Stand Loudspeaker Reviews

JGH weighs in
I took a prolonged listen to the same pair of Gales auditioned by DO. While I did not fall madly in love with them, try as I might I could not get them to sound the way DO described them.

That's disturbing. While I am perfectly content to see our contributors disagree from time to time about their reaction to a product—whether they like it or don't—I do not like disagreements about empirical observations, which, for a subjective review magazine; perform the same function that laboratory measurements do for a "test-bench" magazine. Either a product sounds a certain way or it doesn't, and, if two of Stereophile's reviewers can't agree on the sound, I prefer to see that kind of disagreement resolved before a report appears in the magazine. The degree of consensus among our reviewers, reporting independently on the same products, has been so high through the years that I long ago abandoned my occasional moments of doubt over the relevance of subjective testing.

In this case, though, I think I have the answer. When I first listened to the Gales, I used the Eagle 2 amplifier. With it, I heard the same increasing hardness at high levels that DO carped about, but not the midbass mud, the laid-back quality, or the high-end dullness. The overall sound was, in fact, quite startlingly alive!

In an attempt to hear what DO was referring to, I tried different amplifiers. A switch to the BEL 2002 amp gave me an inkling about what was going on. The sound was almost shockingly different! Now I heard the laid-back quality, the dull highs and midrange, and the muddy midbass. The startlingly alive quality was completely gone. With two other amplifiers (both tubed), the Gales seemed almost to caricature what I knew about the sound of those amplifiers, exaggerating almost every one of their normal sonic characteristics.

One other amp 1 tried—the Perreaux PMF-2150B—got the Gales to exhibit the kind of sound that could explain the popularity they have enjoyed for so many years. The bass tightened up, went much deeper (to an estimated 40Hz or thereabouts), and generated some real impact from kickdrum. And clarity across the board improved, too, advancing from what I would judge to be mediocre to quite good.

The Gale speakers are unusually amplifier-sensitive (footnote 3). Because of this, DO's report on the Gales is perhaps not representative, since he used only two amplifiers to drive them, albeit ones with which he is intimately familiar. My own experience with different amps led me to conclude that the Gales could sound anything from veiled and muddy to detailed, alive, and exciting.

Is amplifier sensitivity an asset or a liability? 1 have never really made up my mind about this one. On the one hand, amplifier sensitivity makes it harder to predict what a loudspeaker will sound like with a given amplifier. And (as illustrated here) it makes a reviewer's job much more difficult, because he must try and listen through the effects of different amplifiers for the characteristics of the speakers themselves—an inexact art, at best. But amplifier sensitivity also provides an effective means of tailoring a loudspeaker to produce exactly the right sound, and may actually increase the likelihood of finding a truly serendipitous combination.

In the case of the Gales, I spotted three attributes which are probably characteristic of the speakers themselves. First, the high end is rather closed-in and lacking in sheen, in comparison with the best I have heard. It definitely benefits from the extended high end of an amplifier like the Perreaux; I even felt a high-end deficiency in the system when going from the Perreaux preamp to my standard Conrad-Johnson Premier Three, whose high end is exemplary on most speakers. Second, there is a tendency for the sound to become increasingly steely with increased listening levels. 98dB on peaks was about the loudest I cared to listen. That's loud, but, for the average American listener, not extremely loud. And third, inner detailing in complex passages is only good, not very good.

Low-end performance will totally depend on the amp you use. At their best, the Gale's low end is spectacular for a speaker this size, although not in the same league, from the standpoint of LF extension or power handling, as that of the Fried Studio IVs (which are in the same price range but physically larger). At their worst—that is, with unsuitable amplifiers—the bass is muddy, ill-defined, and deficient in impact.

Based on the best sound I could elicit from the Gales, I would rank them in the never-never land between Classes C and B.

I'm not sure I could venture an actual recommendation for the Gales considering their price, though I think a lot of people may like them. I also feel that, if you plan to drive them with anything but that Perreaux amplifier, an at-home audition of the Gales is an absolute prerequisite to their purchase. They have far more than the usual potential for surprising the listener, pleasantly or otherwise. It is hardly any wonder that these speakers have elicited so many conflicting reactions through the years. They can sound very good, and they can also sound really mediocre, depending entirely on the amp used to drive them.—J. Gordon Holt

Dick Olsher fires back
Having listened to the Gales with the Perreaux amplifier, I have to somewhat amend my earlier observations. With the Perreaux, the midbass of the Gales is improved to the point of being decent, but extension is still rather marginal. The Sheffield Drum Record, for instance, sounded much better in terms of transient attack but still did not impress me with its impact.

The Gale's treble also benefits from the Perreaux, being a little less grainy and rather smoother sounding. Perreaux or no Perreaux, the midrange quality is smooth rather than detailed. Although some readers will delight in this characteristic, the Gales cover up too much in the midrange for my taste. Clarity is what I value most in this area, as followers of my reviews will have noted.

The level of musical enjoyment from the Gates, in conjunction with the Perreaux, is greatly enhanced. The imaging remains spectacular, as noted in my review, and the performance at the frequency extremes is improved, though still not fantastic; The Gale's particular combination of virtues, even with the Perreaux amp, is not what I Iook for in a loudspeaker Others may not feel quite the same way. I recommend that prospective purchasers follow JGH's advice re. an in~-home audition prior to purchase.—Dick Olsher

---

Footnote 3: During an enjoyable and animated visit by Tony Federici of Techport, long debates were held about whether the Gales were amplifier-sensitive or simply revealing—of amplifier differences and defects, in this case. I can't summarize the debate in this footnote, but the Stereophile representatives stick to amplifier-sensitive. We were not able to convince Philosopher Federici of the correctness of our position.—Larry Archibald