I didn't say crap, i said avg !!!
An ESL 57 beater they are not and why would you say a 57 need's a big room, this has not been my experience.
Regards, |
Two different speakers here.Quads need space and right equipment to make it shine but the Gallos are great for small forgiving rooms.You cant say Gallos are crap when 6 respected magazines love them. |
Gallo's ..
Sorry, avg at best IMO, I would work with the quads, a PK modded ESL57 should walk all over the gallo's ..
regards, |
Try the Super 63's by PK,,,,,there is nothing better at any price. |
PS: I have a friend who literally put $100k in components behind the Gallo 3.1. The soundstage was impressive, the details revealing, but I just like the warmth of the English sound over Gallo. 2 hours listening to his rig brought on fatique. One of the reasons I am really up on nearfield monitors is they are designed with long listening periods. I think your EAR/Shindo combo will really shine with the Harbeths. They really have some of the better attributes in the musical experience, like bloom, decay and seemless cadence. |
I like your warm red wine metaphor! I have a Shindo/EAR combination, and they are wonderful. The Shindo adds realism, but it's not too warm. It's just real. The EAR I own (the 890) is fairly neutral and strong in the low frequencies. the music has weight. Just because I like to experiment, I have been thinking about replacing my EAR with a Shindo amp, but apparently Shindo and Quad is not a good combination...if I move to a different speaker, I might move to a full Shindo rig too. |
You will find them warm and musical. They light up vocals, the female voice is a specialty, and they really love vintage analogue vinyl.
The 7es3s are exceptional; actually, my favorite in their line. They were developed in tandem with the BBC studios and were made to be listened to over long periods of time. Pleasing is an understatement. They have a fat mid-range, modest bass, and the 7es3s are a little better in the higher frequencies than most BBC-oriented speakers (i.e. Spendor and Tannoy). They were designed for mixing rooms and editing bays, so they will excel in small rooms.
PS: I have been in the live music and event marketing space for 30 years. I have used ATC speakers for professional editing, where knowing the subtle differences in tracks are most important. ATC are very detailed and neutral but typically need 100 watts of amplification. Like a bone dry white wine. If I had to choose one set of products for a dream, at-home system, I would recommend Shindo and Harbeth. They remind me of a warm red wine. I could see myself having six hour listening sessions on a weekend.
PS: How do you like your Shindo products? I have been eyeing them myself. |
Bongofury, thanks for your suggestion. I never tried the Harbeth's but I think I should. On paper most of them do not seem to reach below 40hz, but that is probably enough for a small room. I wonder how the Harbeth's (for instance their 7es3) compare to the Reference3a DeCapo i, which I use in my second system. |
Your Japanese components match very well with Harbeth and Spendor products. You might want to audition the British BBC Sound. Don't know your budget, but there are some nice reviews out there on these products, including Harbeth's new 40.1s. Not surprisingly, the reviewer is using a similar setup as yours. I think that Shindo/Harbeth has all the tubey magic you could wish for.
PS: Some Audiogoners referred me in 2007 to a wonderful dealer named Gene Rubin Audio in Ventura, CA who specializes in these English products. He might be able to offer up another opinion. I have not bought anything from him, but he has wonderful insight from handling these products over three decades. I can also recommend a Gallo/English dealer named Sound Asylum in Venice, California. |
having heard both and own pk quads,i would say the quads,wthin their range, have a balanced frequency response,whereas,the gallos seem a bit peaky in the upper mids/lower treble.
the quads seem more natural with respect to timbral accuracy. |
Hi,
Back to the original question...
Whether you prefer the Quads to the Gallos as the better "overall" speaker can only be determined by listening.
Objectively, you'll be gaining some things by moving to the Gallos, and also losing others. You'll get more dynamic control, tigher bass, better bass dynamics, more "authority" as you put it, and tighter imaging.
You'll lose some of the startling transparency that the Quads are known and loved for. Granted, the Gallos are pretty transparent themselves, but not much out there at any price can compare to the Quads here.
If it was me, I would take the Gallos for the "overall" speaker, as they are more genre independent, and work well for rock, symphonic, chamber, etc. The Quads will do small classical ensembles better, though.
Again, though, the only way to know is to try them. |
The Polk SDAs were okay in their time,somewhat dark.Not in the league of either speaker mentioned previously. |
Actually I was talking to a friend this afternoon, a pianist and old audiophile, and he suggested that I look into an old pair of Polk Audio SDA. I don't know these speakers but they look pretty cheap...I wonder what is the trick.
Also, what's behind all this hype about Emerald Physics? Are they a true revolution like the Quads in the fifties, or is this just hype? |
Isn't this grounds to convince your wives that you need 3 pair of speakers and 5 different amps? On top of 2 mistresses and 3 GF - don't push your luck ;-) |
Isn't this grounds to convince your wives that you need 3 pair of speakers and 5 different amps? |
I think the problem with Quads owners is that we get spoiled...the emotions it gives you with voices and jazz are hard to beat. B&W 802D is not going to work in a small room. Try to hear an ATC SCM 20 or 19 - your tubes might be just enough to drive them in a small room as they are a fairly easy load. They will probably not quite be the equal of your Quads in the midrange but will come close and you'll get the authority you are after to boot. ATC are similar to Quad in the sense that the bass and treble are somewhat rolled off - a polite sound that lets you hear the mdirange timbre well. Another option would be Harbeth's... this will give you more warmth than the Quads but still an awesome midrange. but a slightly more colored and delicious sound. |
It is a matter of mating tweeters/woofers to take the load off that midrange.I tried the Decca and RTRs,though I would think the CDTs or Lineaum di-pole might be a better
match.Then there are the crossovers:Dahlquist and an EC-3 or?? I tried to stay passive as often as possible=ARC EC-3 into the Dahlquist.The 3 having passive top/tube low-pass,driving the input on the LP-1.
Now we needed to find amps suitable for Qiads,with enough power to sufficently drive the woofers and tweeter.
Sometimes you need to enjoy the speaker for what it does correctly and not try to "fix.Substitute a Klipsch horn and play symphonic.Back for small scale. |
Shadorne, are you saying the "perfect" speaker cannot exist? I thought the addition of the woofers might solve my problem...it definitely improves the situation but it does not solve the problem fully. An audiophile I trust claims one of Triangle's high-end models (the Magellan Cello) gets close to what I am looking for, but I believe they are not imported in the US. I've also heard very nice reports about the new B&W 802D. Apparently they have a wonderful midrange and we all know the quality of its bass. The problem for me is that I have a small room, and the 802D probably needs more space.
I think the problem with Quads owners is that we get spoiled...the emotions it gives you with voices and jazz are hard to beat. But when you move to Mahler's 5th, it becomes a pretty standard speaker... |
Gioivanni,
I suspect you are going to find it tough to retain the exquisite qualities you have fostered but add the authority you crave (you may have to give in the midrange to gain some authority) |
I guess authority is what I miss in my system. The Quads are wonderful but if you listen to complex symphonic music (or even complex opera pieces) you feel like there is something missing, even with the woofers. Also, per Elevick comment, my listening room is fairly small, so perhaps I am not optimizing the quads' potential (although the combination preamp and amp should work pretty well with them). |
Totally different sound. I love both but for different reasons. If I have the space and the big mono blocks, the Quads are great. The Gallos are a little more user friendly and less needy of power/space but definitely can be less forgiving on the highs. |
Two different sounding devices.Had the 57s matched up with the Hartley,then M&K 12s and finally the Mag/Tym IIIb bass panels.My Gallos are modified:time-aligned the larger CDT and configured for a 9 ohm load.
You really are comparing apples-oranges.The 57 won't play with as much authority/volume,you need outboard x-over and the ESL tweeter is pure,but not as extended.Not to mention 4 AC connections.Imaging will also be different.
I suppose that each has its' place and making equipment accomidations for each will maximize their performance. |
I'll get flamed, but here goes: I had 63 Monitor and PK 57 Quads. Wish I had had the Gradient, but had another high quality, musical sub.
I got the Gallo's at a steal of a price (2 weeks in previous owners system). They were in and out of my system within 2 days.
OK.
1. I didn't tune the sytem around them.
2. They probably weren't well broken in.
3. I like Quads
On the other hand:
1. I've been a this for 30 years.
2. I've had lots of equipment.
3. I can usually tell s--t from Shinola pretty quickly.
No, Gallo-philes; your speakers are not bad. Neither is one of Mick's Supertek Cortese preamps, but one I tried came out of the system in a few hours. I've heard one sound great in another system.
The Gallos didn't work well in my system. If you wonder whether they will work well, as Ggvetti seems to ask, as replacements for Quads, well, I don't think so. Could they be good, even great speakers for the price...I bet they could. It would have to be in a very different system than one optimized for Quads, though.
Maybe, don't get rid of the Quads until you've tried the Gallos. Either speaker will sell quickly when you've made up your mind. In my room, with the same treatment and ancillaries, the Gallos sounded like they could use a better cross-over design and, even with good treble extension, never came close to disappearing. Lack of break in? Possibly, but I've heard other Gallos that didn't have these issues.
BTW, my wife loved them and wanted them in the video system downstairs, so SAF was way high.
Flame away, Gallo boys and girls. |
