A very clean and resolving amplifier
Written: Mar 18 '08
|
Product Rating:
|
|
| Sound: |
 |
|
| Ease of Use: |
|
|
| Durability: |
|
|
|
Pros: - Well built
- Detailed and good imaging
- High power
- Good warranty
Cons: - Could be too analytical for certain recordings
- Not very good looking
- Expensive
The Bottom Line: If you are looking for an accurate sounding amplifier, the Bryston 4B SST should be on your audition list.
|
|
|
| seowfun's Full Review: Bryston 4B SST 2-Channel Amplifier |
Before I purchased the Bryston 4B SST, my dealer let me bring it home to compare with my Rotel 1080 amplifier. The amplifiers are used to drive my Aurum Cantus V3M ribbon bookshelf speakers. If you are into audio stuffs, you would realize that opinions are usually very subjective, due to the number of variables involved (e.g. other equipments in the chain, room acoustics, musical tastes, expectations etc.) Thus, it generally makes more sense to compare the equipment under review with another piece of equipment, so that readers can get an idea of the relative performance of the equipment. In this review, I will give some basic descriptions about the 4B SST amplifier, followed by a comparison with the Rotel 1080.
The Bryston 4B SST has a very rugged look. When handling it, one will realize that it is indeed very well-built. It weighted about 50 lbs. The amplifier utilizes dual-mono block design, with separate transformers for each channel. Like all Bryston amps, my unit was tested by the manufacturers before it was shipped out. Both channels were tested to output about 340 Watts/8Ohm before clipping. This is a bit more than the 300 Watts rating on the specification. The amp is backed by the 20 years warranty by Bryston.
Everything looks good so far, but how does it sound? How does it compare to the Rotel? Below are some of my impressions:
- When listening to the "Paganini For Two" track (violin & guitar) on the Burmester Sampler CD 3, I immediately noticed the faster attack on the guitar, and the sharper sound on the violin. The sound from the Rotel is clearly more laid back.
- When listening to a Chinese orchestral piece with lot's of percussions, the Bryston sound lively with lot's of energy. Instrument separations are also very distinguishable (i.e. better imaging). By comparison, the Rotel sound sluggish and slow, with less precise imaging.
- When listening to the last movement on Beethoven Pastoral (6th) Symphony on DVD-A, the sound of the string is leaner than the Rotel. The sound from the Rotel is warmer and sweeter, which is actually preferable in this case.
- When listen to a Chinese female vocal piece with piano accompaniment, the female vocal sounded very detailed with the Bryston. The sound from the piano was sparkling, life-like, and transparent. It was the one of the best reproduction of piano sound that I have heard. By comparison, the Rotel sound muddier.
- In a few bass heavy music that I listened to, the Bryston seems to be lighter and faster on bass than the Rotel. This is probably due to the different voicing of the amplifiers.
In general, the difference between the Bryston and Rotel is quite noticeable. One is more detailed, while the other is more laid back. However, deciding on which one to keep is a lot harder, since some recordings sounded better on one, but others sounded better on the other. At the end, I decided to buy the Bryston, because I felt that it is a more accurate sounding amplifier. The Bryston also had better power handling capacities, which should help if I experimented with more demanding speakers (e.g. Maggies) in the future.
I hope this review provides readers some idea regarding the characteristics of the Bryston amp (and the Rotel as well).
Recommended:
Yes
Amount Paid (US$): 2500
|
|
|
|
Epinions.com ID:
seowfun
|
|
Reviews written: 31
Trusted by: 4 members
|
|
|
- Add to My Yahoo!: 
- Add to Google Homepage: 
© 1999-2009 Shopping.com, Inc.