Gallos how good are they?

"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. :-)

Newbee,

Are you saying that a horn is more directional in nature than a harp?

Probably true in a relative sense, tough I'd argue the sound waves emitted from a horn still radiate largely in a 3 dimensional half sphere in front of the mouth of the horn and will reflect of venue walls and reach the ears of the listener from different directions at different times, depending on his/her location relative to the player.

However, an omni speaker can still handle directional sound which is just a simplified case of omnidirectional sound, so the speaker design is less of a limiting factor.

Not true the other way around because the dispersion pattern of conventional box speakers cannot match the omnidirectional sound pattern produced by the instrument.

Therefore I'd assert the omni design is inherently better able to handle a mix of instruments all the way from more directional to more omni-directional in nature, so , all other things aside, I would pick the omni for the trumpet piano case and for large scale classical or ensemble pieces as well.

Now with electronic instruments that normally produce their sound through conventional speaker design by nature, there is less of an argument there alone for omnis, but good omnis properly set up will do an equally fine job in the simplified case of electronic instruments as well.