Gallo reference /TAS vs Me


I spent a fair amount of time listening to the new reference speakers from Gallo a few months ago and dismissed them as closed in-particularly in the mids- and opaque in the soundstage and generally disapointing. Now TAS puts out a review which goes against everything I heard. Am I losing my hearing or are TAS and I listening to two different speakers? FYI the dealer used Musical Fidelity electronics with the Gallos and I listen with Maggie 3.5s and BAT electronics.
banksfriend
Kalan, sounds like either a room problem or a defective pair of Ref 3s. Did your former speakers exhibit a similar upper-mid prominence? Re your last question, my Ref 3s love tubes; yours should sound great too -- can't understand why they don't. Does your dealer have a clue? Good luck, Dave
Dopogue, The speakers I've been using for 3 years do not have the upper-mid prominence (that I hear in the Gallos) at all. The Coincident Super Eclipses sound balanced through that range.

The time coherency of the Gallos seems better than the Coincidents, and the Gallos have more extended and revealing upper fr information with a life-like quality. If I can just get that upper-mid thing to integrate, I'd be happy.

I will contact my dealer. I also hope to bring the Gallos to a dealer with a much bigger room and then also try different amplifiers and compare with other speakers.
Kalan, which SE do you have? MK1 (ti tweater), mk2(with revelator tweater) or mk3 (ie the latest)?
Kalan, just a thought. Have you tried the speakers pointing straight -- no toe-in? In my room, they sound best that way. They're exactly 8' feet apart, with the woofers facing inward (after a solid day of placement experimentation). Dave
Divo: I have the Mk 1 Super Eclipses. Dopogue: I tried the Gallos pointing straight forward; woofer in, woofer out, etc. The upper mid forward thing is lessened by the toe-in. (Side wall reflection makes it worse, maybe….?)

I think I figured out the problem. I re-tubed the Cary SLAM-100's and noticed the new KT-88's biased lower on their own than the previous set. When I brought the new tubes' bias up to the former level, the upper-mid forwardness came back (to some degree). When I backed off the biasing, it is greatly reduced. (I will have to check the Cary website to make sure I am biasing correctly.) Who's to say, at this point, whether the major difference comes from the new tubes themselves or the lower biasing? Perhaps both. Maybe lower biasing more will sound better yet.

Without this forwardness and with the greater integration, the result reminds me of a top-notch monitor with a bit of extra lower extension: open, detailed, images like crazy, engaging, etc. Now, if I could just fill in the bass more.... (The Super Eclipses have bass and dynamics that help lend impact and scale.)

Has anybody tried the Gallo sub-amp to co-drive the woofer vs. another separate sub from another manufacturer?