They're all good or better than good amps. The Bryston has the advantage of state of the art design coupled with a 20 year warranty. McCormick also has a fine reputation. However, you mentioned the importance of cost. So, B&K should not be rejected simply because it is less expensive. I don't think that you'll be disappointed with any of them. Modern solid state equipment from quality manufacturers is reliable and durable. Relying on a subjective opinion or even a consensus subjective opinion may be reassuring but may be of no meaningful value to you. You should at least have the option of a satisfaction or return guarantee. I would have more concern over a seller who won't offer that option than whether or not you might prefer the VERY subtle differences of one amp over the others.
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.