Anthony Gallo micros

[gbbird]

Hi All,

i am currently in the process of modernising the downstarirs of the house. Due to a number of logistical reasons, i am considering some ceiling mounted Anthony Gallo micros for the surround speakers, and i was just wondering if -

a, any PHers have got these little beauties ceiling mounted, and if so were they reasonably easy to install

b, anyone know of a good dealer where i can get some, either London based or Bedfordshire/Milton Keynes area

c, are they usually in stock, or should one expect a lenghty order process?

Regards

Greg

[Speedracer329]

I have these, in stainless finish. They are great little speakers. Mine are wall mounted as opposed to ceiling, but they come with a mounting plate that will enable them to be mounted as you wish.

I can't help with supply I am afraid, but Google them & you should find someone near you.

[Plotloss]

For ceiling mounting you need the eyeball sockets which come in a slightly off white colour.

Far as supply goes, drop me a line, always happy to help out a PHer.

[gbbird]

Plotloss said:

For ceiling mounting you need the eyeball sockets which come in a slightly off white colour.

Far as supply goes, drop me a line, always happy to help out a PHer.

Cheers Plotloss,

i'll drop you a PM tonight when i get home.

g

PS - am looking at white speakers, possibly the box set with the sub

[Plotloss]

5.1 box in white and 5 eyeballs?

No worries.

[rhinochopig]

I have the Micro Ti set (courtesy of Mr Plotters ) and they are superb little speakers. They truly bely their size in their ability to produce superb sound quality.

If ceiling mounting proves too much of a faff, they actually look very smart on the optional stands. My rears are thus mounted with the cable run under the carpet. You barely notice them and the sound is at ear height when seated.

[gbbird]

Plotloss said:

5.1 box in white and 5 eyeballs?

No worries.

Almost 3 eyeballs and 2 wall mounts (white).

Will send you a PM now but will not be able to check any response until tonight.

Cheers

g

[Tokoloshe]

Are you talking about the Micro's or the upgraded Micro Ti's? Quite different regarding price and performance.

I have Micro Ti's for my system and they are amazing little speakers, I looked at Micro's but went for the Ti version with the titanium driver.

Supply deosnt seem an issue at all, bought online with a next day delivery and a few places seemed to have them in stock (going back a few months though).

Regarding the .1, the AG subs arent brilliant, you would be much better off buying the Micro's then getting a sub from BK electronics IMO.

[rhinochopig]

Tokoloshe said:

Are you talking about the Micro's or the upgraded Micro Ti's? Quite different regarding price and performance.

I have Micro Ti's for my system and they are amazing little speakers, I looked at Micro's but went for the Ti version with the titanium driver.

Supply deosnt seem an issue at all, bought online with a next day delivery and a few places seemed to have them in stock (going back a few months though).

Regarding the .1, the AG subs arent brilliant, you would be much better off buying the Micro's then getting a sub from BK electronics IMO.

Out of interest what was the difference in sound between the two? I suffered a bout of upgraditus and went straight for the Tis on Plotters recommendation. Curious to know what your opinion on the normal ones is?

Re: the Sub, I have no problems with it. It's not the loudest sub I've heard but in a typical room it's certainly loud enough - when watching Cloverfield it was certainly loud enough to shake the floor. Surely Gallo design the sub specifically to match the acoustic properties of the satellites? Would the Gallo not be a better match than a third party sub then?

[gbbird]

rhinochopig said:

Tokoloshe said:

Are you talking about the Micro's or the upgraded Micro Ti's? Quite different regarding price and performance.

I have Micro Ti's for my system and they are amazing little speakers, I looked at Micro's but went for the Ti version with the titanium driver.

Supply deosnt seem an issue at all, bought online with a next day delivery and a few places seemed to have them in stock (going back a few months though).

Regarding the .1, the AG subs arent brilliant, you would be much better off buying the Micro's then getting a sub from BK electronics IMO.

Out of interest what was the difference in sound between the two? I suffered a bout of upgraditus and went straight for the Tis on Plotters recommendation. Curious to know what your opinion on the normal ones is?

Re: the Sub, I have no problems with it. It's not the loudest sub I've heard but in a typical room it's certainly loud enough - when watching Cloverfield it was certainly loud enough to shake the floor. Surely Gallo design the sub specifically to match the acoustic properties of the satellites? Would the Gallo not be a better match than a third party sub then?

I am looking at the standard Micros as i think they will be more than adequate for my listening needs.

[pmanson]

gbbird said:

Plotloss said:

5.1 box in white and 5 eyeballs?

No worries.

Almost 3 eyeballs and 2 wall mounts (white).

Will send you a PM now but will not be able to check any response until tonight.

Cheers

g

I thought the plan was to ceiling mount all of them?

[gbbird]

pmanson said:

gbbird said:

Plotloss said:

5.1 box in white and 5 eyeballs?

No worries.

Almost 3 eyeballs and 2 wall mounts (white).

Will send you a PM now but will not be able to check any response until tonight.

Cheers

g

I thought the plan was to ceiling mount all of them?

Now you have confused me mate. Yes it possibly was, but then the rears could easily go in the corners could they not?

[pmanson]

gbbird said:

pmanson said:

gbbird said:

Plotloss said:

5.1 box in white and 5 eyeballs?

No worries.

Almost 3 eyeballs and 2 wall mounts (white).

Will send you a PM now but will not be able to check any response until tonight.

Cheers

g

I thought the plan was to ceiling mount all of them?

Now you have confused me mate. Yes it possibly was, but then the rears could easily go in the corners could they not?

They could but I reckon (and Plotty may correct me) but I think you be better with them in the ceiling. Also they'd be nice and hidden as well

[Plotloss]

They aren't rears, they're surrounds.

So they can go in the ceiling (which is where the wife will probably want them) but if possible ideally should be at 90-110degs to the screen around the main viewing location mounted at least 600mm above the listeners ears.

[pmanson]

Plotloss said:

They aren't rears, they're surrounds.

So they can go in the ceiling (which is where the wife will probably want them) but if possible ideally should be at 90-110degs to the screen around the main viewing location mounted at least 600mm above the listeners ears.

That should work well in Greg's house. With regards to the mount do they allow a certain amount of flexibility in how you can angle the speaker to the desired position?

[Plotloss]

No angling should be used, they should fire at each other not the listener, 90 degs from the wall.

We're hunters with front mounted eyes. So we hear where we look, as its best for hunting.

Consequently sound that is present from beyond our field of vision takes more to process, it's more distracting and more 'tiring' to be constantly aware of. If the speakers fire at the listener then this effect is amplified and it detracts from the overall enjoyment of the film.

Movie production and reproduction is all about the willing suspension of disbelief. One should strive for cinematic immersion. Sound presented on the surround channels therefore should be difficult to locate and non-intrusive as it will detract from what your eyes and ears should be concentrating on - the screen.

[rhinochopig]

Plotloss said:

No angling should be used, they should fire at each other not the listener, 90 degs from the wall.

We're hunters with front mounted eyes. So we hear where we look, as its best for hunting.

Consequently sound that is present from beyond our field of vision takes more to process, it's more distracting and more 'tiring' to be constantly aware of. If the speakers fire at the listener then this effect is amplified and it detracts from the overall enjoyment of the film.

Movie production and reproduction is all about the willing suspension of disbelief. One should strive for cinematic immersion. Sound presented on the surround channels therefore should be difficult to locate and non-intrusive as it will detract from what your eyes and ears should be concentrating on - the screen.

My surround channels (on stands) are pointed at the listener when seated on the sofa - should this not be the case then?

[pmanson]

Plotloss said:

No angling should be used, they should fire at each other not the listener, 90 degs from the wall.

We're hunters with front mounted eyes. So we hear where we look, as its best for hunting.

Consequently sound that is present from beyond our field of vision takes more to process, it's more distracting and more 'tiring' to be constantly aware of. If the speakers fire at the listener then this effect is amplified and it detracts from the overall enjoyment of the film.

Movie production and reproduction is all about the willing suspension of disbelief. One should strive for cinematic immersion. Sound presented on the surround channels therefore should be difficult to locate and non-intrusive as it will detract from what your eyes and ears should be concentrating on - the screen.

That makes sense.

So if for example the seating position was flat against the rear wall and you were ceiling mounting the surround speakers, you would bring them forward so they were above the seating position and firing torwards each other. Instead of behind the listener in the corners of the room.

I've probably not explained that correctly though

[Tokoloshe]

Regarding the micro vs micro ti, I did a demo of the two and found the Ti's had a clearer mose precise sound, but saying that the icro's were amazing too, they are incredible for their size.

Regarding the sub, the AG one is certainly adequate for most purposes, but the BK gemini or xls200 are other small but amazing products that outperform the AG one.

Gemini is only £200 and the quality and low response is comparible to much bigger and more expensive subs, BK subs must be the biggest bargains in sub land.

[gbbird]

pmanson said:

Plotloss said:

No angling should be used, they should fire at each other not the listener, 90 degs from the wall.

We're hunters with front mounted eyes. So we hear where we look, as its best for hunting.

Consequently sound that is present from beyond our field of vision takes more to process, it's more distracting and more 'tiring' to be constantly aware of. If the speakers fire at the listener then this effect is amplified and it detracts from the overall enjoyment of the film.

Movie production and reproduction is all about the willing suspension of disbelief. One should strive for cinematic immersion. Sound presented on the surround channels therefore should be difficult to locate and non-intrusive as it will detract from what your eyes and ears should be concentrating on - the screen.

That makes sense.

So if for example the seating position was flat against the rear wall and you were ceiling mounting the surround speakers, you would bring them forward so they were above the seating position and firing torwards each other. Instead of behind the listener in the corners of the room.

I've probably not explained that correctly though

So does this suggest that the two 'rear' speakers, bearing in mind the layout of my room, should not be in the room corners but on each wall to either side of teh sofa, basically with the left speaker pointing directly at my left ear (albeit a bit higher) and the right speaker pointing directly at my right ear? If so, that would work very well in my room