[mizzuno]

I am new to this site but after much research I have narrowed down my choices for main speakers to the VMPS RM30 and the Gallo Reference 3. From all the reviews I have read the two compare favorably. The Gallos are a bit less but I am willing to spend the extra 1k for the RM30's. Unfortunately I have not been able to audition either speaker (one would think that would not be an issue in NYC). So in my quest for my first real set of audiophile speakers, I am soliciting any comments about the Gallos vs the VMPS. I realize that I will probably get biased views (this being a VMPS forum) but I still value your ears. I would greatly appreciate any objective or subjective comparison between these two exemplary speakers.

Thanks in advance.

[jermmd]

I went through the same choice last year and I bought the RM30's.  
I was able to demo the Gallo's locally and I had heard RM40's a number of times.  I definitely made the right choice.  The RM 30's are superior across the frequency range, at least the equal in imaging and sound stage, and I like the adjustability.  The Gallo's are very good, much smaller, and $1000 cheaper.  Either choice will be satisfying and hard to beat at the cost.  If you want to come up to Connecticut for a demo send me a PM.  You can also demo the Gallo's at a store near my house.

Joe M.

[Adz523]

If this is any help, I was looking to sell my speakers (Def Tech 7000scs) to a guy in Boston.  He wavered back and forth for several weeks between the 7000scs and the Gallo Ref 3s.  He ultimately chose the Gallos because he was more interested in 2 channel music than HT and he thought as most people do that the Def Techs sounded better for HT but the Gallos were much more musical.  He sent me this unaltered email a couple of weeks ago.  

["I really can't say I am on way to nirvana. I am thinking I need a pair of subs and another set of Gallo's to put my where I want to be and hopefully when I finally have that all together I will be at my satisfaction point. On smaller matrials the Gallo's are splendid but on large scale rock, especially sound with an  edge to it they are not sweet nor large scale enough for me. I was thinking about the Def's yesterday thinking about what might have been"}.

[John Casler]

I am new to this site but after much research I have narrowed down my choices for main speakers to the VMPS RM30 and the Gallo Reference 3. From all the reviews I have read the two compare favorably. The Gallos are a bit less but I am willing to spend the extra 1k for the RM30's. Unfortunately I have not been able to audition either speaker (one would think that would not be an issue in NYC). So in my quest for my first real set of audiophile speakers, I am soliciting any comments about the Gallos vs the VMPS. I realize that I will probably get biased views (this being a VMPS forum) but I still value your ears. I would greatly appreciate any objective or subjective comparison between these two exemplary speakers.
 ...

Hi Mizzuno,

Of all the people who might comment in an unbiased manner a VMPS dealer (ME) might the least likely.

That aside, I have heard the Gallo's several times and for the price they are very good.  They can be set up to really sound quite good, especially if you get the Woofer amp to go with them.

That said, I might suggest the following "pluses" and "minuses" to consider.

Imaging/Soundstage:

Gallos strength = Wide Open high dispersion sound
Gallos weakness = Images are short, soloists sound 3-4 feet tall

RM30 strength = razor sharp imaging, excellent soundstage width and depth
RM30 weakness = Image is best in a limited sweet spot

Price/Value/Performance:

Gallos = $2600

RM30 = $3500 (but only a "couple hundred" more than the Gallos via "AudioCircle courtesy prcing" through your VMPS dealer)

Bass:

Gallos =  hit 34Hz -3db and need the extra $900 amp to go down to 24Hz

RM30's = hit about 30Hz and with the 215 "powered' sub will hit 19Hz. ($999 list, but don't forget your courtesy discount) I might also mention that Brian "tunes" the 215 sub and amp to the RM30s when purchased together.

There is little doubt that at the retail level, the Gallo w/sub amp offers a superb value to performance package, and is considered a "best buy" by many.

The RM30 with SUB/amp however can be "found" for darn near the same price, with what I think (but again I'm "very" biased) is performace well beyond what can be expected for true "audiophile" listening.

[NealH]

Nice summary John Casler.  

What about image height and front/back ratio?  Some speakers sound excellent (Vandersteen 5 comes to mind) but, the image never gets any closer than the speaker plane at best.  I like an image that extends both in front and behind the speaker plane as called for in the recording media.

If you got similar sonic comparative comments on the Von Schweikert VR-4jr I would be interested in hearing them - another speaker that perks my interest.  

Now that RM30....uhmmm....I like what I read.....

[warnerwh]

In case you guys didn't notice there's a sticky with a list of reviews, two of which I believe are for the RM 30's.

[John Casler]

Nice summary John Casler.  

What about image height and front/back ratio?  Some speakers sound excellent (Vandersteen 5 comes to mind) but, the image never gets any closer than the speaker plane at best.  I like an image that extends both in front and behind the speaker plane as called for in the recording media.

If you got similar sonic comparative comments on the Von Schweikert VR-4jr I would be interested in hearing them - another speaker that perks my interest.  

Now that RM30....uhmmm....I like what I read.....

Hi RN,

Let me "AGAIN" mention that I am a VMPS dealer so that my bias is totally clear (as it should be).

In discussing the realization of "soundstaging" laterally, horizontilly and depth wise, I have never heard a speaker that does it as well as the VMPS...."IF" they are well set up and driven, in the best of rooms.

Vertical/Height is about as real as it gets.  I used to chuckle at some reviewers years ago saying how some speakers put you 7th row center and others put you on "risers" listening down  

I did notice in a recent listeneing to the Vandersteen 5As that their image was of the 3-4 foot variety, but later a friend and I compared notes and it seems (even though I was in the sweet seat) I was a bit too low, and vertical positioning is "critical" with 5A's due to their time alignment.

As far as 3-D depth, this is a quality that too is dependant on several factors.  To acheive that belief that you can actually hear one musician or performer "deep" in the stage, while others are actually closer to you than the line between the speakers, you need to have (again)

1) an incredible room that doesn't create its own sound
2) a recording that has that "information" engineered in
3) Gear that can reproduce those subtle cues, in phasing and detail, that will recreate that type of sonic holography.

To really get a perfromer to "come forward" as you like, there must be a bit of "extra" midrange energy to provide a stronger (closer) image of that performer.  In a live recording it requires a "Close Miking" to achieve.

I notice a lot of Krall's live recordings (and some studio) have her singing on a small stage only a few feet away from me.  (Often her piano is in the wrong place however)  Nora Jones is another.

The reason the RM30 is so superior at this function is that the "limited dispersion" reduces an overabundance of room interaction.  It also has a smaller baffle that again contributes to the cleanliness of the sonic projection.

Now this doesn't mean that the VR Jr's and the Vandersteen 5A don't perform this Soundstage Construction too, for they do.  Their slight problem is that their dispersion character might cause more room interaction in less than a "larger" room.

I have a friend who had the VR4 Jr's  (in a LARGE room, and may be getting them again, I hope) and I thought they sounded glorius.

In fact, they are two of my favorite "non-VMPS" speakers.

But for the price of the VR Jr's you could easily get the RM30, and a "1000 watt powered" 215 or LARGER sub, and have change left over.  That speaker system, in the room and system of the serious "High Performance Listener",  would be extremely formidable, and would have the potential to match most anything any normal room could hold

So I certainly wouldn't want to dissuade you from any speaker that starts with "V", (generally my favorites) or even "G", but I can say what I like "in my system", and VMPS is it.

[Charles Calkins]

Forget about the Vandersteen's Forget about the VR-JR's Don't know anything about the VMPS RM-30. I say buy the VR-GENIII HSE. That's the best speaker for the price bar none. Don't need no $999 sub with these. Don't believe me? Come on a my house and listen for yourself.

                              Cheers
                              Charlie

[warnerwh]

Charles: Have you heard the VMPS speakers. I've no doubt the Von Schweikerts are excellent for the money. I suspect it may be a matter of taste. I know someone here a while back said they went to a dealer that had the Von Schweikerts and VMPS RM 40's to audition. He ended up with the RM 40's but said the Von Schweikerts were certainly worth considering but for him and the sound he considered most realistic he chose the RM 40's. The fact that the dealer carries two speakers that are both highly acclaimed and great values at about the same price must say something.

[doug s.]

I am new to this site but after much research I have narrowed down my choices for main speakers to the VMPS RM30 and the Gallo Reference 3. From all the reviews I have read the two compare favorably. The Gallos are a bit less but I am willing to spend the extra 1k for the RM30's. Unfortunately I have not been able to audition either speaker (one would think that would not be an issue in NYC). So in my quest for my first real set of audiophile speakers, I am soliciting any comments about the Gallos vs the VM ...

hey, mizzuno, if yure considering vmps, here's a shameless plug:  

http://www.audiocircle.com/index.php?topic=16004

doug s.

[ctviggen]

I bought the RM40s instead of the RM30s because I didn't want to buy a sub.  However, I ended up buying two subs, and the reason is simple:  to get the best imaging usually means worse bass response; conversely, to get the best bass response, you sacrifice imaging.  In my situation, I have a massive RPTV and stand between my speakers and a non-standard room, so I chose to bring out (away from the walls) my RM40s to get the absolute best imaging I could get and add subs to also get the best bass I could get.  My former speakers were Linn 5140s, which can have great bass if placed in corners and near the wall boundaries.  In my current room, these also lacked in bass.  So, I chose to go the subwoofer route.  If you have a nice rectangular room with nothing around the speakers, then subs aren't really necessary, in my opinion.  If you don't have that, the subs provide the ability to get the bass without worrying about placing the main speakers for the best bass response.

[Charles Calkins]

warnerwh:
  Never heard the RM-40s. Fact is I never heard any VMPS speaker. I shied away from the RM-40s because of their size. Way to big for my room. I have to stick with a speaker no taller than 50". THe VR's are 46" so they worked out just fine. Another speaker I really liked was the Def-Tech BP7000. Right height and width but too deep and required about 20' out from the rear wall. So here I am with my VR's and they sure sound good. I guess I'll keep them. My search for a speaker that suits me is over(for now)

                    Cheers
                    Charlie

[John Casler]

I bought the RM40s instead of the RM30s because I didn't want to buy a sub.  However, I ended up buying two subs, and the reason is simple:  to get the best imaging usually means worse bass response; conversely, to get the best bass response, you sacrifice imaging.  In my situation, I have a massive RPTV and stand between my speakers and a non-standard room, so I chose to bring out (away from the walls) my RM40s to get the absolute best imaging I could get and add subs to also get the best bass I could get. ...

Bob brings up a good point and generally the reason I suggest adding subs, even with the RM40s and RM/x's.

Your room, is your "sonic bane".  Very few of us can say that we are totally happy with both imaging "AND" bass response.

Every positional change in either speaker or listening position has the potential to add a new twist to our sonic tapestry.

Since LF waves are affected by the room dimensions, and "point in space" listening position, and "point in space" LF launch position, it is a "jigsaw puzzle/chess game" to get it close to right.

I'd say it is easy to get a good soundstage and imaging with a little "wiggle here and wiggle there" of the mains.  But this position seldom has the maximized bass quantity and quality most want.

So while many want a "two speaker" solution, they might have trouble, unless they simply happen on a "close to right" bunch of room dimensions for their space.

I recently had an RM2 client who "reversed" his slot to a good result.  That is he removed the forward firing slot from the bottom of his speaker and turned it around so that it fired "backwards" into the front wall.

He claimed deeper bass, and more defined bass

For any so inclined to perfrom such an experiment, I think it can be done on some of the subs and floorstanders.  You might have to "redrill" some of the guide holes in the bottom of the speaker cabinet itself.

[NealH]

I appreciate the info on these speakers (RM-30, VR-4's, etc).  I do wish I could hear the VR-4 sr's or III's but, I have heard the jr's and thought they sounded quite good.  Imaging was uniformally excellent and reasonably well defined.  Spread was good.  I could have wished for a taller soundstage and, perhaps a slightly more front/back depth.  The depth was actually very good but, I like a singer to be in my lap if the media calls for it and, at times I thought the jr's resisted this a bit.  But the sound was generally excellent.  I could also argue that there was just a hint of thinness in the overall signature but, this could have been the amp, cables, preamp, etc.  Sort of a sweet thinness.  In any case it was very slight and really not enough for me to form a consistent opinion on.  

I like what I read about the RM-30's.  I have a friend here that has a pair on order.  When they come in I will be giving them a listen.  And, if I like them, the rest will be history because I am getting tired of looking.  It is so difficult to listen to all the popular speakers on the market today (Hyperion, Gallo, VS, VMPS, GR Research, etc).   Like Charles, I do like the VS / Wilson / Hyperion ideal on sizing.  Their speakers are nice looking and reasonably full range.  Legacy also has a new model called "Victoria LE" that is similar in style - but a bit pricy with the sub modules.  I did listen to it but, only about 15 or 20 miniutes.  It sounded very good- spacious - but, I thought it had a slightly dark'ish character and was so-so in dynamics.  Now it  was being driven with Cary tubes top to bottom so, it could be a case of just too many tubes in the chain.  The imaging was truly holograhic though.  Still, the overall sound was not exactly my cup of tea.  With other electronics, it very well could be.

The 626's with subs, hmmm....another intesting approach.  Relatively small, full range,,,, oh well, I better stop thinking for tonight.  I get confused with too many choices.

[JoshK]

If it makes any difference at all, I've heard the Gallo Ref IIIs and I own teh RM40s.   I think if the Rm30s existed when I bought them, knowing what i know now about audio and acoustics I would get a pair of Rm30s and build some subs or buy a pair of the 215s.   My audition of the Ref IIIs left a bad taste in my mouth. Granted the listening conditions weren't ideal but I heard them twice and they were OK at best.   Plenty of midbass but I didn't like the top end or the midrange at all.  Didn't sound natural or realistic to me in any way.  I can envision the electronics that would make them natural but that isn't the way I want to play audio.  

I have never heard a pair of RM30s but I easily take them plus a pair of 215's over my RM40s because of what I think the benefits would be.  #1 and probably most important in my case is the WAF would be better.  #2 imaging is supposedly better, but my RM40s are superb imagers.  #3 soundstage should be wider and lastly #4 placement would be a little bit more flexible.  Downsides are more amplification is needed, more gear and more tinkering.