New Gallo 3.5's

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