Sneak Preview: Anthony Gallo Acoustics Nucleus Reference 3.5


Since its inception in the 1990s, Anthony Gallo Acoustics has been synonymous with spherical enclosures, and speakers providing considerable “bang-for-the-buck.” The company took a significant step forward in 2003 with the release of the Nucleus Reference 3.0. This speaker, and its follow-up 3.1, were greeted with world-wide acclaim, and received numerous awards. The company recently announced a significant upgrade to the line, thus warranting the “3.5” designation. I had the good fortune to visit company founder, President and designer Anthony Gallo in his home in New Jersey where I had the opportunity to not only audition the 3.5’s, but to compare them to the 3.1’s.

The 3.5 exhibits the same basic design elements as its predecessor. Unlike typical rectangular box speakers, the Reference 3 series is built on a cast aluminum frame. On top, in an M-T-M arrangement, is the company’s patented cylindrical, wide-dispersion, piezoelectric film tweeter, above and below which are the 4” midrange drivers in nearly-spherical enclosures. The tweeters and midranges run full-range without an electrical cross-over, relying solely on mechanical properties of the drivers. Below the MTM is a 10” side-mounted woofer. The woofer has dual voice coils, the second of which can optionally be driven by an external amplifier. I have never heard the speakers used in this manner but based on my listening sessions with only one voice coil in use, I suspect that the latter will be adequate for the majority of applications, even in larger rooms. Each speaker weighs about 50 pounds and is non-imposing, standing only about 35” tall, 8” wide, and 14” deep.

                                       The 3.5's at this year's CES driven with a Spectron amplifier

The 3.5’s will retail for approximately $6,000 per pair, nearly twice the price of the 3.1’s. This has generated considerable buzz on the internet forums where self-proclaimed experts are already opining on whether the price is justified, despite the fact that - in typical internet-fashion - few if any have actually heard the latest version. Anthony was well aware that the price increase was a non-trivial matter, and shared with me that a substantial fraction of the increase is the result of rising costs. That is, even if he had not revised the speakers, the price for the 3.1’s would have had to be increased significantly. I should add that I personally am not at all surprised by this, as I have for years been astonished by the 3.1’s modest price. This may not be what enthusiasts want to hear, but it is a fact of life. Some of the improvements Anthony made include the following:

• The tweeter incorporates a new grill which changes its dispersion and roll-off characteristics, as a result of which it blends more evenly with the midrange.
• The midrange housing now contains a bezel where the driver meets the enclosure (which is thus no longer an actual sphere), improving midrange performance due to an improvement in its baffle step response.
• The cross-over on the woofer has been modified.
• The speaker cover, which will now be optional, is sleeker and more aesthetically pleasing.

I was somewhat reluctant to describe these changes as I envision people pulling out their calculators and jumping to the conclusion that the changes do not justify the price increase. I caution against doing so on a number of grounds. First, none of us knows how much of the increase is due to these improvements, and how much to rising costs. Second, it is naive to assume that the price increase associated with the improvements is solely due to the parts, as this ignores the considerable R&D that went into the improvements. Moreover, as I described in an article published elsewhere a few years ago on the economics of high end audio, the price of a speaker (or amp, or CD player, etc.) is ultimately determined not by the price of its parts, nor by the R&D costs (though these of course are contributing factors) but rather, by the way the speaker sounds and the enjoyment listeners derive from its use. Which of course brings us to the most important issue, namely the sonic improvements.

I am happy to report that as good as the Nucleus Reference 3.1 is, the 3.5 is considerably better. The improvements are not subtle, and do not require repeated switching back and forth between the two speakers to discern. What immediately struck me was voices, which were more palpable, fuller and richer, and more three-dimensional; and the bass, which was tighter and better defined. I suspect that with more extended listening, more subtle differences would make themselves known. Although I am exquisitely sensitive to high frequency distortion and dislike most tweeters, I was never bothered by the 3.5’s tweeter and in fact, consider it one of the best I have heard.

Thankfully, the 3.5’s retain all the wonderful traits of their predecessor. In particular, they have wide dispersal  - a parameter of great importance to Anthony  - and sound good even considerably off axis. They fill up a fairly large room (approx. 20’ x 30’) with sound despite their modest size, and have excellent coherence (the latter undoubtedly attributable to their minimized use of a x-over, and Anthony’s fanatical attention to ensuring that the sound is uniformly launched from the drivers).

Although I am a card carrying high efficiency/SET devotee, I thoroughly enjoyed my time with the 3.5’s. In fact, I think it is a superb speaker and believe that it will compete favorably not only with speakers at its price point, but with those costing considerably more. In conjunction with its room-friendly size I predict that it, like the 3.1 before it, will be a great success.