Gallo 3.5 vs Merlin VSM-MXe

I think the 3.5s will give a richer presentation than the Strada's, and will represent a nice upgrade.

Now that I think about it, in hearing the descriptions here, both the Gallos have an "airy" (baffleless?) sound. I think they are lovely (esp. for the $), and I'm particularly keen on the 3.5, but if G is looking for more "heft" in sound, he might want to think about a box design. (I have not heard the v3.5s with the bass amp, though.)

John

Juan I agree that cables are important with the Merlin philosophy but I don't think table top radio is fair. Besides, with copper costing what it does high end cables can be a money maker! I purchased two new meter long Cardas GR 4 years ago which I sold after 2 years with swapping out systems. I recently changed up again only to find the same cable was up by 35%. Anyway, your point is well taken as bobby has looked at all the options to maxamize his speaker which of course includes cables. You wouldn't buy a ferrari and use regular gas would you?

paul, some people like and undertand how to work with linearity/high res and some do not. some want to hook up anything and have good sound and that is ok. but that should tell you something knowing how different components can sound. cables can show this to an even greater degree.
but do not forget that i stated that there is a cable out there that is about $3 a foot that sounds imho, stupid good for the money. $6000 for cables, no. only if you want champion class sound and are prepared to go that route with the rest of the system. the more that the speakers are capable of, the more careful you have to be.
and mapman, this is not a usual monitor. the woofer has an fs of 28 hz and has a 1 inch excursion. for 99% of moderate rooms this speaker is more than enough. one day you need to hear it and experience its "total" potential.
best, bobby

"one day you need to hear it and experience its "total" potential. "

I'll be happy to eat my words if I hear these someday and they redefine the limits of what a smaller monitor can do in terms of weight and impact with music that demands you be able to feel it as much as hear it for teh full experience.

Monitors may do well at plumbing the depths of the low end to a decent extent, but all good ones I am aware of tend to start to roll off at at higher frequencies than good true full ranges so the energy delivered in the lower octaves may still be quite good, but not the best, even in a small room and with a circuit like the BAMM providing a boost.

Typically, the only way to really know what is missing is to experience it first.

Also, I will say that for a lot of genres, like smaller ensemble jazz and classical, it is not a big issue. For most else, it can be and often is, I believe, at least with better recordings.

That's really the only limitations I hear with very good monitors compared to larger designs typically, even in a smaller room where I have experimented with both.

Mapman, I think that is a pretty good take overall. I will say that within its limitations, though suprisingly minor given its "small" size, the Merlins do what they do so well, that I don't ever really think about what they don't do that a larger, more complex multi-driver box might do better, and few of them can match the Merlin in those areas it excels - but like anything else, it might not be the speaker for everyone. As Daniel Webster said of Dartmouth, "it is small, but there are those that love it.":)