Bryston VS Musical Fidelity

Thanks for the response. The warranty angle is something to consider. Also Musical Fidelity seems to change their
product line alot, while Bryston seems to make smaller
changes, as apposed to dumping an entire line and starting
a new one.

I guess the bottom line would be sound though. I currently
have all Rotel gear driving B&W CDM7SE speakers. I know
I need better amps.. but where to turn. I looking at the
two in question for one main reason, "dual mono" I'm using
two amps now, and it's great. I would like to just have one.

Here's my take on warranties.. Craftsmen hand tools offer a life time warranty. And they get a lot of warranty claims, all the time. They can afford to offer lifetime warranty because the tools are not real expensive to build. Mac, or Snap-On, don't offer lifetime warranties, but their tools are less likely to break. They don't need to offer lifetime warranties to sell their products.

At any rate, I don't believe the poster's question was about warranty, but about comparing sound quality of the two. I can't offer any advice, except this: I had a Bryston 3B for a while, and promptly traded it in. I currently have a Musical Fidelity A3, and think the build quality is excellent, and I'm very happy with the sound as well. The best option is to demo both in your room if the chance arises.

Thanks for the response. The warranty angle is something to consider. Also Musical Fidelity seems to change their
product line alot, while Bryston seems to make smaller
changes, as apposed to dumping an entire line and starting
a new one.

I guess the bottom line would be sound though. I currently
have all Rotel gear driving B&W CDM7SE speakers. I know
I need better amps.. but where to turn. I looking at the
two in question for one main reason, "dual mono" I'm using
two amps now, and it's great. I would like to just have one.

Geesh guys, I started out saying that "this is something no one can argue with" and you guys start (sorta) arguing.
My point - Bryston has a superb warranty, virtually unmatched in the industry. No argument right?
I don't believe your analogy is useful S7horton - Bryston's are extremely well made pieces of kit. If they weren't we'd all know about it. And - Mr. Greg Lett's question was regarding a comparison - the Bryston warranty wins hands down. No argument - right?
BTW, this also has some implications for the value of the amp later on - check what 10-15 year old Brystons sell for. If you don't like it, no biggee getting your money back.
I own a 4B ST. Is it the last word in refinement? - nope, but it's damn good at it's price point, and I could sell it to you in 15 years and it would still be under 5 years of warranty (yes, yes, assuming they're in business HBarrell - but they have a pretty good track record), whereas if I sold you a 10 minute old MF amp they have already said too bad. Even if it were a demo piece - who else does that?
I also do not like MF's strategy of changing the model line constantly, with (for instance), the new $999 DAC allegedly whipping the living wee out of the old $2500 DAC according to Stereophile.

The bottom line of my (requested) comparison - Bryston's warranty is orders of magnitude better (20 times to be exact, unless you're buying a demo where it's sorta infinitely better).

We can't really say too much regarding a performance comparison without knowing your speakers. I have Martin Logan SL-3's and the control the amp puts on the woofer, combined with it's rather neutral rendering of the treble works great with the 'stat - your mileage may vary!

Don't know how a MF would sound - I'd bet real good, maybe the Bryston has that elusive synergy with the ML's, maybe the ML would be better - don't know - can only provide my experience to date.

Listen to the two pieces and buy the one you like the best.As I said before - trust your ears!

I don't know if going from Rotel to Bryston or MF is going to give you the difference you're looking for.Maybe if the Rotel's are real small.
What's your source? Any room treatments yet? I spent $350-400 on room treatments and it would have taken at least 10 times that much in equipment to get anywhere near the difference the treatments made.
Also - careful on the "dual mono" stuff - it doesn't mean that much.