the 6XRS with their bottom firing ports provide satisfying and plentiful Bass. DBC is responsible for turning me on to the Sub Dude isolation platforms that seem to tighten up and clarify the Bass a little....presumably by decoupling the speakers from my concrete floor. I also have an Omega Deep Hemp Sub that really benefited from adding a Sub Dude platform. In my opinion, with the bottom firing ports, you get plenty of Bass and wouldn't need a Sub Woofer. I don't know if that would be the case with the monitors. Also the floor standers would not require stands...I think DBC places his on top of his Mid Bass modules. I bought all of these speakers without prior auditions. So I think the only way you will truly find out what you like is to make a choice and get a pair in your own system and room. Mark. |
|
Title: Re: Zu Omen Definition Review/944 Comparison Post by beowulf on 10/04/15 at 06:27:24 @ Dave, both Mark and DBC have provided really good insight to which drivers and speakers that would be good candidates. I'll add my .02 cents as well. While there are fans of probably each Omega driver/speaker that is produced, I have found there are 2 standout models that seem to be a little more revered than the others (similar to Decware's Super Zen and Torii). And they are the AlNiCo Hemp Cone based speakers and the RS5 based speakers. Based on my opinion of all the drivers in Louis' range ... The RS5's strongest attributes are speed and immediacy ... at 4.5" it doesn't take a lot of imagination to see how fast these can be. The AlNiCo's strongest attributes are tone and smooth transitioning throughout the frequency range and give a more refined sound to them with just a really beautiful tone. The other driver's which are the RS7 brings in the middle ground ... they dig deeper than both the RS5 and AlNiCo, but are not as fast as the RS5 or as smooth and refined as the AlNiCo. That said, all of these drivers have about the best imaging you can imagine (as a single point source) and all give that you that spooky 3D holographic soundstage. But the tone on the AlNiCo's and the speed of the RS5 make them exceptional in their prospective price ranges IMO. |
|
Title: Re: Zu Omen Definition Review/944 Comparison Post by DBC on 12/14/15 at 16:06:37 Quote:
Dave, saw this over at the Omega site and thought it would be of interest to you. Quote:
I have heard other Omega owners compare the Monitor to the Floor Standers with similar opinions. IMO the the Alnico Monitor is exceptional at what it does. Adding a quality Sub designed for what it does well is a good combination. On a side note, I had my Monitors on 20" stands and changed to IsoAcoustic Large Stands which have the monitors about 8 inches off the floor & tilted up toward the listener. Being closer to the floor has really reinforced the Low Frequencies and other Omega owners might want to experiment with that. |
|
Forums » Powered by YaBB 2.2.2! YaBB © 2000-2008. All Rights Reserved. |