[grsimmon]

New Gallo 3.5 to replace their existing 3.1 Reference.  Price going up to almost 6K.  See:  http://www.soundstage2.com/lasvegas2009/sd07.html

6 Moons also did an introduction article, see their website if interested.   

[geezer]

New Gallo 3.5 to replace their existing 3.1 Reference.  Price going up to almost 6K.  See:  http://www.soundstage2.com/lasvegas2009/sd07.html

6 Moons also did an introduction article, see their website if interested.   

Wow! Six thousand is about two and a half times the cost of my 3.1s. I'd love to see a comparative review of the 3.5 vs the 3.1

[launche]

Yeah, that's gonna be a tough sell.  The 3.1 hit such a sweet spot in the market for sound and design and was part of their success.  They should at least resigned it's appearance to help justify that price increase.  Possibly made the model at this price to fit inbetween the flagship and the 3.1.

[nathanm]

You can cook twice as much gumbo with the new model.

[likecoiledsteel]

We have talking about this since CES on AVS. Here is the response on the new model pricing from Gallo. http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?t=805768&page=28

"The Ref 3/3.1 has always been a profit underperformer for Gallo especially compared to industry expected/accepted product margins. Everything in the 6 moons article explaining the 3/3.1 QC and cost challenges are valid. Since you seem to know something about manufacturing, the single most contributing factor to the price difference is due to a jump in our costs for finished product in Asia by in large, for the cast aluminum stalk, which to this day, has been a challenging assembly to manufacturer consistently, and is the single most expensive component on this product.

In the last 39 months, Gallo had accumulated and sent back to China, a container load of 3/3.1's that failed cosmetic QC here in the US. A large percentage was related to inconsistencies regarding this stalk. Our manufacturer acquires this piece finished and ready for assembly. The subcontractor of the piece has always frowned upon producing this part and in light of the batch we just sent back for credit, became the catalyst for what provoked a 46% (they were eating costs from the start also from what they claim) total price increase and was not open for negotiation. We have tried sourcing other suppliers for this part, even willing to retool (which is not an inexpensive proposition), but no one was willing to take it on.

If they would have quoted us higher from the get go, this issue would have never escalated to this. The subject assembly is cast as two vertical halves that are pinned together and then welded around the whole seem. After that, they are ground to make the unit appear as a single smooth continuous support structure, shortly after, the hand grinding is completed. It gets drilled and tapped at several locations, sent out for heat treatment to improve its structural rigidity, powder coated and then sent back to the factory which proceeds to the final assembly stage. Even after 5 years, the rejection rate for this particular part remains higher than usual.

So in a nutshell, the next production of Ref 3.1's would have had to be priced at over $4500pr for the same exact product that is currently selling for a little over $3000. The thought of discontinuing the product was very upsetting to us, So Anthony dug in to find an alternative which will become the new Ref 3.5. There are also materials added to the new version that raises the cost further up to the $6000. MSRP projection. This includes but not limited to, a Dynamicap by-pass capacitor as well as a base that will most likely be a machined Stainless steel 1" thick plate (very significant additional cost with a wider and deeper stance than the original base) and custom machined height adjust spikes.

The bezels between the mids and their spheres are machined stainless steel with a gasket applied to isolate vibration and keep everything sealed which will require a much more involved qc procedure for this new product especially to insure that all drivers are critically fastened and checked that every specified torque value is locked in and stabilized before each product leaves our Chatsworth Facility.

There are added stainless grills covering the mids plus other items (aluminum cone sub driver, an updated CDT tweeter which is the single most expensive driver in the whole product (combined) but I’m sure you get the point. If the major tooling wasn't already done for this product, we probably would just end this product series now, but we believe that there are significant improvements in performance offered by the 3.5, so we'll let you guys, our customers decide for themselves if it's a worthy successor to the 3.1. Anthony believes it will easily again redefine value at now this new price point, which some of the original Ref 3 reviewers already acknowledged at CES. If you have any questions that haven’t been covered here, please feel free to write.

This is the whole story and is very accurate. What has been suggested in the previous post is simply not AGA's corporate philosophy. We have never charged more than we need to for any of our products and the original Ref 3 is the perfect example. All our dealers pleaded to introduce the original loudspeaker at $3500. a pair and if that was the case, most people still would have considered them a great value, but AGA didn't do that and in this economy, especially now just wouldn't be prudent."

[geezer]

Thanks, CoiledSteel, I appreciate the explanation.

[TheChairGuy]

Yeah, that's gonna be a tough sell.  The 3.1 hit such a sweet spot in the market for sound and design and was part of their success.  They should at least resigned it's appearance to help justify that price increase.  Possibly made the model at this price to fit inbetween the flagship and the 3.1.

Bingo...really, the wrong direction in pricing in this economic timeframe (whatever the reasons)

They are pretty, tho. Maybe they downscaled their sales on the item ....truly a 'reference' now for those that can afford it.

John

[likecoiledsteel]

I too had sticker shock when I first heard of the new pricing, not enough bang for the buch at double the price. After reading the Gallo explanation, it seemed like the only option to keep the model going.

Unfortunatly nothing is selling right now except the very cheap of everything. The used market for all consumables will have the only activity and will be down itself for a long time. A strange era we are entering into. I am a manufacturers representative and the cost swings of raw materials over the last few years is amazing. Manufacturers are resisiting the call to lower prices because they are still sitting on expensive inventory from last summer when oil was $145 and stainless steel, copper, resin, etc had tripled in price. Couple that with a now collapsing economy...

Hang on tight.
Steel

[MGDeWulf]

This may, or may not help when considering the increased price of the product.

The new 3.5 absolutely does not need the bass amp used by so many with the 3 and 3.1.  I heard the speaker pretty extensively at the recent CES without a dedicated bass amp, and can conclusively state that one wasn't needed.  The depth and action in the bass was superb.

The new 3.5 seems to me to be in a different league sonically from the earlier 3.1.  From my audition of the new speaker it seemed to be in a musical class with speakers costing $10,000 - 15,000; maybe more.  Every aspect of the sound struck me as substantially improved.  One thing that really opened my eyes during the audition was the power handling capability of the speaker and its ability to cleanly play mega transients.  Tony played a percussion impact that other speakers would not have played without substantial distortions.  Extremely impressive...

Marty 

 

[jaywills]

"the cost swings of raw materials over the last few years is amazing. Manufacturers are resisiting the call to lower prices because they are still sitting on expensive inventory from last summer"

I suspect it will only get worse over the near term.  Our high-dollar investment advisors (I'm GC for a decent sized pension fund) are telling us to look for a spike in commodity prices over the next six to eighteen months due to the significant amount of liquidity being pumped into our system by Congress.  Things might really get tough for some manufacturers if this does indeed come about, so gallo has my sympathies (I own a pair of 3.1's, BTW).

A bit off topic, but has anyone had any experience with bi-amping the Gallos through a TacT 2.2x, which acts as a crossover for the woofers' second coil?  Can room correction be done effectively if the woofer's second voice coil response is measured only using the sub 40 hz signals (without any signal being provided to the woofer's main voice coil) as the Tact seems to do?  Thanks in advance.  Cordially,

[likecoiledsteel]

This may, or may not help when considering the increased price of the product.

The new 3.5 absolutely does not need the bass amp used by so many with the 3 and 3.1.  I heard the speaker pretty extensively at the recent CES without a dedicated bass amp, and can conclusively state that one wasn't needed.  The depth and action in the bass was superb.

The new 3.5 seems to me to be in a different league sonically from the earlier 3.1.  From my audition of the new speaker it seemed to be in a musical class with speakers costing $10,000 - 15,000; maybe more.  Every aspect of the sound struck me as substantially improved.  One thing that really opened my eyes during the audition was the power handling capability of the speaker and its ability to cleanly play mega transients.  Tony played a percussion impact that other speakers would not have played without substantial distortions.  Extremely impressive...
Marty 

I have not heard the 3.5 so I cannot comment on the sound. One thing that bothers me though about the CES display from what I can see is that he is using over $15000.00 in amplification - the 2 Spectron amps in mono. Add that to the source and the Mapleshade accessories and you now have a combination that is usually never seen in real world applications. I do not know many audiophiles with that caliber of amp on "budget" high end speakers. Perhaps the 3.5's will perform nealry as well with a $2000.00 front end, who knows.

I have used my 3.1's with 4 amps to date:
Parasound 2250
Krell Kav250A
Carver Silver 9T monoblocks
Butler 2250 - modded

I have never felt the need to amp the 2nd voice coil, especially with the Krell and Carvers. I also have a pair of Sound Anchor's custom made for the 3.1's.

Only time will tell how the 3.5's sell and I am sure 6Moons is pining to compare them to the 3.1's once they are released.
Steel

[jman66]

In the last 39 months, Gallo had accumulated and sent back to China, a container load of 3/3.1's that failed cosmetic QC here in the US.
Even after 5 years, the rejection rate for this particular part remains higher than usual.

...this is a disturbing fact, given there are plenty of talented machinist and laborers right here in the U.S.

[Bostonbean]

In the last 39 months, Gallo had accumulated and sent back to China, a container load of 3/3.1's that failed cosmetic QC here in the US.
Even after 5 years, the rejection rate for this particular part remains higher than usual.

...this is a disturbing fact, given there are plenty of talented machinist and laborers right here in the U.S.

Unfortunately, the speakers would end up costing $20K a pair.

[jman66]

[Unfortunately, the speakers would end up costing $20K a pair.

It could be costing that much now, figuring in the defect rate, transport back to the States, etc.
Had it been done right, here, in the first place...but that's just my take...

[launche]

Only time will tell how the 3.5's sell and I am sure 6Moons is pining to compare them to the 3.1's once they are released.
Steel

Well I hope Gallo made some great strides with the new upgrades.  I'm sure 6moons will do a comparasion and I hope the new 3.5 will prove a substantial improvement over the 3.1  . At any rate, current gallo 3.1 owners should feel even more proud of owning such a visually striking speaker that sounds good at a real world price.  True, that most speakers that look as exotic as they do call for a higher price tag. I still have a thing for those speakers.

[MGDeWulf]

I have not heard the 3.5 so I cannot comment on the sound. One thing that bothers me though about the CES display from what I can see is that he is using over $15000.00 in amplification - the 2 Spectron amps in mono. Add that to the source and the Mapleshade accessories and you now have a combination that is usually never seen in real world applications. I do not know many audiophiles with that caliber of amp on "budget" high end speakers. Perhaps the 3.5's will perform nealry as well with a $2000.00 front end, who knows.

I don't believe in handicapping a product by intentionally using it with inferior ancillary gear.  And I don't blame a manufacturer for wanting to show off his equipment to its best advantage.  But I can find a lot of amps in the same price range as the new Gallo that would sound great.  The Monarchy SE250, the Clayton S100, the Pass XA30.5, the Korato Anniversary, just to name a few (all of which I suspect would be as good or superior to the amps Tony used).

Marty

[djbnh]

Yeah, that's gonna be a tough sell.  The 3.1 hit such a sweet spot in the market for sound and design and was part of their success.  They should at least resigned it's appearance to help justify that price increase.  Possibly made the model at this price to fit inbetween the flagship and the 3.1.

Bingo...really, the wrong direction in pricing in this economic timeframe (whatever the reasons)

They are pretty, tho. Maybe they downscaled their sales on the item ....truly a 'reference' now for those that can afford it.

John

Double Bingo. Sounds like near (current through 2 years out) Gallo 3.1 / 3.5 sales may not be all Gallo wants them to be...which is similar to things being experienced by numerous other companies (consumers/ governments) who misread disposable income levels into the near and far future. Good luck to Gallo et al; sounds like there's a business / outsourcing (avoidable?) issue that will affect consumers in the pocket and the company who needs consumers.

I have been considering them (3.1s) for over a year, but had to first fund my Oct. '08 nuptials (thank God that's now all been paid  ). The discussed Gallo price increase may be a blessing in disguise, as competition for more scarce disposable $ may: make other brands more attractive at a similar price/performance point; put off more purchases of audio gear for some time, and see consumers put the $ to other uses / hold onto $ for some time.

[likecoiledsteel]

I don't believe in handicapping a product by intentionally using it with inferior ancillary gear.  And I don't blame a manufacturer for wanting to show off his equipment to its best advantage.  But I can find a lot of amps in the same price range as the new Gallo that would sound great.  The Monarchy SE250, the Clayton S100, the Pass XA30.5, the Korato Anniversary, just to name a few (all of which I suspect would be as good or superior to the amps Tony used).
Marty

How is it handicapping? Inferior is subjective. The Spectrons are 3X the cost of the 3.5's and 5X the cost of the 3.1's. Where do you draw the line? I pointed that out because it does not make much sense in a real world environment. One usually does not pair $3K speakers with $15k amps. If you have the $, then go for it, but at that point I would be looking at premier speakers, perhaps even the Gallo 5LS. Perhaps the 3.1's will sound better than the 3.5's if used with Boulder amps and a Chord cd player? Perhaps a less expensive SET amp would smoke the Spectrons? SS, Hybrid...

While I am sure the 3.5's sound great with the CES setup, I know the 3.1's do so with even modest AVR's. That is what impresses me.
Steel

[Double Ugly]

While I am sure the 3.5's sound great with the CES setup, I know the 3.1's do so with even modest AVR's. That is what impresses me.

Regardless, it seems clear Mr. Gallo was/is more interested in impressing the majority by having his product presented in the best possible light (sound) than seek the approval of the lowest fiscally-capable denominator, wouldn't you agree?

Further, given the increased entry fee for the latest iteration of his product, does the choice not seem apropos in a linear logic sort of way?

Not that it's relevant, but I once powered $3k speakers with $20k monoblocks (your amp's big brothers, ironically enough) and I loved every note the pairing produced.  Not once was I chagrined about the disparity of their respective price points because the speakers were greatly undervalued and deserved the finest I could afford.

If the best amps I'd ever heard sold for $100k and I'd had the money, I'd have bought 'em.

[likecoiledsteel]

I do agree with you and I was not referring to or singling out Anthony himself or his company(I am a fan). I set up trade shows around the world and have to achieve the best position and presentation I can for my products. I would not advocate Anthony using an AVR at CES. As for it making sense at the new Gallo price point, I do not see the advantage. While I would want the 3.5's to perform their best and impress, I would not want the impression that these speakers need that much amp to sound like that. Would some walk away thinking; maybe the speakers I have right now (non-Gallo) can sound that good with amps like that.

The 3.0 and 3.1 were incredible values aimed at the $3k speaker customer. These speakers outperformed speakers double and triple their price in many people's opinions, using mid-fi components their buyers already had. The 3.5 price regrettably miss that customer and step up to another level of buyer, perhaps the $9-12K buyer. The demographic just switched. It may pay off in this economy if they can catch the trading down customer, but I do not see too many 3.1 owners paying to get this upgrade, especially when they expect to see 3.5's on the used market for much less. 

My point is that I find that many audiophiles never seem to reach the "good enough" point, that is, until their $ runs out. Always upgrading source, amp, speakers, cabling etc... and hoping to find the "right" combination of parts to equal greater than their sum. Audiogon is alive and well from the merry-go-round.

Now with your $3k speakers and $20K amp (Monads I presume) combo, how can you tell where the actual weak point was? With a different speaker (not saying more $ or less), the $20K amp may have performed closer to the $100K amp, maybe not. We each just know what we like, our preference of sound, at what we are willing to pay for it.

The Monads would have been a nice combo with the 3.5's. 

[/quote]
Regardless, it seems clear Mr. Gallo was/is more interested in impressing the majority by having his product presented in the best possible light (sound) than seek the approval of the lowest fiscally-capable denominator, wouldn't you agree?

Further, given the increased entry fee for the latest iteration of his product, does the choice not seem apropos in a linear logic sort of way? Not that it's relevant, but I once powered $3k speakers with $20k monoblocks (your amp's big brothers, ironically enough) and I loved every note the pairing produced.  Not once was I chagrined about the disparity of their respective price points because the speakers were greatly undervalued and deserved the finest I could afford.

If the best amps I'd ever heard sold for $100k and I'd had the money, I'd have bought 'em.
[/quote]