Quote:
I believe the Nad M3 review is due for publication soon. Any early impressions?

The review appears in our January 2007 issue. As a matter of policy, we do not release "early impressions" ahead of a review's publication.

Quote:
Can we expect a review of the Gallo Reference 3.1 speakers? If so when?

We do not yet have a review planned, but that might change.

John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile

Wes Philips wrote that he was duly impressed with the Gallo 3.1 Reference during the 2006 CES that he took a review pair home, and later posted that they were in his reviewing queue. What happened?

In his entry, he said, "We did not want to leave, so we invited the Ref 3.1s over to Wes' house for a longer assignation", which I took to only mean he asked for a pair to review.

Wes' comment about the assignation applied to the first part of my post. The second part of my post, which was directed to him stating that they were in his queue, is as follows:

"Re: Paging Wes P: Gallo Reference 3 review ? [Re: Florian-Daniel Otel]
#7765 - 05/06/06 08:14 PM (70.107.188.12)

Hi Flo:

Yes, I'll be taking a look at the Gallo Ref 3s as soon as I clear some previous commitments off the deck. Of course, if JA commissioned more than one review a month from me and stiffed all those other reviewers, I might get there faster.

But, given my inability to catch up with the the audio that's fit to print, maybe not. But the Ref 3s are in my "soon" queue."

I'll grant that the poster was "anonymous", but no-one from Stereophile logged on claiming that this post was the work of an impostor. I therefore assume it was Wes Philips, who did what many of us have done - failed to log on before posting.

It appears that I must be dreaming because it now appears, based upon JA's comments, that no review of the 3.1 was ever even planned. What be up wit dat?

Yes, but, even given that you were referring to that reply (and I do think it was Wes), nowhere does it say he took possession of the speakers. At best, it appears it's on his list of things to check out:

But the Ref 3s are in my "soon" queue.

Anyway, I could be wrong. These are just my interpretations of what was written and presented here. Only John and Wes can give the skinny.

"Only John and Wes can give the skinny."

I agree. And they have yet to do so.

Quote:
"Only John and Wes can give the skinny."

I agree. And they have yet to do so.

I responded to your question a while back on another forum, Mr. Garvin, and, if I remember correctly, by private email. Yes, the Gallo speakers were on Wes's "to-do" list, as Jeff Wong reminded you above, but we have not yet arranged for him to receive review samples.

John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile

John, I am not sure why you are getting "snippy" (which is how I interpret your response) with me. I have no problem with being dealt with tersely in response to things that I wrote, but I take a little umbrage in being dealt with tersely for things which are not accurate. Particularly in light of the fact that I have on multiple occasions defended Stereophile on the other forum to which you refer.

To specifically address your claims:
(1) I never received any "private" email from you on this, or any other, issue. I'll presume faulty memory.

(2) You never responded to any of my posts regarding this issue on the "other forum", to which, I assume, you are referring to the Asylum. Given that memories are what they are, I researched the posts which queried the Stereophile review of the 3.1, the thread for which was initiated on October 26, 2006 by someone other than me. You posted once to that particular thread, on October 29, 2006 in response to Srajan Ebaen, wherein you stated that Stereophile "...has not pursued the company [Gallo] rigorously enough." You wrote nothing relative to "The adventures of Wes Philips and the Gallo 3.1."

I responded on October 30, 2006 that I thought Wes Philips HAD procured a review sample (I assumed that "invited them home for a longer assignation" meant the same thing as took them home for review, in light of the fact they later were in his "review queue", which I assumed is comprised of components that are actually on site.)

I trust this clarifies the discourse between us on this issue. I can only presume by your latest post that Wes Philips "invited the speakers to his house for a longer assignation", but although the invitation was declined, they somehow wound up in the "review queue", but then at some point in time between January, 2006 and October 29, 2006, left the "review queue", but Stereophile needs to more vigorously pursue a review of the speaker, a speaker for which Wes Philips extended an invitation, and one which Wes Philips wrote he would be looking at (not trying to look at) when he cleared some prior commitments from his calendar, but, really, Stereophile needs to more vigorously pursue a review of this speaker, and so on, and so forth.

Whether the magazine actually reviews the product makes no never mind to me, but I think you will at least agree that all these contradictory statements appear to be in search of a (more) rational explanation, which goes to the heart of the review process, a light on which I would think the reader deserves. A Stereophile contributor, not any readers, opened the door on the Gallo 3.1. I think it only fair to let some light shine in the doorway.

Quote:
Stereophile needs to more vigorously pursue a review of the speaker, a speaker for which Wes Philips extended an invitation...

We ask for more products for review than actually arrive in a reviewer's system. As I said to you on the Audio Asylum, we could have been more proactive in pursuing a review of the Gallo speakers.

My apologies if I appeared short with you in my earlier response. I had assumed the matter closed, or at least pending resolution.

John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile