Bryston vs McCormack, any thoughts???

Timo I agree with you, except maybe the DNA rev,A.

" To my ears they are both a bit dry and bright sounding. "

Really? I would have to agree with you on the McCormack. But the Bryston is not close to being bright ( IMHO ) Maybe there something else in the system was bright when you listed to the Bryston? Unless of course you are a tube guy like me, then everything else seems bright :)

Some here have commented that the Brystons are challanged by low impedances, I can't comment on that. I find the McCormacks on the forward side (IMO a really great match for Vandersteens). I really like the Bryston 3BST.

Having purchased this amp FOR low impedance speakers, I would like to offer my 2 cents.
I've tried many amps with my dynaudio contour 1.3's (4 ohm nominal, 88-89 Db sensitivity), the 4bsst sounds as if it were made for this very task. I also have a sunfire signature sub II and it became obsolete the minute I plugged in the 4bsst! These little speakers finally fulfilled their promise. All I can say is, I have the combo I always dreamed about, I couldn't ask for more.
I would put this combination up againt any system I've ever heard except for a audio research / magneplanar combination I heard in SE Michigan about 6 years ago (12k).
I'm running a marantz av550 preamp right now, but I'll sneak a line level preamp into the mix when I can afford it.
I listened to the DNA225 and the new ARC 150M, and others, just prior to my purchase and found them to be less satisfying.

This person does not have a high end system, so we should factor this in. Yes, both are not among the best. The choice will depend on preferred kind of music and other things,like warranty, for example.