2. speakers
  3. 1142524063

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
freejazz
29 posts
 
It seems perhaps that the biggest "difference" may come from the cap change in the crossover??

Otherwise, those were my exact thoughts relative the changes to the speaker.
msratty OP
18 posts
 
I doubt that would contribute much, if anything. In any event, it's the "new and improved" widget that gets the boob every time. I'm happy with the "old" and "unimproved" Ref 3.
freejazz
29 posts
 
Msratty

Not meant to offend, but a cap change in a crossover can have a pretty significant effect on the sonic signature.

Interestingly, I just found this write-up by Srajan Ebaen at 6Moons that may be the first comparison between the older Ref3 version (that I also have no plan on selling) and the newer 3.1:

http://www.6moons.com/audioreviews/gallo7/comparison.html

In this case, I am not really sure if the cap upgrade was meant as an upgrade or due to the new drivers, but the article states, "Gallo also replaced the non-polar electrolytic capacitor in the 1st-order series crossover with a metalized polypropylene equivalent said to eliminate a grayish coloration in the midrange as well as to enhance low-level information."

I assume the above info was from Anthony.
msratty OP
18 posts
 
I read the 6moons article before my post; in fact, the article prompted it.

The only "electrical" cross-over is from woofer to midrange at 150 HZ. The crossover from the midrange "balls" to the tweeter is purely "mechanical", i.e. the natural roll-off of the drivers.

As for the change in capacitors, sure it can affect the sound somewhat, but that change in sound at a 6 db per octave slope from the crossover point at 150HZ, to be significantly audible, would lie in the lower midrange (150-600 HZ, at which point it would be down 12db) where that type of coloration is difficult to discern. (Note that the same 6moons reviewer in his original review of the Ref 3 did not note any "grayish" (whatever that means) coloration in the midrange (nor did anyone else)). Note also that the recent 6moons article seems to attribute the bulk of the change in sound the reviewer claims to hear to the new magnets. "Most noticeable is the new mechanical handover between the balls and CDT II" (i.e., the tweeter), he claims. The capacitor effects an electrical cross-over between the woofer and the "balls."

But then I'd have to believe that after Gallo spent years working on the development of the Ref 3 (as the Gallo literature claims), he suddenly discovered there was a problem with the capacitor and that it just coincidentally occured to him at the same time as the introduction of the new Ref AV?

As for things that can affect the sound of the speakers, the main factor is the listening room itself and its furnishings. Then there's the associated equipment and cables and even atmospheric pressure, not to mention the shape and accuity of one's ears. All in all, don't get too hung up by what a reviewer or manufacturer claims and listen with your own ears.
More to discover