Which would you pick between these 2 and why?

I'm looking for opinions between these 2 products and why you'd choose it. I've owned quite a few amps including some Bryston.
I realize all the other associated components contribute in a big way, but all things being equal...

My current choice would be:

a) Bryston 3B ST


b) McCormack DNA-125

Looking for some opinions

I prefer lots of detail but at the same time not the grain

Thanks for your input
Well, IMO, the Bryston has more detail, but the McCormack has less grain. Always a trade-off...

I'm sure you're aware the McCormack can be upgraded by Steve.
There's a review of the Bryston BP-6 preamp in Soundstage this month that contains a sidebar review of the Bryston 2B-SST compared to a McCormack DNA-0.5 Rev. A. Not apples to apples exactly with the two you're looking at, but might give you an idea of the general flavor differences of the brands and which might suit you best.
I prefer the less-electronic sound of the McCormick gear-just my two cents.
As you've already noted, but, perhaps have underappreciated "other associated components contribute in a big way". With that said, as far a preference for "lots of detail but at the same time not the grain" I think the McCormack might edge out the Bryston. I would still choose the Bryston over the McCormack with certain speakers, and visa/versa.
The McCormack has finesse I feel that the Bryston lacks. I always felt my DNA-1 delivered music that flowed. Easy to listen to & smooth. My experience with Bryston - a good amp- left with a feeling of a slightly harder edge and a bit more in your face.

As stated previously associate gear makes a world difference and the other components in the systems I listen to were different.

With most speakers, I'd opt for the McCormack DNA-125 -- I owned one a long while and it's one of those components that I wonder why I was ever crazy enough to sell. Works very well with a nice tube preamp.
I bought the DNA-125 in the end. It's driven by a Spectral preamp and it sounds much better than the Bryston, of which I have owned several models.
While the Bryston is very detailed, to me it lacks character. It's very honest but no soul to it, no warmth at all and in a lot of cases a little thin.
This is the first McCormack power amp I have owned and I am quite impressed with it.
Thanks for all your opinions!
Good choice.
Given the very short list..McCormack,its more musical
DNA 0.5. This amp is much more transparent than the 125, not that it is a bad amp, but with my setup the soundstage is much deeper and the detail is phenomenal.
The 125 has more mid range warmth and bass slam though.
I think the 125 would probably be a better choice with speakers that are on the brighter side. I tried it on some that were kind of bright and it sounded excellent with good weight and natural vocals and cymbal shimmer.
Both excellent amps for the money in my opinion
I blew it on my last reply. It should have said I bought a second McCormack, a ...read above