Sound firstly,be sure to have adequate digital sources,cables and speakers.No really, im not joking, to appreciate the gorgeous level of details,the avalanche dinamics and the pretty quick transients,and moreover the overall finesse of the sound, go for nothing less than B&W 705-805 or Souns Faber Cremona Auditor. Really, it's not the average amplifier to attach to your second hand 100$ speakers.
Then comes versatility.I own one,and still when friends asks me "what can you connect it to" I have to pick up the manual,because I always forget some of combinations made possible.Bi-wiring,bi-amping,bridged mode,monitor and record in a studio(simultaneously),A-B speaker comparison,headphones..
Then comes power.The 150Wpc@8 Ohm is the minimum continuos power with both channels on,and I've tested the C372 on low-impedance(less than 4 Ohm) and low-sensitivity(85 and even 84 dB) speakers.It just played them, like they were normal 8 Ohm 89dB...it's truly truly powerful.
Oh,and then there's a nice motor controlled volume knob.

Just two caveat:
1)Like every powerful class A or AB amplifiers,it NEEDS proper ventilation. Simply every amplifier driving a certain level of power cannot tolerate a lack of ventilation. Just leave enough space around it(look at the manual).
2)Look.Like all classic NAD products it's all business inside,so the external chassis is kinda industrial-studio-minimal.Anyway consider that first your friends will think "oh.why is this thing uglier than average amplifiers,where are the candies gone?", and then "ah.it's a serious thing.that's why it looked so serious."

Simply the best amplifier for the money under 3000 bucks.Have you ever heard of Jeremy Clarkson talking about a car,making a little pause and then yelling "It's brilliant!"?This is the equivalent in integrated amplifiers.
Have at max 3000$ and want to buy an amplifier?Go for a used McIntosh or straight to a NAD C372, don't look anywhere else, you would just waste your time.

It has excellent reproduction and sounds quite nice at flat tone settings. It has more than enough power for any normal home use. I like the 'simple' look of NAD equipment so this is a 'strength' to me.

I don't like the volume part of the remote either.

I've owned NAD equipment for over 25 years and have always had great performance from it. Where my 3140 is still working as it did new, I thought it would be nice to buy something new. I bought the C372 along with the other matching components and I'm quite happy with it. As with most NAD equipment, if you want something that's better... be ready to fork over a lot more money.

Customer Service

Sound Hounds has the best customer service... period.

Similar Products Used:

3020, 3140 and a couple of Yamaha amps.

See above

See above

I am a recovering audiophile, who used to play with the expensive toys. I have used several amps costing well over 3K (Melos, Transparent, AR) - mostly tubes. I had similar gear for the remainder of my constantly changing system. As my system was (and again is) CD based, and as I got completely frustrated with the CD wars for next-generation CD's (the biggest limitation on my old system was clearly 16/44 playback), I gave up. Last year, I decided to construct a modest system, and not shoot for the audio "holy grail" that I, for one, do not believe exists for the CD-based system(although computer-based transports such as the Nova Memory Player may, in the near future, change all that as their prices come down).

I had read good things about the NAD, and had read similarly good things about the Onix SP3 tube integrated. I bought them both, for about the same price. I tried them both extensively in my modest system (Ah Tjoeb CD player with JJ tubes, Linn Tukans and two Cambridge Soundworks 10" subs). My only extravagance was a PS Audio power station; I believe firmly that if you're going to do CD, you need to give the player good juice.

Now I know that any comment by any one here is based upon their own ancillaries and room, as well as their tastes. I am no exception. Heck, I could make the 372 sound substantially different just by driving the Tukans single wired with jumpers as opposed to bi-wired. But at least I had a single system to try both amps with - it was the best I could do!

As I am tube biased (sorry, that was lame), I was expecting the typical tube advantages from the Onix - bigger soundstage, more bloom, an inner warmth, better tonal color. From the NAD I expected neutrality and slam (although I didn't need the bass, as the Tukans only go to about 60hz before dropping like a stone; the rest was made up by the subs. Still, sand is known for bass control, and that control is useful even for the short run from 120hz down to the 60hz the Tukans could push).

Interestingly, that is not what I got. I found the NAD, although neutral in the best sense of the word, fleshed out tonal colors better than the Onix (even with NOS tubes I rolled). It had a slightly better "palp factor,' although neither amp reached the "eerie" stage of in-room presence found in more expensive gear. The low level detail was clearly better in the NAD (a function, I believe, of its absolutely dead silence). And most unexpectedly for me, there was an ease of presentation about the NAD that is much more typically asssociated with tube gear - and better than the Onix by far in this respect. Whether that is due to the lower noise floor allowing for note decay, or the "rail" system NAD uses (see the Stereophile review of this amp), I can't say. But it gets the ebb and flow right. Many expensive amps don't. The Onix didn't quite do it for me in this department, although I'm sure in other systems the results could be different - the Onix is a fine piece of equipment.

In hooking up the subs, I was again surprised. The Onix, wired using speaker level leads, was clearly superior to the NAD pre-out or the NAD speaker level leads. Bass actually "purred" from an electric bass - couldn't get the NAD to replicate that act. ( I know there are different camps on how subs should be hooked up - but I suggest you trust your ears). But as this was the only area in which the Onix beat the NAD in my system, and as I could get tolerable bass from the subs using a decent low-level wire from Signal Cable, I sold the Onix and kept the NAD.

I did chuck the pre out/amp in jumper and got a short run of interconnect cable from Signal Cable to replace it. This mod is well worth the $40 paid. AudioQuest makes a similar jumper, as does Cardas (for $80). I just use Signal Cable because I've found it to be a great cable for the money - but you can use whatever wire you like. The point is that the mod is worth it, in my view. If you had separates, you'd be spending a lot more than this to get the preamp signal to the amplifier - with the NAD package as a whole, you are still getting out of this on the cheap.

Jim Austin in his October 2006 Stereophile review noted a couple of things I would like to corroborate. First, he noted that this amp gave as much low level detail as any amp he's ever used. That is almost true for me as well - and think about that - where else are you going to get that kind of detail for this kind of money? Second, he noted that the amp gave great spacial information, but there was still a lack of "air" around instruments. I believe that is correct - you don't get "air" until you toss in at least another 2k. But what is nice about the NAD is that the space that people play in is the same space. It is hard to describe, but what I mean by that is that this is more of a "your are there" amp than "they are here" amp. Yes, there is good punch, the treble is controlled and refined, the bass is tight and clean, but many amps have those virtues, including the Onix. What sets this box apart from the rest (for me) is a completeness of presentation that is just plain delightful. The instruments don't have any sporadic "non-musical" sounds. The mids are lush (indeed, I wonder if this amp was tweaked a bit on the lush side). There are virtually none of the typical solid-state woes present - the mid to upper treble is free of digital junk and hash; there is no glare to speak of. Without sounding euphonic, the whole thing sounds "of a piece," and music is more listenable for it. Very listenable, indeed.

In my system, the NAD can't quite get it right in the bass department - it's still just a tad woolly, although otherwise well defined and musical. And there is still some "glue" around the instruments, and massed strings (although tonally beautiful) are a bit undifferentiated and congested. And some (but not all) vocals can be a bit dry compared to better gear. But none of these shortcomings is enough to "pull you out" of the music. And for this kind of money, I can't believe these problems aren't bigger than they are.

The biggest complement I can pay to this box is this: with 20K worth of gear sitting in front of me for 7 years, I think I played an entire CD through about 6 times. I now play at least one CD through every night. I am not listening to perfection, but I am listening to music. As Jim Austin says, until the stars align perfectly, this one will do. And it will do just fine, thank you.

Similar Products Used:

Melos Audio, Transparent Audio, Audio Research, Parasound, many others

Lotsa' power, simple operation and great sound.

Yeah, the volume is 'touchy' using the remote but you get used to it pretty quick.

I owned a 3020 for a couple years, then a 3140 (that I still have) since the early 80's now the C372. Since my 3140 has given me over 20 years of trouble free service, when it came time to put some new tunes in the house, I went for the NAD (The 3140 now serves the workshop/beer fridge room). I compared a few different brands and couldn't help but lean toward the NAD again. It sounds great and I've always liked the 'bare bones' approach of the designs. It's not the best amp on the market but for the money... well... I bought one. I bought the matching tuner and cd player too. My speakers are a bit sad (old Polk 10A's) but I'm shopping for new ones now.

Power..

Extreme highs..
Just about ok Bass.

I got the NAD as I have been hearing about it all over the place. I needed good power this time to drive my 225W floorstanders. It's been more than a month since I've plugged the thing in and I am not impressed one bit. The bass is just about ok, and the worst part are the highs.. They are so shrill I had to cover up my tweeters with an extra layer of filter. I am only hoping now that the supposed burn in period elapses and this machine begins showing me some character. Otherwise guys this amp does more to highlight shortcomings in recordings than hide them, and that sucks. My previous amp, a kenwood KA 4010 sounds much much better and balanced. And the thing about testing before you buy is hardly practical. It doesn't work till you test in on the speakers that you have. So one just relies on reviews. I fell for them. And my advice to everyone is purchase this only if you like shrill sounds...

Writing a quick review to warn people that my c372 literally exploded on me and almost caught fire before I unplugged it from the wall. I took it to a local shop and they said that they are seeing this happen with the 372. Apparently, they are using capacitors that cannot handle the power that this amp puts out.

If you have one I'd suggest that you take it to a shop somewhere and see if they concur. The breakdown was pretty violent, like a firecracker, and blue smoke poured out of the top. Be careful if you have one of these in your house.

power across the board is really impressive. at my preferred listening levels (which can get loud enough to make my kids complain) the quality is definitely comparable to the m3 and when taking into account the price difference, well there is a strong point. highs, midrange, bass are all portrayed accurately. i don't use the tone controls that are available, choosing to defeat them. styling is nice, i've heard complaints about the plastic knobs and so forth, but i'm more interested in the juice. comes with a remote that controls the nad cd players.

i've come across one point that i do agree w/other reviewers. the remote volume control is difficult to get small increments. it tends to want to jump a bit in both directions, it requires a bit of button finesse to get a small change in volume. this alone is not enough to detract from the value and performance of this amp.

thought i'd take a chance. i really would have preferred the nad m3, but economics came into play. powering a pair of vandy 3a sigs, i risked being possibly undergunned by going on the rave reviews that i'd come across for this amp. i'm extremely happy to report that this amp has performed awesomely and will only get better as it gets more hours under it's belt.
the imaging and soundstage that so inspired me to buy the vandys is readily evident with the nad in the driver's seat. high's crisp and clean, exceptional midrange and nice tight bass. listening to music across the genres is genuinely enjoyable, even if i don't particularly like the song. just listening to the instrumentation is awesome. one can get lost in the imaging when listening to "jazz at the pawnshop" on my set up. some may attribute this to the vandy's prowess and that would be a fair statement, but the signal has to be pushed by an amp with some guts and clarity. the nad c372 has more than enough to supply my ears with satisfaction at my preferred volume levels.

Similar Products Used:

yamaha natural sound, sony

Power and drive.

Muddled bass and recessed highs. Where's the resolution ?
Tone controls are useless.

Yes, I found the C372 to be powerful , full of drive and a big low end ....... but it soon became apparent that something was missing. Where were the wonderful, detailed highs? ...... I heard dullness like I've not heard since an old sony AV receiver I had in the 90's. The bass, though powerfull , was rather muddled . All this after 150 hours of break in.

To confirm what I was hearing thru the speakers, I hooked up my Senn HD-595's , and the sound was the same .... dull... it just lacked resolution. The headphone output of CD player has nice detailed highs. Plugging the heaphones into the amp and the CD player during a CD track was an excercise in disappointment. The 372 just was simply dull...... and beyond belief. The headphone output also had some buzz in it.

I really wanted to like this amp. I was eager to try it , and thought it would be a top performer , but it was far from it. I realize we all hear different , so I guess the NAD sound is for someone else.

Customer Service

Average.

Similar Products Used:

Harman HK-3480, Marantz PM7001, Yamaha RX-777, Denon DRA-395

Very clean and realistic sound.

Wish I could control the A/B speaker volume separately but I have only found one amp over the years that could do that. The volume control knob is Ok but not silky smooth. Just set the volume and forget it or use the remote.

I am so happy that my Onkyo A-8700 started acting up. Out with the old (real old) and in with the new and wow! The NAD may not drive as hard and loud as the Onkyo but the NAD c372 is crisp, clean and clear. I feel blessed to listen to everything I have all over again on this amp. Piano sounds like it is in the room. It makes my infinity compositions sound better than they have ever sounded. Horns are outrageous. Vocal blow you away. I was reluctant at first to order this amp and even tried to get it on Ebay cheaper in case I would end up disappointed but I was outbid everytime. There was a good reason I was outbid, they knew it was worth it. I could not be happier.

Customer Service

Hope I don't have to find out

Similar Products Used:

JVC and Onkyo

NAD AMP sounds open and detailed, with sparkling treble, solid mid-range and a tight and full bottom. It has plenty of clean power, and throws a wide and deeply believable sound stage. If you buy this amp, I highly recommend you couple it with the matching NAD C-542 CD Player.

Remote could be a little better, and the binding posts on the back should be of a greater quality. However, these are very minor points and should not sway anyone from checking them out.

For the past several years I have grown dissatisfied with the sound of music thru my Pioneer Elite Reciever, and surround sound speakers,{Paradigmn Reference 100 V3 package}. Surround recievers are primarily designed to make movies sound their best, and in that regard they do a great job. But music just doesn"t get it. After doing a little research on this web site and others, I decided to assemble a 2 channel system from scratch. I bought the NAD C-372 Integrated Amp and a matching NAD C-542 CD Player. After reading another recent review on this site, I matched this NAD combo up with a new pair of BOSE 901 Series VI speaker system. WOW! This is a great stereo music system. I have a very large CD collection, and I have tested the rig out with every kind of music possible, from jazz, rock, classical and beyond. Everything sounds new and fresh again. I tried my Paradigmn's in 2 channel mode, and although they sounded good, they were no match for the open and revealing sound I'm enjoying from my BOSE 901's. The NAD Classic Series components are the only way to go. I'm back to loving my music like I used to before watering down my system with home theatre equipment. Also, the NAD C-542 Player sounds bette r than my $700.00 Pioneer Elite DVD Player on music.

Customer Service

Excellent.

Similar Products Used:

Pioneer Elite, Krell KAV-IL,Sony DVD and SACD players.