I recently went from Pulsar to ZENith NG (so, not ZEN NG, as your question) — but I suspect somewhat likely sound signature differences — so thought I would weigh in to the extent potentially helpful. Stephen’s description of the differences ring true to me. I notice in particular that the ZENith NG is more transparent and present in the upper midrange and especially the treble, but it is not at all etched or fatiguing (although perhaps that is also system dependent). So, I guess in that sense you might describe the Pulsar as slightly warmer or more analog. I would generally describe my sound preferences as warm/analog, but I prefer the ZENith NG to the Pulsar — yes, more neutral/transparent, but not at the cost of making the listening experience a game of finding new sounds in familiar recordings — the music still just washes over me but just with a bit more sense of presence. And, in fairness, the differences are not to my mind night and day — clearly audible, but more in the nature of emphasis/shading — along the lines of what I am used to getting with good electronics when going up the model line. Good luck in your upgrade path.