NAD C372 & Gallo Ref 3.1

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