Gallo REfF3's-All their cracked up to be?


Having won award from Absolute Sound,6Moons etc just wondering if how they compare with others in $25r00-$5K range.With Maggie 1.6/3.6's,Spendors,Harbeths,B&W Nautilus 803's etc not to mention used Quad 988.989,Infinity Preludes that have been seen as low as $3500,Gershman RX-20's used,offerings from Audio Physic (again good values used,heard Sparks where I liked low volume dynamics and read the Gallo's need to be pushed to come alive) well it's a crowded market.But seems like the twop speakers that have major buzz factor are the Gallo and NHT Xd system (selling for a bit over $6K).Live in sticks anbd would like to hear from folks who have put the Gallo's up against other speakers with empahsis on accurate midrange.Had as pair of Ref 2's but never got system set up around them nor dialed them in correctly.Was so nervous that tweeters might blow which were irreplacable got me nervous and I got rid of them pretty quickly.Have heard from dealers that Gallo can be unpleasant in cutomer support and lack of back tweeters could have been his resent ment that they did not sell better.But even though that's speculation is does say that they could be beter in support area.Maybe new models and sales might correct this.,They seemed to have great attributes but also weakneeses.Couldn't shake the feeling they were "gimmicky" in some respects but againn perhaps they were not dialed in proprly.Would lkike to run with 40 watt glass but could go 200+ solid state.Any auditions or owners who could give the good ,the bad and the ugly?
Thanks
Chazzbo
chazzbo
I must echo Photon46's impressions . I too listened to them through the same CDP , CJ PV14 pre and a Cary hybrid amp . Both my wife and I felt that they were nothing to write home about ! They sounded congested and also like small speakers . When we compared them to VS VR4jr's and Usher 6311's (?) it wasn't even a contest . Synergy maybe ?
There are a great many who love them .
Can't argue with Photon46, whose most serious complaint is their sounding like the small speakers they appear to be. I was using humongous Gallo Nucleus Ultimates when I got the Ref 3s, and playing them side by side, people THOUGHT I was playing the Ultimates. The Ref 3s actually had a bigger sound but looked tiny by comparison. This is in an 18x40' space, BTW.

Saki70 describes Ref 3s that aren't broken in (takes well over 100 hours) and/or are miswired (the bottom pair of binding posts are not for biwiring but for hooking up a subwoofer amp). In any event, the last thing they should sound like is congested. Not disputing what you heard, just a tad puzzled.
"Well extended and airy highs, decent midrange, lack of any bloat in lower/mid bass with a slightly lean sound...the soundstage was enveloping"

I don't understand, how is Photon46's reaction a "ditto" of Ojgalli's?:

"Highs are good, but not spectacular, midrange smeared, bass very well extented but muddy. Soundstage is like you're sitting in the second balcony"

Hmm, talk about "scratching my head" -- to me, the first quote sounds positively positve!...But I haven't heard the speakers...
Dopogue ; I made a point of asking the salesman if the Gallo's were "fully" broken in . I really wanted to like them and went to this shop to specifically hear them . On a subsequent visit , I again heard them on some Cary monoblocks (six packs maybe ?)and they sounded the same to me and the auditioner. In defense of the Gallo's , I have read where most people state that the Gallo's really need 200 - 300 SS watts to sound their best. That amp requirement does not fit my desires . As I said above , synergy maybe ?
Hmm, interesting comments on the negative sound from the Gallos. My own experience was that my pair needed over 200 hours of break in before they stopped changing their sound and just sounded wonderful. Admittedly, I bought the Gallos based partly on the reviews, as in general, speakers will vary their sound depending upon the room they're in. That being said, the pair that I heard was broken in for over a month at the dealers, and was in a room devoid of room acoustic treatment. When I was shopping, I was prepared to spend up to about 5 times the cost of the Gallos, but after hearing them, I couldn't begin to justify it. They're that good. Yes, they need a long break-in. Yes, for me, they improved their imaging with the Brightstar stands. I think that was wholly dependent upon my room, and would probably be for you too. The sub amp is a bonus, but I don't always turn it on, and I remember thinking before it finally arrived from Gallo, that the bass, as is from my 120 watt tube monoblocks, was superb. You can just tweak it that last little bit with the solid state driving the second voice coil.
Unless someone's listening to a lemon pair, or a pair that's not broken in, I can't imagine a bad review of these speakers. Certainly not given their price, though as I said, for me they're value far exceeds their cost. Then again, brain imaging studies have shown that people will associate quality with cost or a product name, as they are evaluating products and given a relative value of the sample. Maybe, some people just can't get past that part of their brain to enjoy the sound from these speakers? That's not a negative comment towards anyone who doesn't like these speakers, it's just a comment on human physiology. In the end it doesn't matter. No one should feel talked into liking the sound of a product. Buy what sounds good to your own ears. For me though, this is one product I won't be replacing any time soon.