As you may or may not recall, Wes Philips heard the 3.1 at, I believe, the 2006 CES, loved them, and requested a review pair. Apparently, Gallo promised him a review pair. After their non-appearance, I raised some questions, and got into a, ahem, dialog with John Atkinson. After much back and forth, the story is apparently Gallo elected not to send them for review. After reading a response from Wes Philips, I intuit from that response that Gallo's reviews were so positive that he did not need another positive review since the speakers were selling so well, and did not want to risk any negative critism that may negatively effect sales.
In light of all the full-page advertising that Gallo did when these events transpired, I doubt advertising had anything to do with the non-review in Stereophile. |
Very interesting, and it fits with Gallo's own statements. What did Wes Philips actually say about the speaker? |
I've provided the link.
http://blog.stereophile.com/ces2006//index2.html |
BTW, and totally unrelated to anything we have been talking about, I finally got an NAD receiver working with the 3.1s. The audyssey EQ program is really pretty impressive and the changes that it makes to the speaker's output suggests that the presence regions 1-2.5K are perhaps a bit depressed on the 3.1s? Although I tend to hate equalization of any kind, I couldn't really find myself preferring the stock speaker response anymore after listening to the various compensated EQs - one a ruler flat one, one the stock or standard Audyssey curve and another that is an NAD proprietary curve that is slightly warmer and fuller sounding than the flat EQ. All of them however, boosted the speakers output in the presence regions. Interesting . . . . Curious to try this with some other speakers that have markedly different coloration from the Gallos to see if they end up sounding like them when equalized. Anyone else with experience with this program?
best, Doug |
HI Doug, I'd have to agree that the midrange is a bit depressed with the 3.1s. I replaced a pair of KEF 104/2s which have incredible midrange projection with the Gallo 3.1s. While the Bass is deeper and tighter, the treble comparable but with much broader dispersion, the midrange is shelved down a notch. I had to work a bit to get it to an acceptable level. You can read about it here if you care to: http://forum.audiogon.com/cgi-bin/fr.pl?cspkr&1204694214&read&keyw&zzgallo+toyingStill not the equal of the KEFs in the midrange, yet very revealing with a more laid back presentation. The KEFs where very forward with "in your face" midrange detail. It's all there with the Gallos, but more blended-in and back a bit. As with everything audio YMMV and there is no doubt that setup and positioning have a great impact here. Let me say I LOVE the Gallo 3.1 speakers. You can scan through this tread and read many many posts where I'll go an extended weekend listening spree and am just floored by what these speakers can do. So keep that in mind with relation to what I'm articulating. Yes the midrange is a bit depressed, but it's a danm fine loudspeaker overall. Room correction is next on my list. That said, not sure when I'll get to it. Just picked up the new Oppo BD-983 so my A/V spending budget is capped for a while. (Yeah, I'm a cheap bstard :) Like you, I'm not afraid of EQ either. If we all had perfect hearing and perfect rooms, there would be no need for it. Of course, almost no one has a listening room designed for audio and our hearing varies and deteriorates as we age. So I say, bring it on! It will let us enjoy the music more and longer! |
Hi Dan
Thanks for your posting. I also owned a great pair of 104.2s for about 25 years - loved them, and sometimes have wished I kept them instead of selling them. Great speaker, and the 3.1 is in many ways a modern update of it. D'Appolito midrange array, but with better high end and low end - perhaps not quite as good midrange, but the 104.2 was a tough act to follow in that regard.
Have been fiddling around with the Audyssey and have gotten what seems to be a good (not radical) EQ - The NAD has a version of the EQ that is still warmer sounding than the flat EQ, but that makes up for upper midrange-low treble depression in the 3.1. With that EQ program engaged, the speaker sounds remarkably neutral, and interestingly, it trims the bass back just a bit, perhaps too much so for my tastes, but it shows that there is the standard mid-bass hump in the speaker's response when near any kind of boundary. My fiancee likes the bigger bass of the stock stereo without the Audyssey room response correction. but there is no accounting for taste!
I suspect that the 3.5 will fill that area in, but with the EQ, I feel I already have that. And I also spent some time recently dampening the speaker frame resonances, so that now played really loud, there is little noise coming from the metal frame. Still not sure that those frame resonances are truly audible, but compared to a box from B&W or KEF, this thing was a bit of a 'gong' in its stock form.
DW |
Yeah, the KEFs are one great speaker. But they are old and really, you'd need to completely rebuild them at this point... which I considered before buying the Gallos. Glad I've moved on and am very very happy with the 3.1s
FYI, the 3.1 frames are filled with sound deadening/absorbing material from the factory. Please, show us some pics of what you've done to yours to aid in resonance reduction. Do you play them with the grills/covers on? |
Sorry to be late in responding, swamped at the hospital (where I practice).
The KEFs were still in great shape, because the woofer surrounds were the 2nd generation rubber ones and not the foam ones, and thus still perfect. I sometimes wish I hadn't sold them, because finding as good a speaker for what I got paid seems a long shot, although I do like the Pol LSi15s that were not much more money, but way too boomy in the bass without correction. I would be happy to attach pictures of the frame dampened 3.1s but don't see how to attach a photo on this interface? Send me your email and I can forward some pics. I figured that Gallo has done some dampening already, because otherwise they would ring like a churchbell, but now the frames are just plain acoustically inert.
best, Doug |
I just posted about this on one of the other Gallo threads. Several days ago I picked up a pair of the special stands that Pierre Sprey (Mapleshade) created specifically for the Gallo Reference 3, 3.0, 3.1 speakers. After installing them, I thought they made my Ref 3s sound pretty good but I didn't know HOW good until yesterday.
A fellow owner and friend brought over one of his stock Ref 3s and after getting a fix on how my "new" pair sounded, we substituted his for the left speaker with mine as the right speaker, then played a variety of mono stuff. Using the balance control on the remote of my Aesthetix Rhea phonostage, I can quickly switch from left only to balanced to right only. It was uncanny. In balanced mode, we could hardly tell the stock speaker was playing!
The Mapleshades deliver superior bass and dynamics with rich, full-bodied sonics that the stock speakers can't begin to match. We tried my friend's speaker on other platforms, with and without the stock spikes, and on my own Stein Audio stands. Minor differences, yes, but nothing came close to the Mapleshades.
These things are expensive (mine were $775) and won't win any beauty contests, but they come with a 30-day moneyback, and if you are inclined to try them I'll bet you keep them. Dave |
Dave, Thanks for sharing your experiences with the Mapleshade stands. I tried to get some input regarding these stands in another thread with no luck. Sounds like the stands are a good upgrade. Will probably check them out. |
I saw those - the aesthetics however leave a lot to be desired and the price is really up there. Isn't there an alternative in terms of someone else making a stand that is the same size as the base? Can't recall the name though . . . .
DW |
I hear you, and the first time I saw them I figured I had to paint 'em black post haste (as soon as I decided the keep them). Strange, though, the more I look at them the more I'm getting used to the appearance. And the more I listen to the speakers, the more I figure I can live with anything that sounds this good. But YMMV, for sure :-) |
I'm the friend who brought his stock Gallo Ref 3 speaker over to Dave Pogue's to compare its sound to one of his mounted on the Mapleshade stand. Dave is not exaggerating about the amount of improvement the bases make. It's huge. Mine are on order. Bob |
I was talking about the Gallo 3.5s with a person at Mapleshade and he said that the Chinese manufacturing facility that produces the Gallo 3.1s insisted on a large price increase. So part of the big price jump with the 3.5s is a function of improvements, but most of it is the cost increase from the manufacturer. Those of us lucky enough to get the 3.0s and 3.1s got a level of value for our money that may never come again. |
Very interesting and thanks for that Bolson. I wonder if the audiophile press will now take the speaker more seriously that it has now passed out of reach of most people. What about the alternative wood stands from someone else - can't recall the name. Anyone had any experience with the Gallo subamp in terms of whether line level inputs or speaker inputs work better?
thanks, Doug |
Doug, as noted above I'm using the line level inputs with mine, if only because my SET amps complain mightily if I try to use the speaker inputs. I ran some frequency response tests yesterday with the sub amp both on and off and really don't believe the results but for what it's worth the Gallos on the Mapleshade stands were remarkably flat down to 20 Hz (with sub amp) and 31.5 Hz (without sub amp). This was with the Rives/Mapleshade CD test disc available from Rives Audio, in conjunction with the Radio Shack Sound Level Meter. Test signals on the Rives disc are supposedly adjusted for the inaccuracies of the Rat Shack meter. But as I said, I really question the low-end results. Not even Gallo claims this kind of response.
As to the question of other dedicated stands, Bright Star sold some for a while and Stein Audio still does (I think), but in Bob's and my comparison, the Stein stands didn't do much better than the stock setup. Dave |
Hi Dave
Thanks for your response. Those numbers don't sound off to me, esp. with even just some modest boundary reinforcement. Which line level outputs are you using? Separates and a preamp output? Subwoofer outputs on an AV receiver? I have an NAD and wondering which ones would work best.
Why do you think there would be any real advantage to the stands that offer actually less vertical elevation (although perhaps with more elevation of the aim of the speaker)? Did you do any objective testing? Seems like the issue is just getting the speaker up or even just aimed up.
I will have a FFT kit shortly to do some testing of my own. Should be most interesting. I certainly am very pleased with the 3.1s and the NAD Audyssey EQ profiles. They do seem to really smooth out the speaker even more. I am using the stock spikes only at the front though to get more elevation of the midrange/tweeter axis which itself makes quite a difference.
Curious about the Stein stands - aesthetics would be a major concern with the Mapleshades. |
Doug, see my 5/23 post on an experiment a friend (and fellow Gallo owner) and I carried out last week. My friend was so amazed at the improvement that he immediately ordered a pair of the Mapleshade stands himself and he and I just finished installing them. Our original comparison included having his on one of my Stein Audio stands; honestly, the Mapleshades are in a whole different league. I've even got used to the way they look :-)
I'm not exactly sure what you mean in your second paragraph. All my sources feed into an Aesthetix Calypso linestage, with one pair of its line level outputs to SET monoblocks and then to the Gallos, and a second pair to the Gallo subwoofer amp and then to the speakers' second voice coils (the lower pair of speaker inputs). Dave |
Hi Dave
Wondering if you have compared the Mapleshades and the Stein stands? The steins appear to be a bit more attractive.
best, Doug |
Yep. The Mapleshades are MUCH better although you're right about the cosmetics. Note that I did touch on this comparison in my 6/5 post. Dave |
I was at a dealer this week and asked about hearing the new 3.5, but they didn't have any information past the initial news release.
Anyone else know when they will be shipping? |
From what I understand, there are a few more things that Anthony is working on regarding the bases, but it should be soon. I'm psyched to hear the final version. |
The bases I have seen on the demo 3.5's via the internet leave a lot to be desired imho. They may be better acoustically but many people also consider looks when buying speakers and those stainless steel bars sticking out the bottom whether they be straight or curved don't do it for me. They do not fit well with the body of the speaker. Mr. Gallo may want to consider taking a more conservative approach. Maybe a stand similar to the current 3.1 but a touch wider and heavier and leave it up 3rd parties, e.g., Mapleshade, to design alternative stands for tweaking. Audiophiles love to tweak, leave them the option. Just my humble thoughts.
I am excited to hear the 3.5's will be coming out soon. |
Bostonbean, I agree that those outrigger bases looked strange on the new Gallos. Not that the Mapleshade bases on my Ref 3s are exactly things of beauty, except sonically :-) |
Dopogue, I have been reading your reviews of the Mapleshade bases with great interest. I am trying to decide whether to get the Mapleshade bases or get the 3.5's when they come out. After 18 months I love my 3.1's and not anxious to replace them but I have toying with the idea of tweaking them with the Mapleshade bases. |
If they weren't so expensive and so, er, cosmetically-challenged, I'd praise the Mapleshade bases even more highly. They really give the speakers a rock-solid foundation, transforming the bass and lower midrange areas in particular. This is with the 4-inch maple platforms BTW; I don't know how much would be lost with the 2-inch versions. Dave |
I know is a little bit off the subject but maybe you guys can help me out. I also own the 3.1s and I have been very happy for the last several months with its sound, but I recently bought the reference center speaker and in the pink noise test it sounds different than the mains. I have the center channel speaker mounted on the wall at about 2 feet from the carpeted floor with open spaces all around. The mains are powered by a bel canto evo4-v2 and the center by my arcam receiver. I feel that my surround speaker which are from a different manufacturer have a more seamless sound with the fronts than the gallo center speaker, by the way all drivers in the center speaker are working propperly. |
Horizontally arranged drivers have terrible off axis phase response. I also have the Gallo ref 3.0s and AV ref. The AV ref sounds fine on axis, but one step to the right or left and vocals drop out. |
Shipping in May, according to their website. I used to own 3.1 and sold them eventually for few couple of deficiencies that are supposedly addressed in the new design. Will be curious how they turn out. They still did few things like no other speaker, like when you hear a sound and you don't know where the sound is coming from even though you might be almost right in front of the driver.Anyway, would love to hear what people think about them and their first impressions. |
The latest word re availability is that 3.5s should be shipping to dealers by the end of April. I got this from Gallo direct, as am a Gallo dealer in St Louis Missouri. |
Appears the new 3.5's are more tube friendly. http://www.6moons.com/audioreviews/gallo9/ref35_3.html |
Not sure that dopogue or dfwatt are still reading this thread due to the big time gap, but I did have some questions/comments on some of the dialog above:
1. For both of you, in the tests that you performed (Doug with resonance damping material and Dave with Mapleshade base), you were both switching between R & L speakers (I think). How do you account for the physical locations of the two speakers potentially biasing your listening tests? In other words, especially WRT bass response, which you were both focusing on, isn't it very likely that if you A/B-ed an identical right/left pair, that you would notice a significant difference in bass performance between the two locations?
2. Dave - in your Radio Shack SPL meter testing in which you stated the speakers on Mapleshade bases were remarkably flat to 20 Hz, can you elaborate on your test method? Did you take the speaker outdoors to eliminate room boundary interaction? Did you average your results over several mic positions? I don't mean to sound skeptical, but I have owned 3.0's since they initially came out and have always found their bass below 50-60 Hz to anemic. My frame of reference is a pair of Carver Amazings that have a much more robust bass response, despite being open baffle.
To all, I'm also very interested in hearing the 3.5's. I understand from one of the 6moons articles that Gallo will offer to upfit the 3.0/1 speakers of existing customers to the 3.5 configuration for the delta in cost between the two. Any thoughts on going that route instead of buying the 3.5's off the shelf?
|
Minus3db, I'm still around. Coincidentally, I picked today to move the Gallos around after a group of audiobuddies found that they sounded best from BEHIND the sofa. Trust me, I can't move the (sectional) sofa. So I just got some of those furniture moving things to put under the Mapleshade cones on the bases and am playing with positioning. Not sure where things will end up.
1. I have no response to this. Not even sure what you're saying.
2. The SPL meter is used in conjunction with a Rives CD that is calibrated to compensate for the errors inherent in the meter. I used it on a tripod at the listening position but, believe me, once the meter told me I was flat way down to the 20s I didn't move ANYTHING, despite my own skepticism.
I am hoping that upgrade info is true because I certainly want to take advantage of it, if only because the tweeters on my Ref 3s look like they have boils instead of a "patina."
Dave |
Hi Dave, thanks for the quick response!
Let me try to clarify my 1st question.
This is from a previous post of yours up in this thread:
A fellow owner and friend brought over one of his stock Ref 3s and after getting a fix on how my "new" pair sounded, we substituted his for the left speaker with mine as the right speaker, then played a variety of mono stuff. Using the balance control on the remote of my Aesthetix Rhea phonostage, I can quickly switch from left only to balanced to right only. It was uncanny. In balanced mode, we could hardly tell the stock speaker was playing!
So my question is: Wouldn't the fact that the 2 speakers, one with the MS base and one without, were in physically different locations in the room (where you normally have your L & R speakers) significantly affect the bass response you would hear when listening to one speaker at a time? Where you place the speaker affects the room response. I was just curious if you had attempted to calibrate that out by listening to or measuring two identical speakers, one at a time, installed at those same locations.
The effects you describe make me want to go buy a pair of those bases! I'm just naturally skeptical. |
Okay, I should have looked at that old thread, but i'm still a little unclear. We put my friend's left speaker (the one without the Mapleshade base) in exactly the same location where my own left speaker originally sat. We were both then struck by the fact that his speaker appeared to be missing, relative to the way they were both projecting sound. My speaker (with the Mapleshade base) simply appeared to be substantially fuller-bodied than his. We didn't do detailed tests beyond this. The difference was so obvious that he ordered the bases for himself that same afternoon. |
If you want a detailed explanation of the price hike have a read of the 6moons article. It's a sobering read.
Mike |
I wrote a short review on the 3.5's and posted in the speaker reviews if anyone is interested. |
