I would probably chose mcintosh over bryston, but it also depended on price.

Having owned any number of units from both, I'll stick with Bryston. Am a fan of their physical design, as well. Not as much bling as McIntosh, but I'm good. Both make great gear. But I prefer the sound of Bryston by a bit. Go with what 'lights your fire'. Can't imagine being unhappy with an MC462.

I'm really debating going for the 462 to replace my 14bsst2. Decisions, decisions...

Transplanted Canadians?

me too, that's why I utilize PASS

While the 462 is most definitely eye candy and I’m sure sounds spectacular. We as audiophiles are in this hobby for getting the best sound we can within our budget.

I just recently went from the McIntosh MC452 to the PS Audio BHK Signature 300 monoblocks. I do miss the look of the 452 but as soon as I power up the BHK 300 I forget all about the 452.

McIntosh MC1.25KW:

1,200 watts into 2, 4 and 8 ohms
THD: 0.005%
S/N: 124 dB/120 dB (balanced/unbalanced)
Dynamic headroom: 2.2 dB.
Meters

Weight: 158 lbs

Retail Price: $25,000 (pair)


Bryston 28B-3:

1,000 watts into 8 ohms; 1,800 into 4 ohms (no other impedance is provided)
THD: 0.005%
S/N: 117 dB/116 dB (balanced/unbalanced)
Dynamic headroom: Not provided.
No meters.

Weight: 93 lbs

Retail Price: $24,000 (pair)


All things considered, I think the McIntosh is the better unit and likely to outlive the Bryston as well as having much better resale value.

As far as I'm concerned, there is no contest for the small difference in price.

"While the 462 is most definitely eye candy and I’m sure sounds spectacular. We as audiophiles are in this hobby for getting the best sound we can within our budget.

I just recently went from the McIntosh MC452 to the PS Audio BHK Signature 300 monoblocks. I do miss the look of the 452 but as soon as I power up the BHK 300 I forget all about the 452."

Paul, aren't you comparing apples and oranges? You went from an older Mac stereo amp to the top line PS mono amps. What would you expect? If you had chosen the 611 the story would be different.

McIntosh is the bar by which all other manufacturers are measured, both solid state and tube. Mac is still going strong when challengers like Krell, Classe, Adcom, ML, Roland, I could mention more, have receded. Thankfully, Ayre seems to have managed to have survived Charlie Hansen's passing. AR is another but their sound has changed. Wilson is another survivor. In twenty years Dag will not be the Dag of today. Ditto for Bryston and PS Audio. Designers who found companies are not immortal. No manufacturer has had the consistency of McIntosh and this is once again proven with the 462 review. Mac needs competitors to push them. If there is one criticism I have it's their tendency to complacency over the years. However, I don't see this in the current Mac organization. Mac seems to actually be pushing the envelope with regard to new technologies.

____________________
Charles Updated System
Most recent update: AQ Diamond USB replaces AQ Coffee
Amps: McIntosh 1.25KW’s (3) set on floor on custom made cultured marble slabs
Preamp and DAC: McIntosh D1100
Sources: McIntosh MCD1100 SACD player, MVP881 BR player, MVP851 DVD player, MR87 tuner, Marantz 510LV Laser Disc player, ASUS laptop USB (JRiver Media Center 23)
Speakers: Wilson Audio Specialties Alexx
Sub-woofer: Wilson Audio Specialties Thor’s Hammer (1) horizontal lie and Wilson Watch Controller (abbr: WC)
Cables main system: Audioquest Wel Signature speaker cables and balanced IC (preamp to amps); Wel Signature AES/EBU balanced digital IC for CD playback; Audioquest Diamond optical (1) for tuner, (1) for BR player, and (1) for LD player for total of (3); Diamond USB cable; McIntosh MCT cable for SACD playback; Dragon power cords (5 HC cords and 3 source cords for total of 8); Thunder HC power cord for tuner; cables for DVD player not listed
Cables subwoofer system: Audioquest Redwood speaker cable (1); Wolf balanced subwoofer IC from WC to amp; Wind balanced IC from preamp to WC; Hurricane HC (2) and Dragon HC (1) power cords
Power conditioners: Audioquest Niagara 7000 (1) and Niagara 5000 (3); (4) dedicated 20-amp lines with no. 10 wire straight out of fuse box
Cabinet: Double Custom Woodwork & Design (CWD) solid walnut cabinet on large casters; holds all sources and preamp; also, Niagara 7000; 11 feet minimum distance from speakers
Acoustic Treatments: Room and Echo Tunes enough to turn the room into a virtual anechoic chamber if desired; however, at present my room is significantly reflective giving me a bright, vibrant, dynamic, highly resolving, smooth sound free of harshness and grain and perfect for my taste; zero slap echo; gorgeous midrange
AC: Dedicated to this room only, an ultra-high efficiency and quiet Trane split system 2.5-ton heat pump with 4 returns; active electrostatic filter and top-grade digital thermostat
Room (mancave): 40’L x 15.5’W A-frame; max ceiling height 8’ min 5’; wall within wall construction built of 2 x 6’s; built over garage with custom hardwood floor with gym seal with over 40 Lowes stiffened wooden I-beams supporting floor; complete isolation from rest of house

1) Looks
2) Performance
3) Warranty
4) Price (premium over America is much bigger for McIntosh than for Bryston!)

That being said, I've enjoyed very very good McIntosh systems (Ivan's for example, and many others).

All things considered, I think the McIntosh is the better unit and likely to outlive the Bryston as well as having much better resale value.

As far as I'm concerned, there is no contest for the small difference in price.[/QUOTE]



I’m not so sure about outliving Bryston. I’m 59 and have 2 Bryston amps (2B, 3B) still working from when I was an undergraduate, and one I bought used. The 20 year warranty speaks for itself.