WHF finally 'review' the Gallos Balls...

Status
Not open for further replies.
it is important and should be included in the front of the review section using a key system for the different equipment set-ups used when reviewing.
 
Is someone seriously going to try and convince us that these things sound as good as say the quad 11l's for the same money ??

I have a set of quads so if anyone wants to bring their balls round to my place to compare them, I will oblige :D :D :D
 
Very good point - i think your spot on there Eric! There needs to be some sort of standards/consitancy when reviewing, or at the very least more information on the reviewing process - who, what with, where etc. so the reader can make an INFORMED desicion!

Come on all you editors out there sort it! ;)
 
I think there is one magazine that does this. Maybe Hifi Choice, not sure. I was reading an online review of an amp the other day and the guy is complaining because it's not up to the job for CD replay although DVD's sounded good. Then he quotes his source, a cheap Pioneer DVD player for both formats. At least it was easy to disregard his opinions in this case but how do we know in most reviews what is going on?

S
 
As Eric has mentioned it is rather useful to know exactly what equipment a particular piece of kit has been used with in order to understand the review.

I'm currently looking forward to a review of the Gallo Due's by HiFi News, which is about the only UK magazine I still trust. Why? Because not only do they make the maximum effort to get an accurate review (when did you last see waterfall charts and impedance graphs in WHF?) but they also pair up the reviewed item with various ancillaries, and more importantly, tell you about them.

Also, for those having a go at the Ax-10, Pioneer seem to have revised the amplification power supply in order to address this issue, in the new i version.
 
Originally posted by EvilMudge


Also, for those having a go at the Ax-10, Pioneer seem to have revised the amplification power supply in order to address this issue, in the new i version.

Is the 'old' AX10 upgradeable?
 
To be honest, I have no idea whether the amplifiers can be changed, although in the states the firewire connection can be added to the old 49TX, the US model, at a cost of $500 I think, but don't quote me on that because I'm not sure.
 
Originally posted by EvilMudge
To be honest, I have no idea whether the amplifiers can be changed, although in the states the firewire connection can be added to the old 49TX, the US model, at a cost of $500 I think, but don't quote me on that because I'm not sure.

The only reason I ask is that people DO have a right to have a go at a £3000 piece of kit that doesn't work properly, especially if it won't be put right by the manufacturer who has corrected the problem in the latest revision of the model.
 
Originally posted by uncle eric
One of the problems I have with most publications in this country is the lack of overall information regarding their reviews.
Its common knowledge that the performance of a certain piece of hardware, can be improved or degraded by partnering that piece with inferior or superior equipment.

[...]

Somebody correct me if I'm wrong but surely this information is of considerable importance.

I couldn't agree more - and guess what? In WHF's review of the Gallos (yes, I went out and bought a copy to see for myself) there's NO MENTION about the listening room, not even basic size and shape, there's no mention of partnering equipment and no name put on the review!!

Compare this to a review in, say, Hifi News, where you will be told the partnering equipment (often a choice of epuipment including the reviewer's own references and selected 'matching' components), you're told (or at least would know from regular reading) about the room, esp where that room had a notable or important effect on the performance of the component under review and - very importantly - you are told who carried out the review.

This allows you to put that particular review into context both in terms of that reviewer's other reviews in the past and in terms of what that reviewer's personal tastes and prejudices are. WHF does not do, or make possible, ANY of this. It's reviews are therefore TOTALLY WORTHLESS.

Just to highlight another crazy comment from the same edition - WHF drools over Quad's new CD-P99 cd player. It then lists one of it's great features as a drawback ("against -")!!! I'm referring to the digital inputs it has. In an age where many people have multiple digital sources (MD, CD, DVD, MP3player, HTPC, digital radio, etc...) This is a damn good idea, allowing you to use the very fine DACs in this piece of equipment for ALL your digital sources. And the dumbass schmucks at WHF list this as a drawback! W - T - F ???

The people who write and 'review' for WHF magazine are cowboys IMO.
 
You can buy alot of speaker packages for 1375 pounds. So the Gallos is the best one at this price point?
 
Originally posted by Doomlord_uk

WHF does not do, or make possible, ANY of this

As a reular reader of WHF :)blush: ?), I can tell you that they have some pretty good kit which they use for testing. Eg. Krell CD player and amps, Martin Logan and Wilson Benesch speakers, good Monster cables etc.

For AV they often mention that their reference kit is Meridian, Bryston and Lexicon, so they do have a good starting point. In the Gallo setup they probably also used some price comparible kit such as Pioneer VSX2011 and Yamaha AX1300 which they also tested in First Tests in the same issue. Likely partners for the Gallos then.

Of course this should be mentioned, as should their room layout and kit setup, etc. However WHF will tell you that they reserve their full tests for a Group Test in later months where ( a bit) more data is given, including partnering kit.

Not much help to Gallo who got 2 stars straight out :rolleyes:
 
Originally posted by Doomlord_uk
The people who write and 'review' for WHF magazine are cowboys IMO.

Couldn't agree more.

The guys at HiFi+ are at the other end of the scale though, I met them at Phonography earlier this year when they were doing an LP12 comparision, (Linn, Naim and Russ Andrews based systems). You know they take it seriously when their photographer has a pretty well specced LP12 based system himself. (Nice guy, can't remmember his name though)
 
Originally posted by z5461313
You can buy alot of speaker packages for 1375 pounds. So the Gallos is the best one at this price point?

that's a fair point, but check out whf and you see a £2.5k b&o kit get 4 stars, now come on, you telling me this is one of the best options at this price range?
 
Well, I've been looking at the reviews for the Gallo micros at :

http://www.audioreview.com/Main+Speaker/Gallo+Acoustics+Micro/PRD_119538_1594crx.aspx

The overall rating for the gallos (taking into account all the 49 reviews) was 4.14 out of 5 (which IMO is a pretty decnet score).

28 out of 49 people gave the gallos an overall rating of 5/5

9 out of 49 people gave the gallos an overall rating of 4/5

6 out of 49 people gave the gallos an overall rating of 3/5

Lastly, only 6 out of 49 people gave the gallos an overall rating of 2/5 or less.

Surely by looking at these reviews you can tell that WHF are simply far of the mark on their Gallo review!
 
Originally posted by tk2001
Well, I've been looking at the reviews for the Gallo micros at :

http://www.audioreview.com/Main+Speaker/Gallo+Acoustics+Micro/PRD_119538_1594crx.aspx

The overall rating for the gallos (taking into account all the 49 reviews) was 4.14 out of 5 (a pretty decent score IMO).

28 out of 49 people gave the gallos an overall rating of 5/5

9 out of 49 people gave the gallos an overall rating of 4/5

6 out of 49 people gave the gallos an overall rating of 4/5

Lastly, only 6 out of 49 people gave the gallos an overall rating of 2/5 or less.

Surely by looking at these reviews you can tell that WHF are simply far of the mark when it comes to their Gallo review!

Although the comments can be useful, Audioreview has very limited use when reviewing equipment. Most consumers will have tested and demoed equipment before spending the cash, therefore, the majority of reviews tend to be from owners who have spent there hard earnt, and marks lean towards the positive.

A review from a magazine you trust is far more use IMHO.
 
Originally posted by UrbanT
Although the comments can be useful, Audioreview has very limited use when reviewing equipment. Most consumers will have tested and demoed equipment before spending the cash, therefore, the majority of reviews tend to be from owners who have spent there hard earnt, and marks lean towards the positive.

A review from a magazine you trust is far more use IMHO.

In this particular case though (after reading all 49 reviews), the majority of the people who reviewed the Gallo actually owns it.
 
Originally posted by tk2001
In this particular case though (after reading all 49 reviews), the majority of the people who reviewed the Gallo actually owns it.


Ermmmmm...have I missed something here?. Thats my point. They demoed it, they bought it, therefore the marks tend to be high. Hence their limited use.
 
Originally posted by Nobber22
As a reular reader of WHF :)blush: ?), I can tell you that they have some pretty good kit which they use for testing. Eg. Krell CD player and amps, Martin Logan and Wilson Benesch speakers, good Monster cables etc.

they probably only have this equipment because Bose's advertising budget means they can afford it and their mates down the pub told them they were good!!:D And I wouldn't be surprised if they have their Martin Logan's wired up using bell wire!:D

Now £1,550 (a 6.1 Gallo set up, when I get round to buying the three rears) is no small sum of money as far as I am concerned, but they make my living room sound better than any cinema I have ever visited, give me endless hours of enjoyment and are a pleasure to own. I don't regret my decision to go Gallo for a second.

PS. David the use of the "Go Gallo!" phrase for advertising/marketing purposes is going to cost you!:D
 
The Gallo's have been reviewed by one of the most respected Home Theatre publications on the planet, "The Perfect Vision".
I believe James has a PDF of this review, maybe he will kindly post it here.
 
it's 600k and i believe the copyright is still with The Perfect Vision, although if anyone wants a general idea:devil: :D and PMed me or Perrdl their email addresses I'm sure we could sort something out.;)

PS unless of course this offer is frowned upon by forum admin, in which case I will withdraw it.
 
I am currently in the market for an amp and speakers and being a complete home cinema newbie value the opinions of more experienced enthusiasts........that's you that is!

So after reading so many positive posts on the gallo's I've been to demo them today. I intend to use my system about 50/50 movies/music, so with that in mind I wanted good stereo performance and I have to say I was a little disappointed. Although they sounded great when used purely as home cinema speakers they were too bright, to my untrained ears anyway, for good stereo.
Could this have been the amp? (Harmon Kardon AVR5500-I think)

I really wanted to like these babies as they look great, but unless anyone can convince me otherwise I am probably going to buy the Quad 11l's for the front pair with a quad centre and maybe get a pair of gallo's for the rears.
I'd like to know what Uncle Eric thinks?
 
Just a comment on WHF's 'point' that you could get a lot for your £1375...

... they were reviewing a 5.1 sub/sat system. Not that they made that abundantly clear. The Gallos are a £300/pair stereo speaker - and I think they should be judged in that context or in the £800 context of stereo pair + sub.

As the review was as much a sound quality issue as a surround-performance issue (quite a distinct thing IMO) I think a more focused perspective on their stereo music capabilities should have been considered.

But then, we've already established that WHF magazine is written by lazy people.

I just have to laugh at their 'reference' equipment. They wouldn't know what to do with it! Also this is the only lofi publication I know of where the reference equipment belongs to the magazine and not the reviewers. So how much time do these reveiwers spend reveiwing equipment? Not very long obviously. It's clearly just a day job for them. Contrast with HFN or SP where equipment is delivered often weeks in advance, run in and then evaluated against a known acoustic enviroment and system with which the reviewer is intimately familiar. Possibly dozens of hours of casual listening will go into preparing for a review yet I imagine at WHF it's a scrum for the comfiest chair and loser get's the coffee!
 
Porker - having heard the Gallos the one thing I would not describe them as would be bright. If anything they lacked top end air a little. It may well have been a poorly set up subwoofer. These speakers are simply too small to produce bass by themselves so MUST be used with a sub. Get that wrong and no justice is done to them, but it's not their fault.

It might well be the amp too - these little speakers struck me as very sensitive to amplifier quality - but it could also simply be the dem room you listened in. A badly set up/laid out dem room can sound horrbily bright.

Those who remember Bill Hutchison's in Manchester (at the top end of Deansgate) will remember that godawful dem roon they had with the giant column in the middle and the four hard, papered walls with no soft furnishings or wall coverings at all. That room used to ring!!

But if you are really happier with the Quads thats fine - no-one says you should HAVE to like a particular speaker (or at least they SHOULDN'T!! though that does happen here a little IMO). Those Quads are meant to be great speakers and they are certainly the most beautifully finished speakers in their price range!

I think you should make a point of trying whatever speakers you like at home first. And if you think your dealer can't set a dem up right - complain!! And/or find another dealer. It's your money and it's in your interests and your dealer's interests to help you make the best purchasing decision.

Last but not least - if you are using this system for music make sure you use music for your demoing too. Use your favourite music that you are familiar with.
 
Heard second hand of a distributer who went to pick up his speakers from WHF offices following review.

They were still in the FACTORY SEALED Boxes:eek:

The review was pretty poor, two stars I believe. Might have helped if they had bothered to take them out of the boxes and listen to them;)

I tend to put more faith in reports from the National Enquirer these days:D
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

The latest video from AVForums

TV Buying Guide - Which TV Is Best For You?
Subscribe to our YouTube channel
Back
Top Bottom