Neil Gader says they're "easier to drive", quoting 4-ohm 87db sensitivity. But the original Reference 3 and 3.1s (I have the Ref 3s) are 8-ohm, 88db sensitive, so what gives? Anyone know if the 3.5s have the same dual (woofer) voice coils as the originals? |
Those spikes on the Stein Audio site are unobtainium. I know because I came
up with the idea of using these particular spikes in the first place. They were
sourced from Parts Express and cost $14 for four of them, but left the
PartsExpress catalog years ago. If anyone knows where to get them now, please
post the info because I know a couple folks who would love to find them. They
do work like a charm under my Ref 3s. I believe that the stands pictured on
the linked site belong to KK Mui, with whom I collaborated along with Scott
Stein originally. It was KK's idea, BTW, and he made it happen. Dave |
Those don't offer much height, though, compared to something like the Stein stands. |
I honestly don't believe that resonance is any kind of an "issue" with the Ref 3s. Just tried to stimulate it on my pair with some pretty loud music and was amazed at how NON-resonant these petite speakers actually are. Their forerunners, the Reference 2 series, were far more resonant (I still have the four-ball-per-side Gallo Ultimates) but sounded great anyway, though not nearly up to the sonics of the Ref 3 (3.0, 3.1) series. Dave |
Depends on the design philosophy too, and whether it "works." One
of the best sounding speakers I ever heard were the Shun Mooks whose wooden
enclosures resonate like crazy, intentionally, like violins.
In any event, the absence of boxy sound was the reason I went for Gallos in the
first place. I've never heard conventional (i.e., wood enclosed) speakers -
EXCEPT the Shun Mooks -- that didn't sound "boxy" after listening
to the super-clean Gallos. To each his own, YMMV and all that :-) |
Since I rarely listen "at really high volumes" I guess I have MY answer. Also, I've found that bass performance of the Ref 3s can be improved by judicious placement of Room Tunes, by optimizing the position of the speakers (it takes a lot of time to find the best place) and by raising the speakers 6" or so (I use the stands from Stein Audio and was one of two people who came up with these stands in the first place). I also use the Gallo Subwoofer amp. Dave |
Given my 12 wpc SET monoblocks, it would be kinda hard to experience 50-100 watt levels :-)
I'm filling a pretty big space with these SETS, BTW, (18 x 40' with an "L" off one of the 40' sides) and never experienced strain or clipping, probably because of their humongous transformers. As to the Gallo sub amp, I'm of two minds. Yes, it does add heft to the bottom end (I'm bringing it in at around 45 hz), but I've never heard anything to complain about down there with or without the bass amp (one recent visitor actually asked me where the subwoofer was), and I'm not really a bass freak. If you're interested, I'd suggest picking up a used one at ~$450 so you can flip it if you don't like it.
I'm using the line level inputs -- my amps complain loudly if I try to use the speaker-level ones. Good luck, Dave |
I just posted about this on one of the other Gallo threads. Several days ago I picked up a pair of the special stands that Pierre Sprey (Mapleshade) created specifically for the Gallo Reference 3, 3.0, 3.1 speakers. After installing them, I thought they made my Ref 3s sound pretty good but I didn't know HOW good until yesterday.
A fellow owner and friend brought over one of his stock Ref 3s and after getting a fix on how my "new" pair sounded, we substituted his for the left speaker with mine as the right speaker, then played a variety of mono stuff. Using the balance control on the remote of my Aesthetix Rhea phonostage, I can quickly switch from left only to balanced to right only. It was uncanny. In balanced mode, we could hardly tell the stock speaker was playing!
The Mapleshades deliver superior bass and dynamics with rich, full-bodied sonics that the stock speakers can't begin to match. We tried my friend's speaker on other platforms, with and without the stock spikes, and on my own Stein Audio stands. Minor differences, yes, but nothing came close to the Mapleshades.
These things are expensive (mine were $775) and won't win any beauty contests, but they come with a 30-day moneyback, and if you are inclined to try them I'll bet you keep them. Dave |
I hear you, and the first time I saw them I figured I had to paint 'em black post haste (as soon as I decided the keep them). Strange, though, the more I look at them the more I'm getting used to the appearance. And the more I listen to the speakers, the more I figure I can live with anything that sounds this good. But YMMV, for sure :-) |
Doug, as noted above I'm using the line level inputs with mine, if only because my SET amps complain mightily if I try to use the speaker inputs. I ran some frequency response tests yesterday with the sub amp both on and off and really don't believe the results but for what it's worth the Gallos on the Mapleshade stands were remarkably flat down to 20 Hz (with sub amp) and 31.5 Hz (without sub amp). This was with the Rives/Mapleshade CD test disc available from Rives Audio, in conjunction with the Radio Shack Sound Level Meter. Test signals on the Rives disc are supposedly adjusted for the inaccuracies of the Rat Shack meter. But as I said, I really question the low-end results. Not even Gallo claims this kind of response.
As to the question of other dedicated stands, Bright Star sold some for a while and Stein Audio still does (I think), but in Bob's and my comparison, the Stein stands didn't do much better than the stock setup. Dave |
Doug, see my 5/23 post on an experiment a friend (and fellow Gallo owner) and I carried out last week. My friend was so amazed at the improvement that he immediately ordered a pair of the Mapleshade stands himself and he and I just finished installing them. Our original comparison included having his on one of my Stein Audio stands; honestly, the Mapleshades are in a whole different league. I've even got used to the way they look :-)
I'm not exactly sure what you mean in your second paragraph. All my sources feed into an Aesthetix Calypso linestage, with one pair of its line level outputs to SET monoblocks and then to the Gallos, and a second pair to the Gallo subwoofer amp and then to the speakers' second voice coils (the lower pair of speaker inputs). Dave |
Yep. The Mapleshades are MUCH better although you're right about the cosmetics. Note that I did touch on this comparison in my 6/5 post. Dave |
Bostonbean, I agree that those outrigger bases looked strange on the new Gallos. Not that the Mapleshade bases on my Ref 3s are exactly things of beauty, except sonically :-) |
If they weren't so expensive and so, er, cosmetically-challenged, I'd praise the Mapleshade bases even more highly. They really give the speakers a rock-solid foundation, transforming the bass and lower midrange areas in particular. This is with the 4-inch maple platforms BTW; I don't know how much would be lost with the 2-inch versions. Dave |
Minus3db, I'm still around. Coincidentally, I picked today to move the Gallos around after a group of audiobuddies found that they sounded best from BEHIND the sofa. Trust me, I can't move the (sectional) sofa. So I just got some of those furniture moving things to put under the Mapleshade cones on the bases and am playing with positioning. Not sure where things will end up.
1. I have no response to this. Not even sure what you're saying.
2. The SPL meter is used in conjunction with a Rives CD that is calibrated to compensate for the errors inherent in the meter. I used it on a tripod at the listening position but, believe me, once the meter told me I was flat way down to the 20s I didn't move ANYTHING, despite my own skepticism.
I am hoping that upgrade info is true because I certainly want to take advantage of it, if only because the tweeters on my Ref 3s look like they have boils instead of a "patina."
Dave |
Okay, I should have looked at that old thread, but i'm still a little unclear. We put my friend's left speaker (the one without the Mapleshade base) in exactly the same location where my own left speaker originally sat. We were both then struck by the fact that his speaker appeared to be missing, relative to the way they were both projecting sound. My speaker (with the Mapleshade base) simply appeared to be substantially fuller-bodied than his. We didn't do detailed tests beyond this. The difference was so obvious that he ordered the bases for himself that same afternoon. |
