Gallos how good are they?


Just toying with the idea of getting these speakers.
I like the sound of the mbl's and the gallos speakers were mentioned as a more affordable option.
I am spoiled with the merlins I now own for 3 or 4 years, they do most everything right, I consider them as one of the best speakers out there.
But I just heard the 116's again and I like their sound, it's the imaging thing I like. I consider the merlins in the same league just different.
One other note: my merlins will sound even better when I get a bigger room, hence the mbls would need that too and so too would the gallos. My room is about 11'x 15'.
Thanks for any input, by the way the merlins are staying, the gallos would be a second system.
pedrillo
Of course, every instrument has its own dispersion pattern, but there are many things about the dispersion pattern that most instruments and the human voice share: They are sort of omnidirectional with more treble thrown to the front because the player or singer's own body blocks some treble energy to the back. Some instruments, such as trumpet, have a stronger front-to-back bias in the treble region, but others, like cymbals and drums, are pretty much omnidirectional right up to the high treble. String instruments are fairly omnidirectional. Your ears don't have to be in line of sight of the soundhole to hear the upper overtones, as long as you're in reasonable proximity of the soundboard or spruce top. Again, the guitarist's body blocks some of the back wave, but still, quite a bit of it will disperse backwards and reflect off the back and side walls, and the ceiling as well.

The Mirage speakers with their Omniguide disperse the sound very similar to the average pattern--omnidirectional with more sound thrown forward and somewhat upward. It really works. The timbre of some instruments (such as piano) is shaped significantly by how the instrument energizes the room.

One speaker design can't duplicate the individual dispersion patterns of each and every individual instrument and singer, but the Mirage Omniguide-based speakers largely replicate the core of that dispersion pattern that they share, and averages out the rest.
It was just a passing thought. But on the subject of omni's vs direct radiating speakers, wouldn't your preference be somewhat influenced by the location you prefer when you are actually in the hall? Row A where the halls contribution from reflections is less influential vs Row M where you are hearing almost equal parts of direct sound and reflected sound? Isn't this an issue you would have to deal with in 'properly' setting up your omni's in your room as well?

I respect your reasons for your personal choice, but for others making these decisions I would suggest that most live unamplified performances are recording with a fair amount of hall sound, or reverbrant energy added into the mix by the recording engineers, so having omni's in your home may only be adding more indirect sound to the mix. If you like your music to sound as it might in row M you have probably made a very good choice. You could get a similar response from many good bidirectional speakers as well.

In my home I selected and set up my speakers to minimize the influence of my room so I could hear clearly what the engineers had put into the pits and grooves, probably reflecting what I would hear were I sitting in row A. Horses for courses. :-)
Newbee, yes like most of audio, its a personal choice thing.

TO my ears, the complex spatial queues captured in recordings from the live performance in concert hall or studio are reproduced more accurately by speakers that lean towards a more omni radiation pattern rather than those that tend to beam forward and in the case of bipolars, backwards as well.

In the case of box design speakers, wouldn't most agree though that wide dispersion is always better than beaming straight ahead only?

Some would disagree with this though and state a preference to minimize the interaction between the speaker and the room they listen in. Those folks should avoid Ohms, MBLs, Gallo reference, and the like.

All sound is subject to room acoustics, be it live music or reproduced on a system. My strategy is to accept the room I'm listening in as my own personal concert hall and then try to make it work for me as best as is possible rather than try to fight or avoid it. Why chose a strategy based on fighting the laws of physics?
Ok so we have a few designs to choose from: Mirage 15 or 28, Ohm 200's or 100's, Gallo 3.1 ref, or duevel's models.
Which one gets the most nods?

Mapman-- chose the ohm's over gallo's.
Macdadtexas-- likes gallos
bostonbean-- likes gallos
riley804-- likes gallos
analogphil-- likes ohms
shardorne-- suggests mirage or ohm's
jaybo-- says gallos are good but ohm resembles mbl's
johnny53-- couldn't be happier with mirage omd-15, and says gallos sound was rough and unrefined, says the mirage's are refined and resolving and never owned speakers that approach the resolution of the mirages.

3 like the gallo's
2 like the ohm's
1 likes the mirage's
0 like the duevels

I would like to hear from owners what they think of these speakers.
Since I am getting excellent resolution, imaging and bass with my current setup I would like to get that as well with the second system.
HEy Pedrillo, your original question was ABOUT the Gallos, so I think you have to give the others mentioned some kind of handicap accordingly. LOL