Gallo Reference III's

mca · « **Reply #40 on:** 12 Jul 2004, 10:06 pm »

How would I connect a second amplifier to my McIntosh MA6500 integrated amp? The amp has outputs on the back to power an external amplifier, but I am thinking that this then bypasses the internal amp?

Val · « **Reply #41 on:** 12 Jul 2004, 10:35 pm »

mca, checking the Mac owners manual (page 10, back panel and page 12, "using a separate power amplifier"), I see that you can use either an external power amplifier with the integrated's preamplifier, or the internal amp and an external power amp for driving two separate sets of speakers or biamping one set of speakers, or driving the Reference III woofer voice coils.

Val

brj · « **Reply #42 on:** 13 Jul 2004, 01:20 pm »

Quote from: Val

Thanks for the review.

Thanks for the feedback!

Quote from: Val

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.

Ah, that's very good to know - thank you! By the way, what order is the 50 Hz filter on the Ref III? First order?

Quote from: Val

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.

I understand the work split involved, but am still puzzled as to the approach because I don't see the benefit of using one of two smaller voice coils to produce the upper bass instead of the one larger one (or both smaller ones) for the entire bass range. This approach has the feeling of being clever, but introduces something into the signal path (the 50 Hz filter) that doesn't seem needed. Obviously it is, because the reviewer that tried to drive the second voice coil without the filter indicated that the result was horrilble, but I'm curious as to why that should be the case.

(What can I say.... I'm obviously not a speaker designer, but I like to know why things work the way they do!)

Quote from: Val

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.

My choice of terms was perhaps a bit misleading. I didn't mean triamping in the sense that you were powering highs/mids/lows separately, but in the sense that the speaker would have 3 sets of binding posts - the highs and mids that overlap without the aid of a crossover, the woofer, and the woofer's 2nd voice coil. However, I wasn't aware that the Ref III employed a series crossover, so it becomes a non-issue regardless. Now I just have to read up on the differences between series and parallel crossovers...

Thanks again!

8thnerve · « **Reply #43 on:** 16 Jul 2004, 01:50 pm »

Quote from: brj

This approach has the feeling of being clever, but introduces something into the signal path (the 50 Hz filter) that doesn't seem needed. Obviously it is, because the reviewer that tried to drive the second voice coil without the filter indicated that the result was horrilble, but I'm curious as to why that should be the case.

The second voice coil on the RefIIIs has no crossover on it, so if you don't put a lowpass filter on it, it will try to run full range, hence, the terrible results.

brj · « **Reply #44 on:** 16 Jul 2004, 03:01 pm »

Quote from: 8thnerve

Quote from: brj
This approach has the feeling of being clever, but introduces something into the signal path (the 50 Hz filter) that doesn't seem needed. Obviously it is, because the reviewer that tried to drive the second voice coil without the filter indicated that the result was horrilble, but I'm curious as to why that should be the case.

The second voice coil on the RefIIIs has no crossover on it, so if you don't put a lowpass filter on it, it will try to run full range, hence, the terrible results.

Ah.... that makes sense! Actually, it makes enough sense that I should have realized it immediately. Thanks, Nathan!

JackD, did you ever post your Ref III review? I believe that you were going to compare them to the Reynaud Trentes (which I'm unfamiliar with) and the Green Mountain Europas (which I've read a lot about).

Thanks!

JackD · « **Reply #45 on:** 16 Jul 2004, 05:28 pm »

Still waiting on delivery, there was a small holdup.

doug s. · « **Reply #46 on:** 16 Jul 2004, 05:50 pm »

all this talk really tempts me to audition a pair of due's. same mid/woof & tweet as the ref-lll's. and, i'd much prefer using a standard outboard active x-over/subwoofer set-up anyway...

doug s.

Val · « **Reply #47 on:** 16 Jul 2004, 06:19 pm »

Hi doug, I'm in the same boat re crossover/subs, but I understand the dué's bass/mids and tweeter aren't exactly the same as in the Ref. III.

Val

dwk · « **Reply #48 on:** 16 Jul 2004, 06:47 pm »

Quote from: doug s.

all this talk really tempts me to audition a pair of due's. same mid/woof & tweet as the ref-lll's. and, i'd much prefer using a standard outboard active x-over/subwoofer set-up anyway...

I had the same thought, but rereading the reviews etc it looks like the drivers and the spheres themselves are NOT the same in the Due as in the RefIII. They're similar to be sure, but the units in the RefIII are upgrades. Exactly how much difference this makes I can't say as I haven't ever heard either unit.

doug s. · « **Reply #49 on:** 16 Jul 2004, 07:40 pm »

val & dwk,

sounds like it's time to call gallo & find out what it will take to get the due w/all the ref-lll goodies...

doug s.

brj · « **Reply #50 on:** 16 Jul 2004, 08:10 pm »

Quote from: doug s.

all this talk really tempts me to audition a pair of due's. same mid/woof & tweet as the ref-lll's.

While visually similar, they are not the same. I made the same mistake and the dealer indicated that the CDT tweeter is upgraded over the Due', and the carbon-fibre mids are larger (and possibly improved in other ways). I believe that the Ref III tweeter is now called the CDT II.

lamia · « **Reply #51 on:** 5 Sep 2004, 07:30 pm »

Well, I actually ordered the Gallo, it sounded good, I thought it integrated well, as I've been living with Apogee Centaur Majors with the same issue, but then I heard the UNO, and forget it, there is no comparison in my opinion. The Gallo sounds good, I would have a tough time picking between it and say the Paradigm studio 100's, which image better and have a larger sweetspot, but I don't agree with the Six Moons review. I'm starting to think they are pretty biased based upon the gushing they do, almost too great a review. There is a more accurate review from an English Mag, maybe HiFi? TAS is coming out w/a review in the next issue I believe, allegedly good according to Gallo's folks.

mcgsxr · « **Reply #52 on:** 6 Sep 2004, 01:40 am »

HI FI + mag rates them well, but doesn't go overboard. They mention the BAM setup, but did not test it.

Mark in Canada

mca · « **Reply #53 on:** 6 Sep 2004, 05:48 am »

This may explain the HI FI+ review a bit:

Quote

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.

brj · « **Reply #54 on:** 6 Sep 2004, 04:28 pm »

Hi Lamia.

Quote from: lamia

The Gallo sounds good, I would have a tough time picking between it and say the Paradigm studio 100's, which image better and have a larger sweetspot, but I don't agree with the Six Moons review.

Can you tell us the conditions in which you heard the Ref III's? Specifically, what was driving it and how the room was treated?

Thanks!

bob53 · « **Reply #55 on:** 14 Sep 2004, 06:40 am »

Lamia,

I have to respectfully disagree re: Gallo imaging vs. Paradigm... I've owned ref. 100 v2., ref 40 v3, sig-4's and the Gallos exceed the imaging of the ref line and match if not slightly better the Sigs. I think the presentation is quite different as the Gallo is more immersive whereas the Paradigm's image quite well but make you think you are not quite "in" the soundfield as much as the Gallo's... Maybe our rooms are a bit different but my setup is something like this:

Source: Sonic Frontiers SFCD-1
Pre: SF Line-1
Amps: Anthem Amp 2 SE

Room: 19 x 14 x 8

Speakers are 10 feet apart, 2 feet out, and about 8 feet from me. Despite what others have published, I find the speakers to be a bit picky re: placement for imaging...

What I think the Gallos do much better than say Paradigm's is disappear.... My 100's could really pump out music but I never was able to get them to disappear in the soundstage wheras the Gallo's in a dark room are, on most tracks, un-localizable. In addition, the CDT tweeter is much better than the Paradigm offerings as it does not get spitty on poor recordings. However, I wish the Gallo had a bit more low end grunt vs. my old 100's!

I'm not so sure I agree with you re: biased reviews - Gallo is small peanuts vs. Paradigm or B&W... There is very little incentive for a reviewer to give a glowing review to a small company that does not line the coffers of the mag. like a big company can.

Just my opinions,

Bob

Morty · « **Reply #56 on:** 19 Sep 2004, 01:09 pm »

Living in Norway does, unfortunately exclude me from checking out these very interesting speakers. I have therefore decided to attend the London Heathrow HiFi Expo next week. Gallo Ref. III will be demonstrated and I am sure going to spend a lot of time - with my own music samples - at that particular room.
I was a happy owner of a set of Gallo Solo some Years ago, but traded them in, due to the lack of proper deep bass.
I have had several speakers since then, all much bigger and all much more expensive. Also, being a member of a HiFi club, I listen to a lot of quite potent HiFi gear. But never do I hear speakers that dissapear the same way as the Gallo did. Even on the line, right between the spekers, the dissapearing act was complete.
Further, the way these CDT units handled high frequent transients and dynamics were simply unbelievable. The elwise eminent Quad EL 63 is second to the CDT in this respect.
So, now that the bass response seems to be improved considerably, and the optional Bass Unit is on its way, I would be much surprised if the demonstration I hope to get on the EXPO next week, does not not mak me placing my order.
One time Gallo - Always Gallo, is that how it is?
How is the carbon units performing, compared to the previous Dynaudio units?
Anyone with experience here?
And the Bass, how good is it really?

Regards
Morty

srayle · « **Reply #57 on:** 9 Oct 2004, 09:14 am »

Hype? Worthy? Product du monde?
6moons srajen ebaen was so effusive in his review he gave it the creme de la luna award, or something like dat, making all of us take a hard look and wonder if this is the holy grail of the electronically-reproduced voicekoil. I have heard them in a local dealer, albeit in a very crummy room/set up, mid-fi equipment (NAD amp & NAD dvd player), utilitarian IC's, no 2nd voice coil hook-up nor ded.sub-amp, and thay sounded... unremarkable. BUT, I do somehow trust srajen, he bought his test pair and has that superb classy online website6moons...okay, what's the deal with these speaks? People who own them, sing out, pipe up, should we pursue this potent chimera that perhaps these are something really remarkable for the money? Is system matching/synergy really critical, or are these an exceptional speaker for the price? Is it just the enthusiasm of yet another new design which in a couple of years will be just another speaker in a long line of them? I, for one would like to assemble a superb system for a modest amt of munney and then forget about audiophilia and just marvel at the beauty of my music...I'd like some feedback...I for one, am going to take my system down to the dealers and A/B the dam things against what I got, and see how much better it sounds...or maybe not. That's the trouble with these stellar reviews...it makes you krazy

Val · « **Reply #58 on:** 9 Oct 2004, 10:54 am »

Quote from: srayle

I have heard them in a local dealer, albeit in a very crummy room/set up, mid-fi equipment (NAD amp & NAD dvd player), utilitarian IC's, no 2nd voice coil hook-up nor ded.sub-amp

One of the problems with Gallo is that if you take a look at its list of dealers, most of them aren't high end and some aren't even audio retailers.

doug s. · « **Reply #59 on:** 9 Oct 2004, 01:16 pm »

Quote from: Morty

...I was a happy owner of a set of Gallo Solo some Years ago, but traded them in, due to the lack of proper deep bass...

go find an old pair of the solo's ya liked so much, & add a good subwoofer set-up: a pair of quality passive subs, outboard electronic x-over, and any decent s/s amp. this will allow you to be completely happy with *any* speaker where the only thing missing is bass...

it will likely improve many speakers that *do* have good bass, too. when i 1st got my subwoofer set-up, my speakers - thiel 3.5's - were -2db at 20hz. crossing them over at 70hz to my subs improved the thiel's 10" driver in its playback above that level. and, the bass was *still* better...

doug s.