NAD C372 & Gallo Ref 3.1

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-