Bryston vs McCormack, any thoughts???

" To my ears they are both a bit dry and bright sounding. "

Really? I would have to agree with you on the McCormack. But the Bryston is not close to being bright ( IMHO ) Maybe there something else in the system was bright when you listed to the Bryston? Unless of course you are a tube guy like me, then everything else seems bright :)

Some here have commented that the Brystons are challanged by low impedances, I can't comment on that. I find the McCormacks on the forward side (IMO a really great match for Vandersteens). I really like the Bryston 3BST.

Having purchased this amp FOR low impedance speakers, I would like to offer my 2 cents.
I've tried many amps with my dynaudio contour 1.3's (4 ohm nominal, 88-89 Db sensitivity), the 4bsst sounds as if it were made for this very task. I also have a sunfire signature sub II and it became obsolete the minute I plugged in the 4bsst! These little speakers finally fulfilled their promise. All I can say is, I have the combo I always dreamed about, I couldn't ask for more.
I would put this combination up againt any system I've ever heard except for a audio research / magneplanar combination I heard in SE Michigan about 6 years ago (12k).
I'm running a marantz av550 preamp right now, but I'll sneak a line level preamp into the mix when I can afford it.
I listened to the DNA225 and the new ARC 150M, and others, just prior to my purchase and found them to be less satisfying.

This person does not have a high end system, so we should factor this in. Yes, both are not among the best. The choice will depend on preferred kind of music and other things,like warranty, for example.

Bryston is way expensive, but superior to the Mac. But not for that reason.

Look for specs that show VERY low distortion: <0.05% over a say 5hz-50khz frequency range. Qualifying amps include: Hafler DH-200, 220; Rotel; ATI; Muse 160; BEL 1001; Bryston; Jeff Rowlands Design Group.

Note these amps vary in price from $200 to $8,000. Yet I defy anyone do discern any differnce sonically between them. Build quality, yes. But the specs are very close compared to their rivals at all too often also very high prices. Many do not show significant specs in their literature. And well they should not :-)

The BEST sounding amp is one you cannot hear. Like speakers. What you WANT to hear is whatever made it onto the source material. The good, the bad, and all too often the very ugly.

But, if you can hear it, and do not deliberatly mask it with inferior components of one characteristic of distortion, or another, you can be more selective in the CD's you buy. If you mask the bad ones, you will also never hear the good ones.

'It not the specs, its how it sounds' is the rhetoric of reviewers to sell high priced inferior products with lousey specs. If a component has superior specs, even they make note of it, don't they :-)