Gallo reference /TAS vs Me

I have been living with the Ref 3's for a couple of weeks now. 'Closed in' would be the farthest thing from my experience I could come up with to describe their sound. They are fantastically open and revealing in my system.

In fact, they sound too prominent in the upper mids/lower treble in my room. Because of a door and power sources, I have to place the speakers at the short wall and fire them along the long wall. This may cause a first reflection room interaction that accentuates the upper mids. The 300 degree-dispersion tweeter may need more "breathing room" than the 32 inches (to the side walls) I am giving them. Despite the open-celled, rippled foam I have placed at those reflection points, I still hear a fatiguing, forward, ("shouty") upper-mid prominence.

Does anybody else have a similar problem with the Gallos?

Putting the upper mid-prominence aside (which may be unique to my set up), the Nucleus Ref 3's open up a detailed, light, and airy window on the source material that surprised me---especially for their price. (My reference is the Coincident Super Eclipse.) Their sound stage height is not an issue with me. The sound stage height is in proportion with the whole picture; it is somewhat like listening from the first row, mezzanine or balcony at a symphony hall---where the sound is often best anyway--and looking down slightly at the stage. Lowering the listening position compensates for this--if you don't like it.

I would like to bring the Gallos to a dealer to test them against other speakers in a different room just to find out what happens. Maybe that upper-mid shouting will be proven to be in my setup only.

I am currently listening to the Gallos with a pair of 95-watt, triode, push-pull mono blocks (Cary SLAM-100s) and also inserted the Berning ZH-270 amp. Do folks out there have a take on whether the Gallo Ref 3's "like" solid state or tube amps?

Dopogue, The speakers I've been using for 3 years do not have the upper-mid prominence (that I hear in the Gallos) at all. The Coincident Super Eclipses sound balanced through that range.

The time coherency of the Gallos seems better than the Coincidents, and the Gallos have more extended and revealing upper fr information with a life-like quality. If I can just get that upper-mid thing to integrate, I'd be happy.

I will contact my dealer. I also hope to bring the Gallos to a dealer with a much bigger room and then also try different amplifiers and compare with other speakers.

Divo: I have the Mk 1 Super Eclipses. Dopogue: I tried the Gallos pointing straight forward; woofer in, woofer out, etc. The upper mid forward thing is lessened by the toe-in. (Side wall reflection makes it worse, maybe….?)

I think I figured out the problem. I re-tubed the Cary SLAM-100's and noticed the new KT-88's biased lower on their own than the previous set. When I brought the new tubes' bias up to the former level, the upper-mid forwardness came back (to some degree). When I backed off the biasing, it is greatly reduced. (I will have to check the Cary website to make sure I am biasing correctly.) Who's to say, at this point, whether the major difference comes from the new tubes themselves or the lower biasing? Perhaps both. Maybe lower biasing more will sound better yet.

Without this forwardness and with the greater integration, the result reminds me of a top-notch monitor with a bit of extra lower extension: open, detailed, images like crazy, engaging, etc. Now, if I could just fill in the bass more.... (The Super Eclipses have bass and dynamics that help lend impact and scale.)

Has anybody tried the Gallo sub-amp to co-drive the woofer vs. another separate sub from another manufacturer?

Someone mentioned that a dealer once hooked up the Gallo Ref 3's incorrectly. The dealer did not notice that the binding posts have SINGLE wire hookups, NOT bi-wire, even though they look like bi-wire pairs of binding posts.

The top pair is the only pair you use from your main amplifier. The bottom pair is for the dedicated, sub amp input.

The dealer just hooked up the receiver's outputs to the lower binding posts (intended for the sub-amp in section).

Could this account for the "closed in" sound at the start of this thread?

Vladimir, Thanks for your tip about the forward/back tilt. During the time when that extra forwardness came through with the Gallos, I had already tried tilting the speakers back with some improvement, but that did not address the heart of the issue.

I have solved the problem I was experiencing (and I think I mentioned re-tubing my amps and adjusting their bias differently making the biggest improvement in a post shortly afterwards.)

Since then, more break-in time has helped further--just as some posters said, and better placement in the room, etc. The 100-hour break-in recommendation is probably correct.

The Gallos two main strengths seem to be their ability to recreate a good approximation of the musicians' physical presence, and they have an engaging, musicality that focuses on the musical program's content rather than on HiFi.

Some of the Gallo reviews pretty much say that they are giant killers. I am not as sure as that. Unless I have not figured how to get the most of them---could be likely, I would say the Gallos are good at some things, but not everything. Like anything, listen carefully before you buy.

Rolloff, if you mean by "... top lateral cross mount" the metal cross member that has a hole in it through which you secure the allan screw for the grill "cage," then I believe they are supposed to be bent.

Both of mine were curved or bent in a precise way to accommodate the distance difference between the cage and the curved main pillar. If you notice the middle back cross-member (for another allan screw) is also offset or slightly curved/bent. The bottom cross-member should be straight.

The top cross-member curve is much greater than the middle cross-member's curve. This all looks to be deliberate design to me. Unless, of course, I misunderstand your post. Wouldn't be the first time.....