2. speakers
  3. 1148515998

Need a review of Tyler's Ref 3's,

That would be his 3 way, W26/W17/T25. There is a chance I may upgrade one day from my Thor's and the only spaeker that intersts me is this 3 way. What I'm hoping for is a subtle deep bass from the W26 acting as a sub but intergrating with the W17 and not overpowering the top end. Can I get an opinion please. Yeah I am obsessed with the Seas and want to have that W26 in my system. The Thors with the dual W17's are nice, no complaints at all. However if I turn up the vol, the mids really come through too strong at times, cressendos in certain classical pieces really makes too much of a presence. But I'm wondering with the Ref3 if I will hear orchestral/mids as less dense with the loss of the added W17 in the Thor. With all things audio you have to give up something to gain something else.
Any ideas?
bartokfan
jlupine
13 posts
 
I've heard the Ref. 3 and Ty's Linbrook, which resembles your Thor. I own the Ref. 1--which uses a single W17 like the Ref. 3. I haven't noticed greater orchestral density with the MTM arrangement. The Excel is a very expressive driver, and it's probably a challenge for some HF and LF drivers to match the level or the dynamics of even a single W17. Because the MTM can't go as deep as a well designed three-way, it isn't surprising that the balance on orchestral music isn't quite right. On the other hand, I heard serious orchestral confusion even with a woofer available on the original Gallo Ref. 3. In that case, it might be because of using lesser drivers or as an artifact of the MTM design.

I haven't seen professional reviews of the the Ref. 3, but Stereo Times has one of the Ref. 1.

bartokfan OP
664 posts
 
Thanks. Honestly i've not heard a 3 way that i liked, 30 yrs experience. However the Tyler 3 way does not use a midrange, but uses the W17 as a midwoofer. A driver i love the character of. But thinking things over this afternoon looking at Tyler's other 3 way design, its possible his 3 way, System might be a better option for me. The w22/Siganture can meet the W17 in a smoother transition. Besides I do not feel I'm missing out on any bass at the moment. Now i guess I need to be willing to give up that extra fullness in the mids (minus a W17) to get in exchange the lower hz's offered in the W22. The signature may be the very first 3 way that I find acceptable. However this 3 way configuration is not truly a 3 way, its more like a 2.5 /MTM. For those who do not know what a 2.5 is, its a MTM configue, meaning midwoofer/tweeter/midwoofer. One of the Thors mids are valued slightly lower than the other, and here with the Signature this is exactly whats going on, but in fact even lower value, the W22 is down to 32 hz's. The Thors are at 40hz. I guess that added 8 hz lower range may mean alot. Agree?
Is the Ref 1 a 2 way, W17/T25?
btw i see Tyler mentions a review in the newest Stereo Review mag. I won;t read it. I do not like stereo mag reviews.
Paul
jlupine
13 posts
 
The Ref. 1 uses 12" Peerless woofers (isobaric) with a second-order crossover at 80 Hz., the W17, and a ScanSpeak Revelator 9900 with a third-order crossover at 2300 Hz. (if I remember correctly). Ty later added a notch filter for the W17. The isobaric design involved elaborate cabinetry, and the smaller footprint of the Ref. 2s--which I believe used two 8" Seas drivers--and later, the Ref. 3's,had enough appeal that Ty dropped the Ref. 1 from the line. In principle, of course, the W17-W26 transition should be smoother. I think that the Millenium is considered a little smoother and the Revelator is considered a bit more detailed.

Jan
More to discover