Gallo Acoustics

I had a pair of 3.1 and do not remember them having any lack of bass at lower volume, quite the opposite in fact in my system.

I never hooked up the woofer to additional amp as already had too much bass for my room so saw no point in that all.

I sold them as in my room and system I just could not tame the excessive bass output

For everything Gallo, please see this link for the "Gallo Owners' Thread" here in the "AVS Forum":

https://www.avsforum.com/forum/89-speakers/805768-official-anthony-gallo-owners-thread-117.html

All your questions should be answered if you have the time to research through the many pages and owner contributions including mine.

I had the 3.1's. I bought the cl-4's when they closed them out and I ran them beside the 3.1's for a month. Kept the cl-4's. 
Better bass, never liked sound of side firing subs on 3.1's. They didn't integrate with my room well.
CL-4's are much more efficient,seem to have better dynamics than 3.1's. I am driving them with 200w/ch.
Have a cl-10 sub, which I rarely use now. 
Bass on cl-4's is full range. Only use the sub for movies.
I listen mostly to acoustic jazz.
Replaced Adiva-ti's with cl-2's for surround speakers. Much better surround field now.
Really like the gallo "sound". Neutral, dynamic, very clean sound. NEVER hear compression when driven loudly. Piano sounds so clean now.
They'll bury me with this setup.

MindlessMinion,

Thanks for the feedback & info.  I figured that the 3.5's were an improvement over the 3.1's.  But, as I have been keeping eyeballs on the Gallo Reference floor-stander series, for quite some time & I have never encountered any models other than the original 3 & the 3.1's on the used market.  Plus, the ones I purchased are, according to the photos, in excellent condition & the price was right.

Tangent upon how this experiment works out, I may eventually move up to one of Gallo's current Reference series, which seems to focus on sub/satt combos.


OMD

bg1968,

Thanks for the heads up on my mistake about the BiWiring.  I downloaded the owner's manual & you are quite correct.  I already have a Gallo CLS-12 subwoofer [allegedly flat from 200Hz to 16Hz] & designed to integrate with Gallo's speakers.  So, it is doubtful that I will put too much effort into acquiring the Gallo Reference3 SA...but ya never know!


OMD

As far as Biwiring Caution!

The Nucleus Reference3’s speaker binding posts accept bare wire ends, banana jacks or "U"
shaped spade connectors. The dual sets of connectors might easily be mistaken for "bi-wire"
binding posts, but they are not. The top two connectors are labeled "Speaker In," and offer a "full
range" connection to the Nucleus Reference3’s woofer, midranges, and tweeter.
The lower binding posts, labeled "Sub In," connect to the Nucleus Reference3 woofer’s secondary
voice coil – they’re designed to work with the optional Anthony Gallo Acoustics’ Reference3 SA
Power Amplifier. The SA amp works independently from your main amp and dramatically
enhances the Nucleus Reference3’s deep bass performance -- down to the range we associate
with full-size subwoofers. The SA amp will allow the Nucleus Reference3’s to reach 22 Hertz. For
more information about the remarkable Reference3 SA Power Amplifier, see your Anthony Gallo
Acoustics dealer.

I had Gallo 3.1s and finally sold them.  I didn't have the bass amp, so cannot comment on that feature.  I did however experiment with the 15 Ohm resistors tweek found here http://www.10audio.com/gallo_ref3-1.htm.

I didn't like the 3.1s because to sound their best the volume had to be quite high; at lower volumes there was no bass and the speakers sounded flat. I drove these with a butler 2250 that carried the current these speakers supposedly liked.  

I have heard the 3.5s are a much better choice.  The base is better and the top is the Strada 2, an improvement over the 3.1.  I have-not heard the 3.5s, but have heard the Strada 2 with sub - which is basically a dismantled 3.5.  I thought it was quite good and per Gallo the 3.5 was better integrated.