b&k or Bryston or McCormack?

I have owned the DNA1, B&K, and the Bryston 4BST. In my system, the Bryston was the most controlled in the bass and the most transparent in the midrange. The DNA1 was close. The B&K was warmer however. A very fine color, but pleasant. Almost tubey. You should use a tube preamp to get a little warmth also. The amp I would use with that speaker is the Aragon 4004 or the 8008 I think they call it now. The 4004 has worked well with ML speakers and can drive that wicked load. If you can find an ARC D300, that is a good amp with that speaker also. Even better than the Aragon, but more money. Try before you buy.

have had theBryston 4b for years,is real good for power-hungary speakers as those,yet is also open and clear,cant speak for those other amps,can only say you will be satisfied splendidly for the money,bob

In a direct comparison using all of the same components and speakers, a Bryston 4B (original model, non ST model) had a harder time driving some very low efficiency / low impedance speakers than did my old Classe' 70 amp. Keep in mind that the the 4B was rated for 400 wpc @ 4 ohms while the Classe' was only rated at 150 wpc @ 4 ohms. Needless to say, i found this pretty perplexing given the excellent reputation of the "built like a tank" Bryston's. It's possible that the Classe's dynamic headroom of 3 db's helped it out quite a bit, but it still sounded measurably better than the 4B. The 4B had just came back from their U.S. service facility after a complete overhaul and very thorough inspection, so i know it was up to factory specs. I also found that a Yamaha M80 sounded much better than the Bryston 4B when used in the same system. The Yamaha is rated for the same appr. power, but was much cleaner sounding all the way around. Needless to say, i sold the Bryston within a very short period of time. Just my observations ( for what they're worth ). Sean >