I wrote a short review on the 3.5's and posted in the speaker reviews if anyone is interested.
87 responses Add your response
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. |
Hi Dave, thanks for the quick response! Let me try to clarify my 1st question. This is from a previous post of yours up in this thread: 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! So my question is: Wouldn't the fact that the 2 speakers, one with the MS base and one without, were in physically different locations in the room (where you normally have your L & R speakers) significantly affect the bass response you would hear when listening to one speaker at a time? Where you place the speaker affects the room response. I was just curious if you had attempted to calibrate that out by listening to or measuring two identical speakers, one at a time, installed at those same locations. The effects you describe make me want to go buy a pair of those bases! I'm just naturally skeptical. |
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 |
Not sure that dopogue or dfwatt are still reading this thread due to the big time gap, but I did have some questions/comments on some of the dialog above: 1. For both of you, in the tests that you performed (Doug with resonance damping material and Dave with Mapleshade base), you were both switching between R & L speakers (I think). How do you account for the physical locations of the two speakers potentially biasing your listening tests? In other words, especially WRT bass response, which you were both focusing on, isn't it very likely that if you A/B-ed an identical right/left pair, that you would notice a significant difference in bass performance between the two locations? 2. Dave - in your Radio Shack SPL meter testing in which you stated the speakers on Mapleshade bases were remarkably flat to 20 Hz, can you elaborate on your test method? Did you take the speaker outdoors to eliminate room boundary interaction? Did you average your results over several mic positions? I don't mean to sound skeptical, but I have owned 3.0's since they initially came out and have always found their bass below 50-60 Hz to anemic. My frame of reference is a pair of Carver Amazings that have a much more robust bass response, despite being open baffle. To all, I'm also very interested in hearing the 3.5's. I understand from one of the 6moons articles that Gallo will offer to upfit the 3.0/1 speakers of existing customers to the 3.5 configuration for the delta in cost between the two. Any thoughts on going that route instead of buying the 3.5's off the shelf? |
Shipping in May, according to their website. I used to own 3.1 and sold them eventually for few couple of deficiencies that are supposedly addressed in the new design. Will be curious how they turn out. They still did few things like no other speaker, like when you hear a sound and you don't know where the sound is coming from even though you might be almost right in front of the driver.Anyway, would love to hear what people think about them and their first impressions. |
I know is a little bit off the subject but maybe you guys can help me out. I also own the 3.1s and I have been very happy for the last several months with its sound, but I recently bought the reference center speaker and in the pink noise test it sounds different than the mains. I have the center channel speaker mounted on the wall at about 2 feet from the carpeted floor with open spaces all around. The mains are powered by a bel canto evo4-v2 and the center by my arcam receiver. I feel that my surround speaker which are from a different manufacturer have a more seamless sound with the fronts than the gallo center speaker, by the way all drivers in the center speaker are working propperly. |
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 |
Dopogue, I have been reading your reviews of the Mapleshade bases with great interest. I am trying to decide whether to get the Mapleshade bases or get the 3.5's when they come out. After 18 months I love my 3.1's and not anxious to replace them but I have toying with the idea of tweaking them with the Mapleshade bases. |
The bases I have seen on the demo 3.5's via the internet leave a lot to be desired imho. They may be better acoustically but many people also consider looks when buying speakers and those stainless steel bars sticking out the bottom whether they be straight or curved don't do it for me. They do not fit well with the body of the speaker. Mr. Gallo may want to consider taking a more conservative approach. Maybe a stand similar to the current 3.1 but a touch wider and heavier and leave it up 3rd parties, e.g., Mapleshade, to design alternative stands for tweaking. Audiophiles love to tweak, leave them the option. Just my humble thoughts. I am excited to hear the 3.5's will be coming out soon. |
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 |
Hi Dave Thanks for your response. Those numbers don't sound off to me, esp. with even just some modest boundary reinforcement. Which line level outputs are you using? Separates and a preamp output? Subwoofer outputs on an AV receiver? I have an NAD and wondering which ones would work best. Why do you think there would be any real advantage to the stands that offer actually less vertical elevation (although perhaps with more elevation of the aim of the speaker)? Did you do any objective testing? Seems like the issue is just getting the speaker up or even just aimed up. I will have a FFT kit shortly to do some testing of my own. Should be most interesting. I certainly am very pleased with the 3.1s and the NAD Audyssey EQ profiles. They do seem to really smooth out the speaker even more. I am using the stock spikes only at the front though to get more elevation of the midrange/tweeter axis which itself makes quite a difference. Curious about the Stein stands - aesthetics would be a major concern with the Mapleshades. |
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 |
Very interesting and thanks for that Bolson. I wonder if the audiophile press will now take the speaker more seriously that it has now passed out of reach of most people. What about the alternative wood stands from someone else - can't recall the name. Anyone had any experience with the Gallo subamp in terms of whether line level inputs or speaker inputs work better? thanks, Doug |
I was talking about the Gallo 3.5s with a person at Mapleshade and he said that the Chinese manufacturing facility that produces the Gallo 3.1s insisted on a large price increase. So part of the big price jump with the 3.5s is a function of improvements, but most of it is the cost increase from the manufacturer. Those of us lucky enough to get the 3.0s and 3.1s got a level of value for our money that may never come again. |
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 :-) |
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 |
Sorry to be late in responding, swamped at the hospital (where I practice). The KEFs were still in great shape, because the woofer surrounds were the 2nd generation rubber ones and not the foam ones, and thus still perfect. I sometimes wish I hadn't sold them, because finding as good a speaker for what I got paid seems a long shot, although I do like the Pol LSi15s that were not much more money, but way too boomy in the bass without correction. I would be happy to attach pictures of the frame dampened 3.1s but don't see how to attach a photo on this interface? Send me your email and I can forward some pics. I figured that Gallo has done some dampening already, because otherwise they would ring like a churchbell, but now the frames are just plain acoustically inert. best, Doug |
Yeah, the KEFs are one great speaker. But they are old and really, you'd need to completely rebuild them at this point... which I considered before buying the Gallos. Glad I've moved on and am very very happy with the 3.1s FYI, the 3.1 frames are filled with sound deadening/absorbing material from the factory. Please, show us some pics of what you've done to yours to aid in resonance reduction. Do you play them with the grills/covers on? |
Hi Dan Thanks for your posting. I also owned a great pair of 104.2s for about 25 years - loved them, and sometimes have wished I kept them instead of selling them. Great speaker, and the 3.1 is in many ways a modern update of it. D'Appolito midrange array, but with better high end and low end - perhaps not quite as good midrange, but the 104.2 was a tough act to follow in that regard. Have been fiddling around with the Audyssey and have gotten what seems to be a good (not radical) EQ - The NAD has a version of the EQ that is still warmer sounding than the flat EQ, but that makes up for upper midrange-low treble depression in the 3.1. With that EQ program engaged, the speaker sounds remarkably neutral, and interestingly, it trims the bass back just a bit, perhaps too much so for my tastes, but it shows that there is the standard mid-bass hump in the speaker's response when near any kind of boundary. My fiancee likes the bigger bass of the stock stereo without the Audyssey room response correction. but there is no accounting for taste! I suspect that the 3.5 will fill that area in, but with the EQ, I feel I already have that. And I also spent some time recently dampening the speaker frame resonances, so that now played really loud, there is little noise coming from the metal frame. Still not sure that those frame resonances are truly audible, but compared to a box from B&W or KEF, this thing was a bit of a 'gong' in its stock form. DW |
HI Doug, I'd have to agree that the midrange is a bit depressed with the 3.1s. I replaced a pair of KEF 104/2s which have incredible midrange projection with the Gallo 3.1s. While the Bass is deeper and tighter, the treble comparable but with much broader dispersion, the midrange is shelved down a notch. I had to work a bit to get it to an acceptable level. You can read about it here if you care to: http://forum.audiogon.com/cgi-bin/fr.pl?cspkr&1204694214&read&keyw&zzgallo+toying Still not the equal of the KEFs in the midrange, yet very revealing with a more laid back presentation. The KEFs where very forward with "in your face" midrange detail. It's all there with the Gallos, but more blended-in and back a bit. As with everything audio YMMV and there is no doubt that setup and positioning have a great impact here. Let me say I LOVE the Gallo 3.1 speakers. You can scan through this tread and read many many posts where I'll go an extended weekend listening spree and am just floored by what these speakers can do. So keep that in mind with relation to what I'm articulating. Yes the midrange is a bit depressed, but it's a danm fine loudspeaker overall. Room correction is next on my list. That said, not sure when I'll get to it. Just picked up the new Oppo BD-983 so my A/V spending budget is capped for a while. (Yeah, I'm a cheap bstard :) Like you, I'm not afraid of EQ either. If we all had perfect hearing and perfect rooms, there would be no need for it. Of course, almost no one has a listening room designed for audio and our hearing varies and deteriorates as we age. So I say, bring it on! It will let us enjoy the music more and longer! |
BTW, and totally unrelated to anything we have been talking about, I finally got an NAD receiver working with the 3.1s. The audyssey EQ program is really pretty impressive and the changes that it makes to the speaker's output suggests that the presence regions 1-2.5K are perhaps a bit depressed on the 3.1s? Although I tend to hate equalization of any kind, I couldn't really find myself preferring the stock speaker response anymore after listening to the various compensated EQs - one a ruler flat one, one the stock or standard Audyssey curve and another that is an NAD proprietary curve that is slightly warmer and fuller sounding than the flat EQ. All of them however, boosted the speakers output in the presence regions. Interesting . . . . Curious to try this with some other speakers that have markedly different coloration from the Gallos to see if they end up sounding like them when equalized. Anyone else with experience with this program? best, Doug |
As you may or may not recall, Wes Philips heard the 3.1 at, I believe, the 2006 CES, loved them, and requested a review pair. Apparently, Gallo promised him a review pair. After their non-appearance, I raised some questions, and got into a, ahem, dialog with John Atkinson. After much back and forth, the story is apparently Gallo elected not to send them for review. After reading a response from Wes Philips, I intuit from that response that Gallo's reviews were so positive that he did not need another positive review since the speakers were selling so well, and did not want to risk any negative critism that may negatively effect sales. In light of all the full-page advertising that Gallo did when these events transpired, I doubt advertising had anything to do with the non-review in Stereophile. |
Hi Doug, yes I own a pair of 3.05's actually. Other than the removal of the switch on the back of the speaker, there was some other modification made to the crossover??? I don't honestly remember, it was right before the 3.1 came out. Anyway, I love the speakers. I use them along with the Gallo sub amp, and they never cease to amaze me. IMO they are one of the best values in the speaker market. In reference to Stereophile; I can only imagine there are some politics at play as to why they haven't reviewed them. I am very curious to hear the new 3.5. |
No problem, I appreciate the clarification (couldn't tell if you were teasing (which is always OK) or being dismissive - my fault for assuming the latter. I take it you have a pair of 3's (3.0 or 3.1?). I am eagerly awaiting the appearance of the 3.5s. It does sound like Gallo did quite a bit of work smoothing things out even more. Just a bit pricey at barely this side of 6K. Some of the online sellers (which means you lose the warranty thru Gallo) might have them for mid to high 4's. Will be interesting. . . . really wish that Stereophile would review them. Atkinson's stuff is the current industry benchmark IMHO for technical and quantitative assessments of loudspeakers. Love to see it, and don't understand why they haven't - the usual stuff about only reviewing advertiser's products (which has some truth I suppose) doesn't explain it. Anyone know why Stereophile has ducked this?? - the speculation of course is that it would upset the apple cart to have such a small relatively cheap speaker blow away the high end products. The field is still recovering from the trauma of the first controlling listening tests on amps - did so much damage that no one wants to touch that subject. best, Doug |
Hi Bob Fair questions. I have a power meter on the amp. I am just guessing about sound levels based on the rough efficiency of the speaker (which I think is a bit less efficient than rated - these are real power hogs). I don't like move theater sound levels (aren't they ridiculous, esp. on the trailers?) so I know I am under those by a bit. best, Doug |
DFWATT said "By really high volume levels I mean something like 50 to 100 W per channel. In other words not deafening but just realistic sound levels. I don't think I'm exceeding 90-95 db in my large room." Hi Doug, how do you know how many watts or how loud you are listening? Does you amp have meters? What SPL meter do you use? I know people are touchy around here so being gentle, how do you know this? Just asking.... Bob |
Thanks very much for that link. I think I might've scanned that piece earlier, but now I read it more carefully. I certainly think Gallo is on the right track and I agree with everything that he says. I did not know he was absorbing so many extra costs in order to maintain the price point of the original Reference Threes and 3.1. It makes sense unfortunately that the speaker cost has virtually doubled. He clearly is a gifted designer and very thoughtful about design targets. I do have some major questions though about the widespread assumption that absolute phase integrity (a virtually physically impossible design target in a discrete three-way system except perhaps in a tiny listening window) is nearly as important to the audible illusion of a music source compared to flat frequency response and some other things. In sources that are time coherent but not time aligned (such as newer BMW and KEF designs) the amount of delay between the arrival times of wave fronts coming from woofer versus mid range versus tweeter is on the order of 1 to 3 ms or so. Although virtually everyone would agree that it is theoretically desirable to have complete phase integrity, I don't believe anyone has demonstrated in double blind testing that a 1 to 3 ms phase smear is really truly audible. What is clearly audible on the other hand are things like transient response, and frequency response and intermodular distortion (many times more audible than classic harmonic distortion). Additionally, designs that prioritize phase alignment have to make sacrifices in other things that are audible (read the excellent Stereophile review of one of Thiel's speakers at http://stereophile.com/floorloudspeakers/1208thi/. There is pretty good physical evidence that transient response and these other things are intrinsically related, in other words that great transient response predicts a flat frequency response and even a good phase response and relatively low IM distortion. I think human beings are great at constructing plausible story-lines to explain something, but many of our plausible stories turn out not to be true. Science is literally littered with the corpses of dead highly plausible theories and we still have to test even our favorite ideas that seem totally commonsensical against some kind of empirical prediction. I have not seen a truly careful test double blinded of phase smear at very small time frames (have enough literature in my own area to review and stay on top of). Part of the reason I'm skeptical is that I don't think there's much reason why evolution would've carved the ability to detect these things because they have very little application in the real world to basic mammalian survival tasks. Unless phase smear at very small time scales meant that we could not identify either the spatial location or the source of a noise (and these are clearly unaffected), is not clear to me that there would be any selection process for such abilities. I honestly don't know what the work is in this area, and I'm sure that phase smear becomes audible at some point (my guess is somewhere probably around 100 to 200 ms). But I believe that very few speakers have that degree of phase delay. Thiel has made a killing selling the idea that extremely small phase delays or mismatches make a big audible difference, and although I have considerable respect for his speakers and for him personally, I don't agree that there is compelling evidence for such an assumption. Of course it's possible that some people's brains can hear small degrees of phase misalignment while other people cannot. Anybody know of any carefully done research in psychoacoustics to address this question? I'd be interested. best, Doug |
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 |
By really high volume levels I mean something like 50 to 100 W per channel. In other words not deafening but just realistic sound levels. I don't think I'm exceeding 90-95 db in my large room. I also would not want my comments to be construed as any kind of indictment of the speaker. I think that this is clearly the best speaker for the money, and probably the best speaker for under $6000 easily. I think it's actually a better speaker than the $8000 B. and W. 800 diamond series floor stander (forgotten the model number). in fact I think the speaker might be the best value in high end audio but that does not mean that it can't be improved. A more aesthetic solution would be to apply dampening compounds to the interior of the frame but I suspect Gallo has already done something like that because certainly the frame does not resonate the way untreated metal might.in any case, I'm happy with my results, and so are you! Curious what your general impression of the Gallo amp is? do you have it connected from speaker level or line level inputs? Can you tell the difference on classical music and popular music? The speakers already have pretty good bass but I have been thinking seriously about buying the amp. any recommendations or cautions would be appreciated. Best, Doug |
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 |
Let's put aside the unappreciated sarcasm about listening to Gallos with a stethoscope. Since I don't have an accelerometer (what Stereophile uses to evaluate cabinet resonance issues), I had to make due, and I can tell you that if you listen to the Gallos 'frame" cabinet and compare it to a really inert B&W or recent KEF design at the same volume level, the difference is pretty striking. I think that "Spiritualized" is really missing the point - despite the 3.1 being a brilliant speaker and design, it isn't perfect and has one flaw - that flaw relates in part to one of the brilliant aspects of the design, namely the ability to have virtually no cabinet that creates diffraction effects that muddy the sound. That design approach requires a metal structure to support the D'Appolito array, and metal resonates (hello!). Even though Gallo I'm sure has tried to minimize that. The issues is whether those effects reach any kind of audibility or not. The 'floor' for that varies depending on material and loudness, but most people feel that anything more than 30 db below say an 80 db foreground event is largely inaudible. Certainly anything 40 db below that is inaudible. Audibility is lessened if the material is an harmonic of the foreground sound. Of course, all this works in the favor of any speaker designer, and suggests that most of the time cabinet resonant effects are simply inaudible. I did today a single blinded trial (comparing the two channels playing the same signal while I didn't know which speaker was playing - the stock one or the one with the applied anti-vibration treatment. Although I couldn't tell any difference between the two at lower volumes at really high volumes I could pick out the speaker with the treatment about 75% of the time, as the one sounding very slightly clearer. I didn't know which was which as someone else was doing the switching and was under strict instructions not to provide me with any cues. Some material didn't provide a basis for distinguishing the two speakers, but material with large amounts of bass however did. When I did my testing of the frame resonances, it is mostly in the bass that there is anything being produced. I am still not totally convinced (75% over 12 trials is greater than chance but not that much greater), but I am happy with the results and they are easily reversible as the vibration dampening material peals off easily. There is some science to this, but I don't have the equipment or the time frankly to due the testing. Hope this clarifies the issue for those who are totally skeptical. If you think this is just a crock, take a stethoscope, put on something at say 90 db or so, and start listen to how loud different cabinets are across speakers. You will be amazed at the differences, not just in terms of loudness, but in terms of frequencies. |