NAD C372 & Gallo Ref 3.1


Is the NAD C372 sufficient to drive these speakers?
katee
A lot of receivers such as the NAD that you have mentioned will run the speakers, but whether or not you like the sound is another issue you may have to deal with.

What one person likes you may not, and vice versa as everybody hears things differently and not to mention room acoustics play a part also. Have you searched the forums to see what other members are using ?

Not trying to beat you up on this, but in your previous post, you mention that you have no clue as to what you are doing, so why did you buy the Gallo's ?

What did you have in your other system ?
LOL.....fair question. I didn't buy them - they were my brother's and I really liked them, so when he was ready to move on (which he seemingly does with regularity), I inherited them.

I could ask him, but if I do, it will become a month long discussion. I love him dearly, but he's a fanatic.
Oooops....didn't see the last part of your question. The system that he had, which is what I liked so much, had the Gallos, which I now have, the Gallo SA, a Shanling SCD-T200C CD player, and a couple of other things that I don't need...
What I always use as a rule of thumb: Spend equally on all parts of a system. Period.
So, if you really like them, why not buy something better than a receiver to go along with them ? Buy something that you can get good sound from and not something that you wont be happy with and will want to change in a few months . Or buying something on impulse.

If your brother was into this hobby like many of us here, I am sure that they sounded great and depending on what he used to power them, I dont think that a receiver is going to give you the same sound that you and him enjoyed.

I also have these speakers and enjoy listening to them and plan on keeping them for a long time.
Katee, you inherited quite a setup! The NAD is a fine amp. Driving speakers is not whether or not they will or will not, but more about the room and how loud you like it. The question really: I have a small/medium/large room and like to listen to rock/jazz/rap/classical/folk and I like it at soft/medium/loud volumes. I have not heard many NAD amps, but the reviews are good. 88 dB sensitivity which is not high. They are known for being detailed. The NAD should be fine in an average room with good volume. As Riley stated, now you decide if you like the way it makes music. A great start! Have fun!
Riley, before you preach any further, the C372 is an integrated and not a receiver. It is superb at it's price point.
Katee, yes it will be more than adequate. 150 watts with lots of headroom, I see no issues.
Riley, before you preach any further, the C372 is an integrated and not a receiver

Who said I was preaching ? Nail me to the cross because I made a mistake on something.

yes it will be more than adequate. 150 watts with lots of headroom, I see no issues

Rotarius, have you tried this setup before ? If not, then how can you comment on it ? I happen to have the 3.1's and can at least add some input on them.
Ok guys - don't get into a fight over this please.

Thank you all for the help. Believe me, it's appreciated. This business can really be overwhelming and music is very important to me. I'm a pianist and as such, although I am only beginning to explore putting together a quality system that I can afford right now, my ears are QUITE developed...
Katee,

Here's my advice...take it for whatever you will.

I have no idea where you live, but if you happen to be near a Gallo dealer, simply stop in and listen to a modest system that features the 3.1's. This way you can take full advantage of a dealer's insight - which it sounds like you may need.

Plus, you'll want to actually hear components before committing. You don't know me (or anyone else on this forum) from Adam, and while some have "impressive" systems, this may only mean we have more money than sense and wouldn't know a "middle C" if it walked up and poked us in the eye.

And if you think that this group is any less fanatical than your brother, I'd bet a recording of one of your performances that you're wrong. :) Take him with you to the dealers - it will help the process. Plus, it will make the Thanksgiving day discussions a whole lot more interesting.
The NAD is a good match.

Listen to your own ears and go from there.
The NAD is a safe match. I've owned NAD and a friend has the Gallos with NAD. I've never heard anyone say the don't like NAD. Anything less is mostly consumer dreck for the masses but you can also do a lot better of course with an attendant increase in $$$.
I own the Ref 3.1s and have had NAD gear for many years in the past. I believe this would be a very good match - the NAD amps have plenty of current and very good headroom. The Gallos should work quite well with that amp, they love a high-current amp and the strong, ballsy NAD bottom end should sound great with those speakers.

-RW-
"The Gallos should work quite well with that amp, they love a high-current amp and the strong, ballsy NAD bottom end should sound great with those speakers."

Agreed. Well put!

I've heard the NAD/Gallo Ref combo at a dealer. It sounded very good, much as described!
My opionion is if you need a small speaker with good sound. This is probably up there in choice compared to bookshelf speakers. Specially if you dont want a sub either. If size doesnt matter to you, dont even consider it(opinion). I owned the 3.1's and didnt like them because of bigger/better speakers Ive owned around them. I still think the gallos sound low to the floor(aftermarket stands Ive heard), and also a little harsh in the mids with some instruments. It took my bad recordings or flaws in a good recording and seamed to amplify them. Dont confuse revealing as a definate plus, it seamed to be annoying at times. And Im using top notch equipment with them, a all ayre system, and again with a all bryston system. If this kind of speaker interests you, then go for them. I prefer to enjoy great recordings and bad recordings as much as possible and there are plenty of speakers out there that do just that.

Ive used the following amps on them if interested Ayre v-5xe, 8bst bridged(400watts x 2 8ohm), 8bst bi amped, 4bst, 9bsst. Non did what I hoped for. Not bad speakers, specially at there size and what they do. I also had a complete 5.1 system with them for a short time, and that was actually extremely impressive. Just couldnt get into 2 channel like the focus 20/20 I used after, and the logan scent i before them. I realize there is a price difference, but with the reviews I hoped for more.Thanks for reading. Maybe Ill try them again some day.
Focus 2020's, $6500, Gallo's, $3000. small price difference.
I do agree, big price difference. the thing is the Gallo's are being compared to double there price. This is what reviewers and owners claim and because of this I am comparing them as such. And personally I didnt hear it. For $3k, some what full range and for there smaller size, I guess there OK, but not for me. For what its worth, before them I had a pair of Martin Logan Ascent i's. Again $1.5 k difference in price, but the logans crushed them. dont get me wrong Logans have a lot of issues of there own. but there was just a lot more musical enjoyment out of them. For those who havent tried a big speaker that throws a large sound(martin logan,legacy, magneplanar,etc, once you try them, its hard to change. They seam to sound like there comming from a large stage. Most speakers that are smaller sound like there comming from a little space in the air. Maybe its just me. I do think ive heard good sounding small speakers. I have a pair of signature s2's that sound nice. But they still sound like a speaker and not a live performance. Maybe others just like the speaker sound, I can uderstand there are differences. Anyway, for me the gallos are over all a no go. By the way i had the Martin Logan Aeon i's and they also were better by a margine. The price is extremely close on these two speakers.
Sthomas, how is your reply post in any way responsive to Katee's original post? Katee has a pair of Gallo 3.1 speakers, wants to know if a NAD ampifier will sufficiently drive them, and your response is that you do not like Gallo 3.1 speakers. This seems to be something of a trend where some posters feel compelled to provide their opinion on a subject, whether relevant or not to the original query.

You do not like the 3.1? Fine. Now answer the query - Do you think the NAD will drive them?
Hey RL..........I think that NAD is a good product. I too owned them in the past. But "strong, ballsy" is a bit much. Amps that are ballsy double their RMS power from 8 to 4 ohms and then again at 2 ohms. The NAD doesn't come close. Note the specs on the NAD page talk about its "dynamic power" at 4 and 2 ohms and even that doesn't come close to doubling. Lets call a spade a spade. NAD is a very good mid fi piece. Nothing more.

ET
Mr. Jamesgarvin-dont wish to be rude but.....

who died and made you forum monitor? Ill response any way I wish. Its my time and I enjoy saying what I have to say about a item when there is a chance to do so. Its becoming a new trend to do this as you say because its a CHAT forum, and its not a new trend, its the way its always been. There any many people looking at these forums, myself included, who read through all the forums in order to gain knowledge and opionions on certain speakers. I believe I my opinion is as important as yours. And for the record I believe this statement below that was in my above response does let anyone interested in the following amps in the future know, they didnt do the job on the gallo 3.1's. Sometimes people look through these to see what other amps are recommended for the Gallo's if the NAD is said by some not to work well. Thats what I tried to do.

from above reply.
"Ive used the following amps on them if interested Ayre v-5xe, 8bst bridged(400watts x 2 8ohm), 8bst bi amped, 4bst, 9bsst. Non did what I hoped for. "

-But if this is what you want to hear to make you so upset. *** Ive never used NAD producta before. and have absolutely no idea how they would work. But the following response to me was found to be the biggest waste of time or space because it told us absolutely nothing about NAD or Gallo, and we are all now dumber for having to read it.

06-17-08: Jamesgarvin
Sthomas, how is your reply post in any way responsive to Katee's original post? Katee has a pair of Gallo 3.1 speakers, wants to know if a NAD ampifier will sufficiently drive them, and your response is that you do not like Gallo 3.1 speakers. This seems to be something of a trend where some posters feel compelled to provide their opinion on a subject, whether relevant or not to the original query.

You do not like the 3.1? Fine. Now answer the query - Do you think the NAD will drive them?
So you think your answer that you do not like Gallo speakers in response to a poster who already has Gallo speakers, presumably has listened to them, and presumably likes them, and is simply asking whether a particular brand of amplification, that you have apparently never owned, is a good match, is helpful?

I believe the term I have seen used for such conduct is "hijacking a thread." Not a term that I invented. You are certainly entitled to your opinions, that is what the boards are for, but why not start a thread containing your opinions, and then allowing others to comment? Why inject your opinion about the sound quality of a speaker when the poster did not ask for your opinion of the sound quality of the speaker? Because you obviously believe that your opinion is more important than helping another poster in their present audio situation.
Jamesgarvin,
Let it go. I agree with you. Some people feel compelled to state their opinions, regardless of their relevancy to the original question. Better to take a pass. I am sure katee knows the difference.
A good piece ( I think we all know which piece ) of this discussion reminds of me when I walked into a audio dealer
looking for a certain amplifier and his temperament towards
his potential customers that were there that day
was a little, no, a lot out of context. His animosity towards people in there could have easily scared off a lion. Not good business, not good relations.
Well... after listening (and listening and listening...lol), I definitely am loving the sound of the NAD and I'm not sure I can do better for the money.

Yep, there were a couple of people who seemed a little out of sorts in their responses and I also know a hijack when I see when, but thanks very much to everyone who kicked in with good advice. I've been without a truly decent system for way too long and am getting VERY excited as I get closer to resurrecting one!
Katee, glad to see you are happy with your setup.
I don't think you can do better for the money. I didn't see the "for the money" aspect in your post. I only saw "can it drive them". It can. Other things can do better.

ET
I apologize if I hurt anyones feelings. Wasnt my intention.
No worries... at least not from me ;)
Electroid wrote:
"Amps that are ballsy double their RMS power from 8 to 4 ohms and then again at 2 ohms. The NAD doesn't come close. Note the specs on the NAD page talk about its "dynamic power" at 4 and 2 ohms and even that doesn't come close to doubling. Lets call a spade a spade. NAD is a very good mid fi piece. Nothing more."

Sorry about that, I forgot that there was a certified definition for the term "ballsy". If you could cite your source for this I would be most appreciative.

Secondly, where, EXACTLY, did I mention the strata of audio reproduction terms where NAD resides? How does one determine if a piece of equipment is "low-fi", "mid-fi", or "hi-fi"?

And, finally, why does the term "pedantic dick" spring to mind when I read your post? I anxiously await your reply...

-RW-
Does "ballsy" mean a lot of punch in a relatively small and perhaps less expensive box?

If so, I'd say many amps from NAD and Musical Fidelity and class D amps in general are ballsy. Many MF and class D amps actually do double in power like their much larger nemeses.