The best "imaging" speakers?

Marty,

I think the most apples/apples comparison would be the full range MBLs versus the 300 or 5 Ohms in a suitably large room with an appropriate good high current SS amp driving both.

A sat/sub OHM combo would be interesting to compare as well (I've never heard these either), but I suspect this would not be quite as apples/apples for purposes of judging "hyperrealism".

I like that term. It seems to fit the unique MBl listening experience well from what I have read and would envision. I don't know if it's a term I would attach to the OHms though. They have very good "realism" but I'm not sure I'd consider it "hyper" in magnitude as Dylanhenry describes the MBLs.

I find that term to be consistent with what I expect MBLs would sound like given their design and the unique nature of their dispersion pattern, even in comparison to Walsh drivers.

I really need to hear the big full range MBLs sometime.........

Any MBL dealers in the Washington/Baltimore metro area?

Maybe next time I get to NY I'll hunt them down. think I've seen a dealer advertised there. I Last time, I visited SOund By Singer. Nice stuff, but no MBLs that I remember.

If you would have asked me 6 months ago, I might have offered either the Gallo Reference 3s or Dunlavy SC-IVs that I owned. However, the Digital Phase AP-4s (little known brand made in Tennessee) outdid them both in terms of imaging so I would rate them at the top of my list. That is, possibly till this evening when the Ohm Walsh 5's I purchased arrived (hopefully undamaged) from UPS. The great thing about this hobby is there are so many choices. Maybe none of them 'perfect' but finding the speaker that brings you closest to your musical nirvana is a journey worth taking.

Tex,

I'd be interested in your assessment of the OHMs versus the Gallo's.

When I was shopping, I auditioned the Gallo's, which I liked but were then bested by the top of the line Quad stats for 4-5 times the cost.

I think the OHMs compete with the Quads and have better dynamics and impact than the QUADs for sure but at almost half the cost or less.

Strange coincidence.

I've heard the Gallo 3.X refs on any number of ocasions, but today I happened to hear the new Gallo towers for the first time. They were very, very good sounding speakers, but off a severey limited audition they seemed like very good, but not great imagers. (Just a quick impression, more time would be needed for more confident commentary). I'd say the same of the 3s, very good, not great.

I know that the Gallo 3s have a 300+ degree dispersion tweeter that crosses in quite low, so I'd suspect that the overall radiation pattern looks a bit like the smaller MBL floorstanders. However, they've never struck me as imaging like omnis. The 3s are wonderful, small, pretty much full range, seamless, reasonably priced speakers, but their imaging capabilities never seemed remarkable to me.

Marty

BTW The big MBLs switch from radial drivers to conventional drivers at app 100ish hz. In this respect, they may be more appropriately compared to Ohm Sat 5000 w/Ohm subwoofer. OTOH, they aren't biamped, so neither comparison is strictly apples to apples.

SINGLE DRIVERS