Breakthrough product only in their visual design. Highs are good, but not spectacular, midrange smeared, bass very well extented but muddy. Soundstage is like you're sitting in the second balcony. They are way over hyped. For 3K you can do far, far better. 21st century "high-tech" looks and slick marketing—I rather pay for quality sound reproduction. |
In comments on the Reference 3 I see mentions of "lean bass" and I agree. Almost all speakers have some bass augmentation from cabinet resonances that add bass/mid-bass/warmth/fat-bass. We have all grown to expect this sound and I think we unconconsciously like and want it, false or not. The Reference 3 doesn't do that. If you want that extra sound that you have grown accustomed to you have to feed it into the Reference 3 with EQ/tubes/cables or what have you. |
To raise the height of the Ref 3s on a temporary or experimental basis, you might do what I did. Go to Lowes (or wherever) and pick up 4 of their concrete blocks sized 8 x 16 x 4" high. Cost is something like $.69 per. Then you can raise the the speakers first 4 inches, then 8 inches, and see if you like the result, sonically. Lord knows they're solid! They don't even look too bad and would even look better if sprayed black. Just a suggestion. Dave |
Hi All,
Gallo Reference owners may be interested to know that we are now offering the new more economically priced IsoRock GR3.2 stands for the Gallo Reference 3 and Reference 3.1 speakers.
Best Regards,
Barry
Barry Kohan
President
Bright Star Audio |
KKM-
I'm also interested in the stands. The Brightstar stands look good, but $500 seems out of line to me. If there is a cheaper (but good) alternative, I want to know more.
thanks - Mike |
Dave, don't want to hijack this thread and get off-topic, so I'll e-mail you and get you a photo later. I haven't receive the stands yet, so I don't want to be too premature with my assessment. |
I think kkm is on the right track. I don't think the brightstars are magic, but good stands make a big difference.
However, I find that "energizing" the second voice coil makes for more controlled bass. You get the double benefit of power & control (the magnet acts no matter which way the woofer is moving). But, it does take some time to dial it in (just like putting in a separate sub)--if memory serves, the settings "out of the box" were way way off from where they ended up.
I also found that speaker cable made a big difference for the second voice coil, but this may not be universal (I tried Nordost SPM).
Get something and put on some nice Mark Miller, or Jaco--you will hear the difference!
happy listening, |
Kkm, I'd love to hear more about those custom stands. Dave |
Regarding the SA , I haven't heard it, but given the same price, would it make more sense to get a seperate subwoofer? I would think that the 2nd voice call would add more resonance to the whole unit as oppose to a seperate sub unit away from the speaker.
On a somewhat related topic, I've tried the speakers without the points and they really resonate around the speakers, it sounded less focus probably because the vibration carries it back to the whole speaker, with its large base against the floor. I've seen some dealers do without the feet because it is easier for them to move the speakers around, make sure when auditioning they are at least on. I temporarily elevated the speakers with some books to see what that sounded like, and it improved it in 2 areas. There was less resonance since it was further away from the floor and the energy was able to drain away. The image height increase since the tweeter was ear level. I did find someone who does a custom stand at a fraction of the cost of the Bright Star that I should be receiving next week. It's sand fillable and I requested that the height be 6" since I thought 8" is too high, given my experiment, I would think that it would be a marked improvment. |
i use the sa.
took a while to get it dialed in, but the bass has better attack and more body (but I have some of the big room problems already addressed). I also took some time & effort to get a speaker cable that was better for the low end than the one I was using for my mains--Nordost SPM that was a biwire set... at first, I used one side of the bi-wire for the mains & one side for the second voice coil, but whil eI love the spms for mids & highs, they didn't do the low end justice. |
How many owners of the Ref3's also use Gallo's sub-amp? If so, what difference does the amp make? I own a pair of the speakers and am considering buying the sub-amp to power the woofer's 2nd voice-coil. Any advice will be wecome. |
How many owners of the Ref3's also use Gallo's sub-amp? If so, what difference does the amp make? I own a pair of the speakers and am considering buying the sub-amp to power the woofer's 2nd voice-coil. Any advice will be wecome. |
Thanks guys.But must say one seller told me that he thought that many folks who might have sold 1)didn't wait for break in period and 2) may have run with too few watts.He just thought that the subs needed curent to open up.One other member was going to sell but he changed from a Evo amp to a CJ300 watt and that made him want to keep the Ref 3's.I just got twitchy seeing so many up on the block all of a sudden knowing that sometimes in Hifi different can send a box out the door but not necessarily satisfy in the long run.
Zaikesman Brightstar is selling pretty tall bases for the speakers if you want more hight.Used to work for a dealer that sells the little ball set up so thought I'd get a pair close to dealer cost and see what's what since he hasn't stocked them.But another seller Spearit Sound had a pair o try out and sold them.Wrote to me that he thought withy B&W and Thiel (the later not my cup of tea) he thought he's have a hard time selling them and there have been a lot up.Think as with the older Ref's matching and palcement is critical and as folks mentioned beak in time.But since old boss also has B&W it's a toughy for me.I run a 40 wat EAR EL34 iinto German Odeon Tosca's which I got for $1500 (though I nevr would havce paid the $7500 list.Their big ass ones give an altenative but don't necessarily best Avantgarde).If I didn't have them I'd probably drop the tube amp for current and get a pair of 803's.But the new 803Diamond throws a wrench in that idea as for $2500 more list (not cheap at $8K) the Diamond teweeter on the 83 (and up in the line) is as good as any esotar,scanspeak whatever.They match ESL Quads,Maggies or Appogee ribons and are equaled only by the $20K crowd like the top of the line Ariel.
My real problem is I love 'em all (at different times) from Audio Physic one day to Avantgarde or Wilon Benesch the next and would have a pair of K-Horns in my garage if I could.But the Gallo's and NHT Xd (which BTW got even a bter follow up in Stereophile with an added sub).I think many more companies will use DEQX and other digital processing in the future but that may not be a reason to buy the Xd now.Need to hear.But will post if I do go get the Gallo's and am going to call Bob Warzalla at Sound Anchor and ask if he has some heavy iron to match those Brightstar bases if I do.Still was with all the buzz on these Gallo's I forgot i found the 2's "gmmicky" and thought they or the other big buzz NHT to maybe the Holy Grail.No mater what I do I am still waiting for the speaker messiah and unfortunately probaly always will
Chazzbo |
If you are looking for owners that have stuck with them for awhile, I upgraded from Quad ESL-63's to Gallo Ref 3's about 2 years ago after auditioning countless other speakers. I have written a lot about them on these forums, and still think as highly of them as when I first purchased them. I find the sound very Maggie / Electrostatic-like in a more convenient package.
Lately, I have been considering Zu Druids to explore the low-powered SET route, although I am still undecided. With the possible exception of the Zu (as I said, I am undecided), I have yet to hear another speaker that makes me want to change.
Jeff
|
Thanks guys. I am less bothered by the midband suckouts which develop vertically off-axis in low-order systems (like the SF) than I am by the vertical off-axis HF rolloff shown with systems using short lines instead of domes. What I don't know for sure is if the CDT driver behaves like a short line, the way for instance 4" ribbons do, but it looks to me as if it probably would to some degree. On the other hand, that may be balanced to a useful extent by its very wide horizontal dispersion injecting a greater than average amount of HF into the reverberent field. As you can tell I've never heard a Gallo. |
Zaikes,
I'm closer in than Dopogue (probably more like 6' in my room) but what you cite is one of the reasons I put 'em up on stands--isorock gr's were designed for the ref 3's. Now, I find that the sweetspot is where I want it without much tilt on the speaker and they are much more stable when you really crank 'em up. (I have also come to prefer the looks of the speaker on the stand to the speaker on the floor).
I guess another alternative is to move the speakers back, but I've got them close to Rives' recommendation when the designed the room. I'll play around some more when I find the time. |
Zaikesman, I can detect no difference in the sound whether I sit or stand. The speakers are about 8' from my listening position. I've heard of this complaint, but never experienced any problem. By comparison, a friend has a pair of Sonus Faber Grand Piano Home speakers and there are distinct changes in the sound depending on how high your ears are, relative to the speakers. Dave |
Do these speakers have limited vertical HF dispersion -- do you lose the highs noticably when you stand up unless you are in the farfield? |
Let your ears decide, but for me the Gallo Ref 3.1's are truly a breakthrough product. I've been through so many different speakers over the years and for the longest time was convinced the only speaker for me was planar. Apogee, Maggies, Martin Logan, Eminent Technology, name it. From the first time I heard the Ref 3's at CES I was taken in by their sound, and their incredible value. I held off and kept trying different speakers and gear, now that I've owned the Gallos for over a year in my main rig I bought another pair for my smallish home office set-up. I'll be very surprised if I "upgrade" to something else any time soon. |
Chazz,
I got my Gallos to replace another speaker known for mids--the Dunlavey SC3. I moved and the SC3's were too big... I think it was the physical space between the mids of the MTM, but in my new listening room the sound didn't seem to integrate (smaller room).
I listen to a lot of acoustic jazz and without a system doesn't come alive for me without an accurate midrange. Don't know why people talk about needing to push the Gallos, but my amp is fast. I have played around with a low powered SET amplifier (7 watt) and it was OK, but I was happy when my big amp came back from being modified. I tend to listen at pretty reasonable volumes (often, the kids are asleep by the time I can fire up the rig) and again, have no problems. As I think about it, my speaker cables are also known for mid & speed (Nordost SPM)... I think I have a decent rig (better than most that include the gallos) and have seen them "rise to the challenge."
Of course, you should (& did) solicit input from people who have made other decisions than I did (Ref 3's on Isorock GR stands, SA... some playing around with cabling till I was happy).
Happy listening, |
I moved to Gallo Ref 3s from the earlier 4-ball Gallo Ultimates. The Ref 3s are a MAJOR improvement over the Ultimates, which I liked a lot. Granted, Gallo customer support has been nothing to write home about, though no problem ever arose with the Ultimates and they're now (I still have them) 11 years old. Despite their comparatively modest cost, I've heard nothing I prefer to the Ref 3s, and I've listened to the Sonus Faber Amati Homage, Revel Salon, and other high end speakers. I'm driving them with 12 wpc SET monoblocks (huge transformers, granted) in an 18x40' space and never feel a lack of power. I do have a 500w Hsu subwoofer amp powering the woofers' second voice coils. I agree that they don't come fully alive in low-level listening.
They do a perfect disappearing act, with a large sweet spot, excellent soundstaging, great highs (those CDT tweeters) and top-to-bottom balance. They have real "authority" despite their diminutive size. They love tubes. The ONLY complaint I have is that their break-in is long and painful. Once you get past that (100 hours minimum), I think you'll like them a lot. I'd personally go for a used pair and let someone else "enjoy" that break-in. Dave |
I heard them in a small demo room and thought they were good but not magic. Admittedly, the room was too small, about 10x12, and the presence of a large plasma TV along the left wall probably scotched the imaging, so take my comments with a large grain of salt.
Despite the impressive-looking 10" woofers, upper bass was lean. Center imaging was good, but not as focused on vocals as my Spica TC-60s. The soundstage was much wider than the space beyond the speakers, though, probably thanks to the 300-degree radiation pattern of the tweeters. The treble was impressively extended. Clearly, these things go well beyond the range of human hearing. I wouldn't say they were bright, but I found the tremendous amount of treble information a bit overwhelming. I'm more of a midrange guy. I had a chance to get a used pair for $1,600, but preferred the sound of the Martin Logan Aeons for their detail and their wide, tall and ethereal soundstaging. I wound up getting a used pair of Aeriuses for $1,000 to replace my Spicas.
If you like a punchy, dynamic, tight sound with plenty of top-end detail and sparkle, you'll like the Gallos. If you want a rock-solid center image on vocals, a deep, deep soundstage, and slightly warm midrange, the Spicas do the trick. If you like a big, well-focused soundstage with the nth degree of detail, warm upper bass and smooth midrange, the Martin Logans are the ticket. All of these are superb. The choice is more a matter of taste than absolute quality. |
