Gallos how good are they?

The dispersion pattern of most conventional speaker designs is nothing like that of live acoustic instruments. This is perhaps the biggest reason why even many of the best stereo systems sound like stereo systems and not live performances

Agreed, even and wide dispersion is indeed a major factor in producing a natural & convincing sound. Our ears/brain seem to sense when reflected or reverberant energy is inconsistent with the primary/direct signal. Narrow dispersion speakers rarely sound convincing unless you sit so close at to almost completely drown out the reverberant sound field. This has been known for a long time and Dr Floyd Toole performed rigorous listening tests in the 70's that confirmed this. Mirage is one of the offshoots from Dr Toole's work in NRC labs (Energy and PSB are too).

The only issue with Omni's, dipoles or panels are the rear reflections which need to be sufficiently delayed in order not to be in danger of collapsing the soundstage/precise imaging. 10 Msec is a good rule of thumb, which translates to around five feet (or more) from the back of the speaker to the wall for optimum sound.

"The only issue with Omni's, dipoles or panels are the rear reflections which need to be sufficiently delayed in order not to be in danger of collapsing the soundstage/precise imaging"

That is very true.

Ohms solution to help address this with the Ohm CLS drivers compared to some other omnis or bi or multi polar designs is to physically dampen or attenuate the output towards the rear and side walls using sound absorbing material within the CLS "cage".

I've found this approach to be very helpful with enabling more flexible placement of the CLS Ohms nearer to walls, which also helps provide more meat in the low end without compromising imaging and sound stage.

Also, I think the difference between omnis and conventional box designs tends to lessen when the listener is positioned a good distance back away from the speakers. In this scenario, there is less difference between the two designs in regards to the relative paths the sound waves take prior to arriving at the ears.

The Gallos don't sound anything like the MBL's. I really like the Gallos, and don't like the MBL's at all. (they sound like German tanks to me- heavy, lumbering, etc.)

"The Gallos don't sound anything like the MBL's".

No doubt.

They also do not sound like the Ohms.

The Gallo's are a unique design that addresses may of the same issues as the more "purist" omni designs, yet they have a distinctive sound.

The low soundstage issue is one I have heard before, but did not take particular notice of when auditioning. Still, they are very short and do not project upward that I am aware of, so the statement rings true.

Also, they were not as refined, detailed or smooth from top to bottom as the top of the line and 5X more expensive Quad ESLs I heard in comparison and which I still consider to be one of my favorite reference speakers when things are going right.

These are about the only faults could find. For the price, that's pretty good.

Mapman,

I would agree with the statement that 'the dispersion pattern of most conventional speaker designs is nothing like that of live acoustic instruments', but I would stop there. Just as most speaker types have different radiation patterns, so do acoustic instruments. So in theory at least a horn will sound better (more realistic) thru a speaker with a strong direct sound field and a harp will sound better with a bidirectional dynamic, panel or electrostat, or and omni.

Now what kind of speakers would you choose if you wanted accurate replication of a horn/harp duet? Don't laugh now, one of my favorite jazz recording s is of a trumpet/piano duet, acknowledging a piano does have a lid which acts to direct the sound field, assumably forward.

Just a thought. :-)