b&k or Bryston or McCormack?


Greetings. I am purchasing the new Martin Logan Ascent (replaces the SL3)loudspeakers.My quandry regards amplification. My budget is limited following the speaker purchase but I need amps. The B&K Reference 4420 is on closeout at my local retailer for $800 (225 watts @8 ohms x2). I was originally considering buying either the Bryston 4b-st, of the McCormack 225. However for less than the price of one of those amps, I can buy two B&Ks and bi-amp. My room is 27 ftx 18 ft, speakers are for music primarily, but will see some HT action. My musical tastes are varied but primarily alt/classic rock. I don't really have the luxury of an in-home audition, so I thought I would turn to the web for some wisdom. Thank you all in advance for your thoughts and consideration, I really appreciate your input.
mspencerod2cd0

Showing 3 responses by sean

Out of the three mentioned, the McCormack is probably the best sounding. However, it does appear that you have a pretty good sized room with speakers that are not especially efficient. While the sound quality that they are capable of is quite reasonable, the added headroom and dynamics that they would offer in your specific situation along with the price might outweigh the better sonics of the Mac. Since your primarily a "rocker", this further reinforces my thoughts on this. You can't have enough power when your jamming. Just be careful with your speakers. Adding an electronic crossover sometime down the road would further enhance both sonics and system efficiency. Check out Marchand for something like that when the time comes. Sean >
By separating the high frequencies from the low frequencies, you effectively double the power reserve of each amplifier and increase its stability. Since he would have a dedicated amp to deal with the "low current" sections ( panels ) at the reactive high frequency points WITHOUT having to deal with the high current demands of low frequency reproduction, he should be fine. In turn, the current demands needed for low frequency reproduction would not be affected by the tweeters reactance at very high frequencies, letting it concentrate on supplying power where it is needed most. As mentioned, an electronic crossover would further increase the efficiency of the system and allow fine tuning / tailoring to meet the tonal balance of ones' room. Kev's suggesting about contacting Martin Logan is a very valid one though and would surely be worth the time and money. Sean >
In a direct comparison using all of the same components and speakers, a Bryston 4B (original model, non ST model) had a harder time driving some very low efficiency / low impedance speakers than did my old Classe' 70 amp. Keep in mind that the the 4B was rated for 400 wpc @ 4 ohms while the Classe' was only rated at 150 wpc @ 4 ohms. Needless to say, i found this pretty perplexing given the excellent reputation of the "built like a tank" Bryston's. It's possible that the Classe's dynamic headroom of 3 db's helped it out quite a bit, but it still sounded measurably better than the 4B. The 4B had just came back from their U.S. service facility after a complete overhaul and very thorough inspection, so i know it was up to factory specs. I also found that a Yamaha M80 sounded much better than the Bryston 4B when used in the same system. The Yamaha is rated for the same appr. power, but was much cleaner sounding all the way around. Needless to say, i sold the Bryston within a very short period of time. Just my observations ( for what they're worth ). Sean >