[john1970]

To all AC'ers,

This afternoon I A/B compared my NAD C372 to a Bryston 6B SST (three channel version of the 4B SST).  Other equipment was: VMPS RM/X (with TRT capacitors and silver wire upgrades) and a ModWright modified Denon DVD player.

By switching out amps (and using my NAD's preamp section) I noticed the following improvements: 

1) Incoporation of the Bryston gave a significantly cleaner and more detailed midrange.  This was readily apparant on any well recorded CD. 

2) For bass less than 40 Hz the Bryston had superior control and depth.

3) At loud volumes (>90 dB) in a large room the NAD was running out of steam, but the Bryston was barely breaking a sweat.

Regardless, the NAD is an excellent "budget" integrated amp for $900 (MSRP).  However, it just can not compete with the large and more expensive Bryston when driving a full-range set of tower speakers. 

Just my observations,

John

[Levi]

I agree with your observations.  Also add 20 Years transferrable warranty and Bryston support in this Forum.

[davidtgoh]

Does the 6B SST playing in stereo sound exactly like a 4B SST?  Is the 4B SST comprise of two amp modules and the 6B SST comprised of the same amp module x 3?  Or are they different in design and/or sound.

I had an interesting experience.  One channel of my 9B ST failed and is currently at Bryston being repaired.  I hooked up my 4B NRB, which the 9B ST replaced two summers ago.  Suddenly, the bass coming from my B&W 801 II's was deep and dynamic in a way I had not heard since putting the 9B ST in place.  I'm going to have to go with a 4B SST or a 6B SST.  I prefer the 6B because I am running 5.1.

Thanks very much...

[Jason Nugent]

The 4B and 6B are functionally the same - the only difference is that the 6B chassis contains one extra channel of amplification.  They should sound identical.