|
What’s an armchair forum physicist Hearing a Zu demo at a show, when we’re playing music that many audiophiles don’t get and have never heard, really doesn't qualify as hearing the product. The Zu hate out there on the web are from a certain type of critic. (I love critics, and being critical—malicious glint in my eye...) Back in ‘99 when we were laying down Zu’s platform and reason for being we know we were going to shake things up, leaving very little middle ground for established audiophiles to stand. And maybe it was a survival thing but we also believed the more opposition Zu got the bigger it would become, at least that’s what we told ourselves. The first four years were ugly for us here in the U.S. with tons of opposition, even being voted worst sound at CES 2002 by some golden-eared armchair forum physicist. By contrast the Chinese markets were totally getting Zu, magazine covers, features, even finding press in pop culture magazine Milk. In 2005 Zu was getting some traction stateside thanks to the huge effort of satisfied users like Mike Smith, Todd & Amy, Phil, Ralph Karsten.... willing to share their observations and Zu experiences. And it was that year Srajan of 6moons.com took a chance and purchased a pair of Druid’s from us, killer reviews followed! In 2006 Zu grew even faster, with peers within audio acknowledging our contribution potential, trade press noticing us and regular folk learning about Zu and willing to give our 60-day satisfaction guarantee a go. And as we grew the more vocal the armchair forum physicist became....
When you imply inferior design or fidelity in public you better have the stuff to back it up. There have been several critics of Zu that incorrectly portray Zu and the physics behind its products. Critics are a good thing and most Zu critics appear to be intelligent, with a deep passion for audio but some may have played in the audio arts a bit too long, forgetting to listen to the world around them. And if not a sonic failure, maybe then a lack of individual scientific research and understanding for those techno-babble mumblers. One particular critic comments in a public forum regarding physics and assumptions of what is wrong with the Zu sound or product, reporting to have listened extensively to Zu products at the 2006 CES show, even mentioning a cut of something we only played once. I'm not positive I remember the guy, I think so, he certainly would have talked with Adam or I. While he was hanging in the back of our room, we had another pretty normal visitor request Danny Elfman’s 1994 Boingo album, the Insanity cut that we played. (I know, you are thinking what in god’s gray earth is normal to these Zu freaks? Anyway, the song is about the United States’ lack of ambition and general decay—look at the ‘90s and tell me it wasn’t so. Yep, you guessed it, forum-physicist took offense to it. Look, people, we take hundreds of albums to shows and we take what we like to listen to. Good, evil, scary, political, light, funny, strange, sexy, we like all kinds of stuff. Sure there was a negative comment about Danny Quayle and a reference to evolution in the song, so what? Was it funny and poignant, absolutely. Hold on, I’ve got it, Zu’s new demo communication, “the views expressed in the music demonstrated are the views of the artists (maybe) and do not necessarily reflect the views or policies of Zu or its employees.” Or should it read “Zu makes no representation concerning, and does not guarantee the source, originality, accuracy, completeness or reliability of any statement, information, data, finding, interpretation, advise, opinion, or view presented.” Be critical, particularly about our political leaders but it must have the proper framework or nothing positive will result. I would have certainly given the investigator audience, at least thanking him for searching us out, would have been happy to talk tech but no approach was made by him. I do remember the guy, sporting a blue windbreaker, skinny, comb-over, no pocket protector though, asked to play a cut of his own, which we did. And without exaggeration this is what happens. He moseys to the sweet spot chair, listens for 15 seconds, stands up dramatically asking for his disc back and rushes out; no words, no manners, just enough to justify his bash Zu agenda.
Zu has a very generous return policy, 60-days 100% money back—less than 1% of Zu customers exercise it.
And another thing, when someone leads with “the laws of physics...” you should seriously hesitate regarding it as accurate or true. If you are going to reference physics like you own it, you have to provide references or proof, or through out your credentials. This is true for any scientific publication, even statements. Where is Zu’s proof? It’s our product! And to stay true I should define the term “proof” as used in scientific lexicon. A proof is evidence or argument establishing or helping to establish a fact or the truth of a statement, which is repeatable and mathematically modeled. Lack of time, an odd sense of humor, and a desire to keep our technology ours are the reasons you don’t see a great deal of hype from us. You can however see a very healthy company, with excellent growth, making some super cool stuff. We encourage armchair-forum-physicists, and everyone else to take us up on our 60-day satisfaction guarantee, play them, measure them and publish your findings, your methods, your proofs and qualify your statements and how that relates to playback fidelity and the human element of hearing. For an introduction to this concept read The Theory of Sound by Lord Rayleigh, published back in the 19th century! The intro reads:
“THE sensation of sound is a thing sui generis, not comparable with any of our other sensations. No one can express the relation between a sound and a colour or a smell. Directly or indirectly, all questions connected with this subject must come for decision to the ear, as the organ of hearing; and from it there can be no appeal. But we are not therefore to infer that all acoustical investigations are conducted with the unassisted ear. When once we have discovered the physical phenomena, which constitute the foundation of sound, our explorations are in great measure transferred to another field lying within the dominion of the principles of Mechanics. Important laws are in this way arrived at, to which the sensations of the ear cannot but conform.” — Lord Rayleigh
If audio freaks like us are only reading the trade news, cook books, forums, manufactures white papers, and periodicals, believing the ideas because it sounds reasonable without either a physics background or personal investigation and fundamental understanding, we will be misled. It is very strange to me, to think with such a rich history of original research in music and sound, that few of us have studied Rayleigh, Jeans, Ohm, Olson, Helmholts, Tesla, Kinsler, Fray, Coopens, Sanders, Halliday & Resnick, Hall... If we would get back to the original research we would all be in a better position to explore ideas and the art of playback and recording. Why is it that I have to learn how a Zu "design" is incorrect in a forum based on what people heard in a hotel room with a few hours of setup? Very few, a handful maybe, of those playing in American hi-fi really get Zu, sure several of the founders of Zu have been in this sport professionally since the mid ‘80s and can run the hi-fi game as well as most but we are choosing to bring new ideas and people into this hobby, maybe even growing it at a faster rate than it’s presently receding, a tall order I know. We think quality playback should be enjoyed by a much larger percentage of the worlds population, in their homes. As a kid I loved hanging out around the hi-fi console with the family listening to Johnny Cash, Marty Robins, Hank Williams, Buddy Rich, Tommy & Jimmy Dorsey, The Everly Brothers... looking at the album liners and dancing on the rug.
|
