[ricmon]

I ready to upgrade the old speak system.   I was very interested in the Gallo Ref3’s.  So I go to the local Gallo dealer and they set me up in a room to listen.  The Gallo’s where connected to a NAD Master series M3 Dual Mono Integrated Amplifier and a Arcam CDP.  After listing to some jazz and female jazz vocals that sounded pretty good I put in some R&B (Prince and Seal).  Boy to my disappointment the sound just went south.  The Gallo’s just started to sound congested, flat and with boomy uncontrolled base.  After a few minutes of this I stormed out of the listing room and berated the salesman for allowing me to audition such a highly regarded speaker on such poor electronic.  Then I asked him what else they had in the store in the Gallo’s price range.  He takes me into the “hi-end” room where they had JMLab’s, Conrad Johnson, Lipinski and a few other brands.  At this point I asked to here the Lipinski’s.  The Lipinski were playing through a CJ preamp, AREY (air) amp and a Denon CDP.  I decided on the Lipinski but before I gave up any cash I wanted to be sure they were the ones.  A week goes by I listen to some Thiel’s  and really considered the SP Tech Continuums.  But I could not get the Lipinski’s off my mind so I return to the dealer for one last listen before I buy.  This time the Lipinski’s were connected to a CJ 60 watt tube amp.  The main thing I wanted to be sure of was that the Lipinski’s could feed my fix for power listing.  I threw on some reggae and r&b and turned up the volume.  Boy did those Lipinski’s sound bad at high volumes.  So again I get the salesman and ask him to listen to see if he was hearing the same distortions that I was hearing and he was.  So he disconnects the Lipinski’s from the CJ amp and connects them to the NAD which previously disappointed with the Gallo was now handling it’s business.  I mean this is one killer intergrated amp.  The point of all this.  I can’t for the life of me hear how the Gallo’s  got such rave reviews.  Different speakers on the same amp and a world of difference.  I bought the Lipinski’s.

[Merle]

Hi Rick. OK, I gotta ask. What's a Lipinski?

[Russell Dawkins]

http://www.lipinskisound.com/products/index.php

[kfr01]

This time the Lipinski’s were connected to a CJ 60 watt tube amp. The main thing I wanted to be sure of was that the Lipinski’s could feed my fix for power listing. I threw on some reggae and r&b and turned up the volume. Boy did those Lipinski’s sound bad at high volumes.

My guess:  It was the CJ that sounded bad at high volumes, not the Lipinski's .  

The NAD probably does a fairly standard job for a SS power amp at high volumes.  The CJ probably does a substandard job compared to SS power amps at high volumes.

This Lipinski's are intriguing.  

However, -3db at 31hz with 2 7" sealed drivers!?!?

This number sounds unreal or inflated (unless quoting some "in room" measurement).

Few (any?) 12" high end subwoofers hit -3db at 31hz in a sealed enclosure, even critically damped (anechoic).

Anyway, I'm sure they're wonderful speakers, I just can't stand when speaker manufacturers quote in-room bandwidth numbers without telling the reader that fact.

edit:  I was right.  Those are "in-room" numbers.  Anechoic they roll off at 12db octave starting at 70hz.

See http://stereophile.com/standloudspeakers/1205lipinski/index3.html

[Russell Dawkins]

Yes, 31 Hz is hard to believe, with a -1dB point of 56 Hz.
The sub is rated to 31 Hz, which is believable with room gain. Perhaps that figure is with the sub.
I investigated Lipinskis before committing to SP Technology Timepiece 2.1s, as I did just recently. In the end, there seemed to be no contest, for my needs which include dispersion control and bass accuracy (and extension; -1dB @ 29Hz)

[kfr01]

Yes, 31 Hz is hard to believe, with a -1dB point of 56 Hz.
The sub is rated to 31 Hz, which is believable with room gain. Perhaps that figure is with the sub.
I investigated Lipinskis before committing to SP Technology Timepiece 2.1s, as I did just recently. In the end, there seemed to be no contest, for my needs which include dispersion control and bass accuracy (and extension; -1dB @ 29Hz)

I am intrigued by the SP Tech. speakers.  They appear to have a dealer in Chicago.  I may have to take a trip there to hear some.

[ricmon]

My guess:  It was the CJ that sounded bad at high volumes, not the Lipinski's .  

The NAD probably does a fairly standard job for a SS power amp at high volumes.  The CJ probably does a substandard job compared to SS power amps at high volumes.

This Lipinski's are intriguing.  

However, -3db at 31hz with 2 7" sealed drivers!?!?

This number sounds unreal or inflated (unless quoting some "in room" measurement).

Few (any?) 12" high end subwoofers hit -3db at 31hz in a sealed en ...

The CJ was the culprit.  I just could not drive the speakers the way I like to listen sometimes (loud).  I do wish I could have aaudition the SP Tech  speakers.  I suspect they and the Lipinski's are very simular.

[Robert C. Schult]

Another culprit can include loudspeaker break-in time. To be fair to the Gallos, they may have simply needed more time to loosen up and rein in more control. No reason to say it wasn't the CJ.

I, too, was skeptical upon first seeing the -3 dB of 37 Hz rating of the Lipinskis. The real-world bass performance rating vs anechoic rating is a tricky issue. Some argue you are serving the customer better with stating the in-room situated bass rating while others claim anechoic ratings are more accurate as a standard...I tend to side on what our customers can expect in their situation.

Steve Rothermel
Ridge Street Audio Designs

[kfr01]

I, too, was skeptical upon first seeing the -3 dB of 37 Hz rating of the Lipinskis. The real-world bass performance rating vs anechoic rating is a tricky issue. Some argue you are serving the customer better with stating the in-room situated bass rating while others claim anechoic ratings are more accurate as a standard...I tend to side on what our customers can expect in their situation.

I'm fine with seeing in room numbers; I just need the manufacturer to disclose this fact and post a standard number.  It also helps if they're willing to post anechoic frequency response graphs, on and off axis, not overly smoothed.  In fact, I don't think I'd buy a speaker on any more than a quoted "in room" rating.  The manufacturer surely has the more accurate and standard information.  Why not share?

[miklorsmith]

I think the biggest problem with in-room figures is that of standardization.  Which room did they use?  There are too many variables to try to describe the room.  Could they choose a room that would inflate the figures?  Sure, and some people would do this.

I think publishing both figures makes sense, as the manufacturers surely have both.

[JLM]

The Gallo's are 2/3rd's the price of the Lipinski speakers and rated to go deeper, so IMO they shouldn't compare.  Did the Gallo's have the bass augmenter?  That should help their ability to handle power.

OTOH they should sound like sh*t unless something in the setup was just plain wrong.

[nathanm]

Saucepan BAD!  Sphere GOOD!  Gallo kinda messed up their design by trying to thwart the KISS principle IMHO.  Better yet, try the AC\DC principle and come out with speakers with BIGGER BALLS.