Gallo Reference III's

Val · « **Reply #20 on:** 22 Jun 2004, 04:12 pm »

Quote from: zybar

Val,

What were the other two?

I have read practically all of Marty's reviews. Since he was reminiscing about the best he has heard in his "Big Rig" and named Scientific Fidelity Crown Joule, VMPS RM40, Amrita Jovian Pillars, Merlin VSM and Silverline La Folia as previous tops, and also that the original Gallo Reference would be "at or near the top of the list," I deduce the new References would be at the top because he says they are better than the originals, and also because of the way he raves about them at length, trading off this and that even with the Pipedreams (!) and the RM40s.

Marty doesn't dislike what the woofer does to the rest of the range, so my previous doubt about too much warm up into the upper bass and lower midrange is out of the way (see below for tweaking spectral balance).

The speaker has to be really great for me to forget a low-to-the-ground soundstage (he says it did not exceed the top of the speakers!), as this is something I don't like at all. I remember listening to either the first or second Merlin VSM iteration and the original Vandersteen 5 and being underwhelmed by the great sound with a low soundstage. I know some not-so-tall speakers do reproduce height superbly, for example the original EgglestonWorks Andra and the new Andra II.

Speculation: as he says one can "change the spectral balance of the speaker by adjusting the amount of backward tilt," it may be worth trying a combination of tilt and a makeshift variable-height stand (several granite slabs, for example) to also tweak the height reproduction.

One problem I found is that the local (Miami) Gallo dealer don't demo speakers because, as he told me, he only sells by order and mostly custom systems (those unsophisticated HT fans

). I immediately fired an email to Anthony Gallo and will have to call the dealer in Fort Lauderdale for an appointment. But definitely, this speaker is in my short list.

Val

zybar · « **Reply #21 on:** 22 Jun 2004, 04:14 pm »

Val,

PM me for a very good Gallo dealer...

You can raise the image height with a slight tilt back (did this with my Ref II's).

George

Val · « **Reply #22 on:** 22 Jun 2004, 04:22 pm »

Quote from: zybar

You can raise the image height with a slight tilt back (did this with my Ref II's)

Yes, of course and Marty says so, but remember he also says that changing the tilt angle changes the spectral balance, so you have to do a combination until hopefully everything falls where it should. What the guy at 6moons said about warmth probably has something to do with this.

EDIT: By the way, this issue of BFS alone pays for the subscription with the many suggestions it has. I wholeheartedly recommend you people subscribe to it, remember, no advertising, an ear for the new and small manufacturer with a good product to offer and straight shooting!

Val

bob53 · « **Reply #23 on:** 23 Jun 2004, 07:52 am »

Hi everyone, I'm new here but thought I would add my 2 cents.

I took a HUGE leap of faith and had my "local" Gallo dealer order up a pair after a) reading 6moons review (I take notice when speakers like AVG's are crated up for Gallos costing 1/10th) and corresponding with the author and b) speaker with a good friend who has an ear I trust - he demoed the Gallo Ref 3's against Dali Helicon 400's, Gershman Avant Guards, and Wilson Benesch (the little ones made of carbon fiber)... His conclusions - the Gallos were only a tick under the Wilson Benesch and much better than the Gershman and Dali. My dealer is a very nice guy but lives 100 miles away and was kind enough to offer the "if you don't like them bring them back" deal... Within a few weeks my speakers came in and were used for an informal amplifier shootout here in MN (as seen on the AVSForum) - BTW If multichannel is your thing the Lexicon LX-7 amp mates very very well with these speakers.

Anyway, on to my impressions:

The system:
Source - Sonic Frontier SFCD-1
2-channel pre - SF Line 1
2-channle amp - Anthem Amp2 SE

The speakers are still in the "break-in" phase but the changes are become subtle now so I feel comfortable writing this...

1) Frequency response - highs are excellent, very detail rich but not edgy or bright whatsoever. Mids are just right, I think they are fairly neutral to neutral-warm sounding. Mid-bass is very nice, a subtle warmth is imparted to the sound that is very pleasing to my ears. bass - in single coil mode the bass is nice and fast but the extension does not drop below mid 30's. When I use my Sherbourn 7 channel amp to drive the second coil the bass is very deep and fast - the speaker becomes an impressive full range speaker that can even satisfy those that like very deep bass like pipe organ and techno/trance/modern electronic music.

2) Soundstage - in a word, wow... I have heard my share of speaker that soundstage well but this speaker takes top prize both in width and most importantly, depth of soundstage. very holographic speaker that will give you goosebumps. The presentation is fairly relaxed - not very in your face, but the layering of music is simply amazing.

3) Imaging - My friends first comment was how well these speakers dissappear vs. others and he was right on. These speakers "hide" so well, many friends that have come over asked where the music was coming from - "what! those are speakers?"

A very minor complaint is that the soundstage depth is so deep sometimes the center image seems a bit fuzzier. I suspect this is more of a fault of the recordings and not the speakers b/c most of my CD's sound just fine.

4) Image Height - I too have noticed that the image height is not as high as I am used to. It does exceed the height of the speakers but not beyond 4-5 feet depending upon the recording. This is fine, but if you are used to monoliths in your room, the Gallo speakers will not throw as high of a soundstage. Am I bothered by it? Nope, the sound is so good, I don't care...

5) Other observations - a) I never truly understood what/how cabinets colored the sound until I purchased a speaker that was devoid of this (most of it anyway)... This makes the sound seem more pure and clean - but amybe that is the CDT tweeter? b) BFS has nailed it when they suggest this speaker plays a seemless, enveloping sound - it is simply a seemless soundstage wall to wall and fore to aft - very different from many speakers that accentuate the certain regions of the soundstage (to my ears). c) Off-axis response is good, but not the "best" I have ever heard but the sweet spot is so big that this is irrelevant. d) Placement is still key - I am limited in terms of space and so right now I have a large Salamander rack system (7 feet long) between my speakers, only after I pull the speakers (CDT tweeter) out from this obstruction do the spekaers reaaly begin to realize their full potential. I assume the CDT tweeter needs room to image properly and since it is so low compared to other speakers the rack gets in the way and ruins the superb imaging of these speakers. e) I just love the effortless sound of these little speakers - room filling. very dynamic yet very refined sounding. They bring a sense of space and natural pitch and timbre that is absent from most speakers I have auditioned... they are truly a bargain at 2600 list - I will be keeping mine and I look forward to the matching LCR Reference speaker that should come out later this year. I never heard any of the previous offerings but compared to other speakers at or near this price point, the Gallos are truly a spectacular speaker.

Speakers I have auditioned (brief list): Dali (Euphonia), Maggie (all), Vandersteen (2,3,5), Joseph Audio (most), Gershman, B&W (6,7,8), Paradigm Studio and Signature, Verity Audio, Revel, Snell, JM Labs, Sonus Faber, Linn, PSB, NHT, Meadowlark. Wilson Audio, Martin Logan

A few of these speakers do a few things better than the Gallos (for example the Maggies still image a bit better) but the Gallos just seem to get everything right and more importantly I find them far more involving than pretty much any other speaker listed above...

Sorry for the lengthy post,

Bob

Eric · « **Reply #24 on:** 23 Jun 2004, 11:27 am »

I am just wondering if this is another flavor of the month kind of thing?

Val · « **Reply #25 on:** 23 Jun 2004, 12:11 pm »

Quote from: Eric

I am just wondering if this is another flavor of the month kind of thing?

I know the feeling, but not in this case. Anthony Gallo has always designed great speakers and this one has everything to be a classic, as Marty says.

Val

zybar · « **Reply #26 on:** 23 Jun 2004, 12:39 pm »

Eric,

No speaker is for everybody, but the Gallos are defintely going to be more than the flavor of the month...

George

Russtafarian · « **Reply #27 on:** 23 Jun 2004, 05:26 pm »

The BFS Ref III review is posted on Gallo's website.

http://www.roundsound.com/reviews/boundforsound2.html

bob53 · « **Reply #28 on:** 23 Jun 2004, 05:57 pm »

I realize this may sound biased coming from a product owner BUT consider the reviews come from three journals (BFS, 6moons, PF) that are not industry conformists - IMO they represent the few "honest" journals left in the industry (the others being UHF, and Enjoy the Music). Srajan is correct in his recent review of the optional gallo bass amp in suggesting how rare it is to have three reviewers agree on soemthing in audio - that suggests this is not a flavor of the week sort of product. I was concerned about this too but a dialogue with Srajan via email convinced me these were the real deal. Don't listen to me, go audition them... Make sure the dealer does not sabotage the audition by poor placement or gear - hook them up to the same gear as their "reference" system (the Gallos are light enough to move without issue)...

-Bob

Terry · « **Reply #29 on:** 23 Jun 2004, 10:46 pm »

Quote from: bob53

Srajan is correct in his recent review of the optional gallo bass amp in suggesting how rare it is to have three reviewers agree on soemthing in audio - that suggests this is not a flavor of the week sort of product.

Actually, I have found just the opposite to be true. If one mag raves about a product, others usually do as well.
I owned both the Gallo Nucleus Solos and the Reference II and they were good speakers. Certainly, the imaging from these speakers is state-of-the-art and it was difficult to lose this (I eventually went in another direction). But that CDT tweeter was also a liability in that only Gallo could repair/replace the CDT. I had problems with one of my Solos and it had to be shipped back to Gallo for repair, at considerable risk and expense. When Gallo stopped servicing the old line (Solos and Reference), I gave up on the speakers and dumped them. I have to wonder if the same will be true for the Ref. 3.
Another magazine, HiFi+, just published a review of the Ref. 3. It was quite a comprehensive review and generally positive but less so than the 6moon and BFS reviews.
I hope to get to hear the Ref. 3 this weekend.

Terry

bob53 · « **Reply #30 on:** 24 Jun 2004, 01:38 am »

Terry,

If we are talking more mainstream pubs then yes.... They seem to fall down like dominos. However, in the case of, dare I say nonconformist mags, they have no interest in sounding like the next guy... The worst thing they could do is start sounding alike. I would consider these reviews less mainstream and thus far more reliable... Although surprisingly Stereophile has started to pan more products recently, you just need to know how they bury it in their text!

Is the HiFi+ mag. review online? I'm curious...

-Bob

Val · « **Reply #31 on:** 24 Jun 2004, 11:42 am »

Quote from: Terry

Actually, I have found just the opposite to be true. If one mag raves about a product, others usually do as well.

A generalization like this leaves out the good products and makes every critic a dishonest person. Imagine, for example, a Rogers LS3/5A, Spendor BC1 or Spica TC-50 receiving rave reviews from several critics when they came out. Were the reviews copycats, or were the speakers really good?

Val

Terry · « **Reply #32 on:** 24 Jun 2004, 05:17 pm »

[quote="A generalization like this leaves out the good products and makes every critic a dishonest person. Imagine, for example, a Rogers LS3/5A, Spendor BC1 or Spica TC-50 receiving rave reviews from several critics when they came out. Were the reviews copycats, or were the speakers really good?[/quote]

What generalization are you referring to. I think you are reading more into my comment that I intended.

Val · « **Reply #33 on:** 24 Jun 2004, 07:02 pm »

Quote from: Terry

What generalization are you referring to. I think you are reading more into my comment that I intended.

After reading several posts again, I think you are right and I apologize.

Val

Ric Schultz · « **Reply #34 on:** 24 Jun 2004, 07:02 pm »

According to the National Sales Manager of Gallo, HIFI+ probably got one of the very earliest sets of speakers and these had the tweeter phase inverted. This would account for the anomaly in the review. I think he said that Gallo was sending them a new pair for a quick re-review.

JackD · « **Reply #35 on:** 24 Jun 2004, 08:51 pm »

Spoke with the same gentleman myself yesterday and according to him the Positive Feedback review is coming shortly as well as reviews from TAS and Stereophile. That would leave only Soundstage without a review and I feel sure Doug Schneider will jump in the water too. My pair should be here soon, as there has been some holdup/misunderstanding between my dealer and the regional rep company and that is what I call The Factory for.

mca · « **Reply #36 on:** 11 Jul 2004, 07:57 pm »

Another positive review:

http://202.186.86.35/audio/story.asp?file=/2004/7/1/audiofile/01goldjuly&sec=audiofile

Val · « **Reply #37 on:** 12 Jul 2004, 05:28 pm »

Reviews keep coming. This one is interesting but some won't find it because it's on the wrong AA forum (Planar Speaker Asylum):

Gallo Reference III Review

Val

brj · « **Reply #38 on:** 12 Jul 2004, 08:39 pm »

I finally had the chance to audition the Gallo Reference IIIs this past weekend. I only had about 45 minutes with the speakers, but I thought I'd pass along some comments, as well as the answers to some of the questions I asked the dealer.

1) The Ref IIIs had a large sweet spot, which is a welcome feature. I was in a rather small room sitting maybe 9 feet from the plane of the speakers, but I didn't notice any significant shift when I stood up or moved to either end of the couch. I was evaluting sweet spot size based on changes in balance between the hi/mid/low frequency ranges and shifts in imaging. Additional notes on imaging can be found below, and thus form a caveat to my sweet spot evaluation.

2) Mids and highs sound quite good. I was actually startled by the clarity of a triangle on one piece. I initially thought bass was lacking, but it sounded just fine on some recordings. The recordings it sounded better on were simpler recordings with a single bass line. I suspect that the speakers just needed more juice.

3) The Bass Augmentation Module (B.A.M.) that is advertised to drive the Ref IIIs down to 22 Hz isn't available quite yet, and the dealer didn't have a pre-production model available for audition. He did indicate that the B.A.M. unit is a 2x240 Watt amp with a built-in low pass filter that attaches to the second voice coil of the woofer. Thus, you can't use your own amp to drive the second voice coil unless you have an electronic crossover or some other means of duplicating the low pass filter. (I don't have details on the filter.)

4) The Ref IIIs have two sets of binding posts, but can not be bi-amped. The first set of binding posts feeds all drivers. The second set of binding posts connects solely to the second voice coil on the side-firing woofer. (I still need to determine why two smaller voice coils are better than one large one.)

5) Imaging wasn't as impressive as I was hoping for, although the audition room left quite a bit to be desired (one full side wall of windows with thin metal blinds, very thin carpet over concrete, drop ceiling, no treatments except for a "dispersion device" on rear wall). With such a wide (330 degree advertised) dispersion tweeter, these speakers will probably see even greater room interaction than most. According to the dealer, Gallo does not dB match drivers at all, so that probably affects the imaging as well. Adjusting placement may also improve things, but I didn't have time to play with it. For my audition, both speakers about about 2 feet from the back and side walls and faced straight out.

6) The speaker "cabinets" were made of heavier steel that I was expecting. The spherical enclosures and main "spine" of the speakers especially felt very inert, and certainly looked like one of the most bulletproof speaker pairs I've seen. (Worth considering if you have pets or children). Despite knowing the dimensions of the speakers going in, I was also surprised about how small they appeared - very compact indeed.

7) Despite their 88 dB/W/m sensitivity, they seemed to be driven reasonably well driven by the 50 Watt amp used by the dealer. I suspect that impact and control would improve noticeably with more power (belied by the fact that Gallo's own B.A.M. is 240W/channel). I personally don't tend to listen at very high volume levels, but I would like to verify that the additional power improves the bass. I can't remember the specific amp used, but I do remember the Rogue preamp and Analysis Plus Oval speaker wire. I think the CD player was a Sony, but I'm not sure.

Suffice it to say, I certainly liked the Gallo Reference IIIs enough that I'd set up a home audition if I already had an existing system in which to test them. I'd really like to hear these in a acoustically treated room. It would also be nice if there was an option to get matched drivers, and perhaps binding post suitable for bi-amping (or tri-amping, if you include the 2nd voice coil on the woofer).

Val · « **Reply #39 on:** 12 Jul 2004, 09:25 pm »

Thanks for the review.

Neither the BAM ($900US) nor an electronic crossover are needed. Any reasonably powerful amplifier would do, plus a 50Hz passive low-pass filter like the $30 Harrison.

I guess the two-coil scheme is Tony Gallo's clever way of getting a lot of bass from what is in reality a small speaker. One coil controls the small movements needed for upper-bass, the other moves the woofer a lot for low frequencies. He also fills the metal frame with a proprietary compound to increase the internal volume seen by the woofer.

Biamping isn't possible because it has a series crossover from woofer to midrange. Triamping isn't possible either because there is no electrical crossover from midrange to tweeter and because the woofer needs a low-pass filter. See Martin G. DeWulf's BFS review for more details on this.

Val