Any real improvement w/ Gallo Ref 3.1s?



See my other post.

It seems quite possible, even likely, that the near simultaneous introduction of the Gallo Ref 3.1 and the Gallo Ref AV are related. Perhaps neodymium magnets, allowing for a shorter and lighter voice coil in the midrange spheres, was a necessity for the Ref Av because they can be wall-mounted and require lighter weight and a smaller depth dimension? And once introduced for the Ref AV, wouldn't it necessarily follow that the Ref 3.1s would use the same spheres in the interests of efficiency and cost savings? But is there truly an improvement from the use of the new magnets? None of the reviews of the Ref 3 I've read complained of the "faults" the Ref 3.1s supposedly "fix" (although there were some comments of treble "roughness" and midrange-treble "colorations" in the British press which I could not hear). I realize neodymium is all the rage nowadays, but wasn't it originally used in headphones, where light weight and small dimensions made it a necessity?
msratty

Showing 1 response by casouza

I used to have Gallo Reference 3s, just got a pair of Gallo 3.1s.
In my system I noticed that the 3.1 does not require an extensive break-in. In fact they sound like fully broken-in Gallo 3s in about a couple of days. Must be the new caps vs. electrolytics (the famos 'lytic haze).
Also, I hear deeper soundstage and improved midrange transparency.