[Nomoretweaks]

A friend of mine, whose hobby is building it's own amplifiers looked at  4B SST circuitry and said that apart from an interesting solution for the output stage, it is a "very outdated 70-s way of thinking".  It would be very interesting to know Stuarts' comment.  Is this really the case and if yes, why Bryston is so conservative in it's approach? (I know there's an obvious answer - because it sound good,- to which I agree, but could anyone elaborate a bit further?)

[Nomoretweaks]

Well, by saying Stewart I actually ment James Tanner.

[BeeBop]

Why not do a comparative listening review of one of your friend's amps against a 4BSST? I'm sure we'd all love to see it.

[Nomoretweaks]

I might have not made it clear, but those comments are NOT about the sound quality as such, and you do not need any test for my friend to admit that Bryston is superior and may be served more like a reference point.  I am just curious why (IF what he says has actually any ground, I'm just not on a technical side) ) Bryston is so conservative - without any negative connotation attached. I am sure there is a perfectly valid way of thinking behind it.  And I think it would be interesting to know.  Or it would not?

[Watson]

Bryston is staffed by very good engineers who judge by scope, not by ear, because they believe measurements are more reliable.  That's just their philosophy.  Engineering principles for amplifiers have not changed significantly in thirty years.

You will never find Bryston following trends that do not also measure better.  So it's unlikely you'll ever see Bryston amps with zero feedback, boutique capacitors, etc.  

That said, it's quite possible that some amplifiers using trendy techniques or designed by ear sound better than amps designed to measure well on a scope.  However, if you're looking for that kind of thing, Bryston may not be for you.

[Allezvite]

Many tube circuit designs for both pre and powr amps are from the 1930's and are still being recycled in today's products.

Sounds like Bryston, according to your post, is 40 years ahead of them.

[Nomoretweaks]

My old trusty BP25/4BST serves me well so far and I am not going to change it.

 But ! I simply can not believe that  the industry has not produced any new ideas lately that also measure well and could be adopted ...

[Nomoretweaks]

Allezvite - I also have an old 60-s tube radio that I prefer to any DAB.  
 
And BTW I do not believe that Bryston engineers ignore their ears.  I'd rather say "good measurements AND good ears" is more appropriate  as a Bryston logo.  If you foolow the evolution of Bryston amps, it's quite obvious.

[BachToRock]

It's interesting how all of the "trendy" manufactures have a "new & improved" or MKII, III, etc.  model so frequently... and they still don't perform as well as the Brystons!

[James Tanner]

Hi All,

I will have Chris Russell answer this one - interesting topic.

james

[James Tanner]

Hi James;

Thanks for the opportunity to respond to questions regarding the 'why' of Bryston's amplifier circuitry.  I think the most obvious answer lies in the response we have from our customers, that Bryston amplifiers do in fact sound better than other amps.  The circuitry you see in Bryston's published diagrams has of course been refined and improved over the years until we are satisfied that existing technology can do no better.  Bryston's circuitry is proprietary, of course, and so far as we are aware nobody else uses the same approach, it having been 'invented here'.

   I hope the above is helpful, but please let me know if you have any other questions.  

Sincerely,
Chris Russell
Bryston Ltd.