Bryston 3B ST or McCormack DNA 1

I'm reporting back on the Belles. Tried both the 150A & 350A. Both were so laid back & rolled off I almost thought that my tweeters were blown out. Not to say that it wouldn't be good for others; Stereophile loved the 150A Hot Rod.

Thanks all. Just wanted to let you all know that I did purchase a 3 channel Belles 150A.

I have a Belles on the way to my house right now. Will report back, although can't vouch for performance w/B&W's which are flatter/smoother than my spk's. Should be interesting

Try a Belles 150A. It is between the 3BST and DNA1. A little brighter and more accurate than the DNA1,but warmer, smoother than the 3B ST.

Bigdave you hit the nail on the head regarding DNA-1 with brighter speakers. It's a really nice matchup with my good ole' Klipsch, which are pretty revealing & can sound on the bright side. Careful system tuning is a must with these horns, & the "smooth/politeness" of a mosfet amp works very nicely. If the Bryston is bipolar output topology (I dunno 'bout that) it likely wouldn't work so well into a brightish speaker.

I've owned both and I would have to give the nod to the Bryston 3B-ST. The 805's are a highly detailed speaker that like a highly transparent signal. I agree with the other postings in that the DNA1 may gloss things over a bit, resulting in a smooth polite sound. The DNA1 may be better for a speaker that has the propensity to sound bright. I've tried the Pass Aleph 3 as well with my Nautilus 805's and they sounded gorgeous except for that last ounce of bass detail and refinement.

I recommend you get the Marsh A400S which beats both by a wide margin, and is in a different class altogether, for almost the same money.

I haven't tried a DNA-1 on my N805s, but the DNA.5 sounds fast, sweet, and open, with a moderately large soundstage. I use the Goertz MI-2 speaker cables(biwired) between them. When I tried a Bryston 3B-ST on my Apogee Stages, the Bryston sounded very smooth but too polite. The DNA.5 was faster, more immediate, but slightly dry; neither matched ideally but I preferred the McCormack. Happy listening!

I've heard the 3B-ST many times in a friend's system and owned a DNA-1 before. The 3B-ST's midrange and highs will sound a bit more open, bass will be tighter and well-defined. DNA-1 will have the smoother highs and more liquid, dimensional midrange. 3B-ST's bass will be on the full side, not unlike that of a tube amp. The DNA-1 is slightly more musical. If you think your B&W is on the aggressive side and want to tame it a bit, take the DNA-1. If you want your B&W to sound 'alive' and kick butt, the 3B-ST might do the job. I'd say they're even with regard to throwing a soundstage of generous proportions. System matching is the key, as always. Good luck.

Avitar, I've audition both 3B and DNA-1 on my Apogee Slant-6 about 2 years ago. It's close one: 3B seem to better DNA on bass control and little deeper on sound stage but DNA averall silky, detailed, smoothness, mid-midhigh, bass is OK-good. can't blame them both (love 'em) it depend on what you like and your choice of speaker, for B&W N805's I'll audition both but DNA is 1st drive. Happy thanksgivin, Rute.

....haven't heard the Bryston, but the DNA-1 is excellent. Actually, the DNA-1 is more powerful than the Bryston 3B-ST, especially into lower impedences. Good Luck. Craig.