Bryston vs Marsh

The Marsh. I have owned both the Marsh A400 and the Bryston 4bst. Marsh A-400 is more neutral and lively sounding than the Bryston, and has superior bass definition (not quantity). It does not need much warm up time to sound good and would be a good match for the Vandersteens which can sound a little too rich.

Bryston 4BST, sounds veiled, less transparent and less neutral when compared to the Marsh, however, you may still want to consider it for other reasons such as warranty and reputed reliability.

To add to previous posts, you can be assured that there's always a high demand for used Bryston gear especially the ST series amps if you find it opposite to your liking. I am not so sure about the Marsh equipment.

I have had and still has a Bryston 3BST, a pair of 4BST's, and three 7BST's. They are not as refined sounding as Krell FPB series amps but pretty darn close even with the most revieling speakers, IMO.

I find it difficult to understand Ultrakaz's opinion that 4BST's are "veiled, less transparent and less neutral" in comparison to the Marsh. I qualify my opinion since I have not had Marsh amps in my house. However, I have found the Bryston 4BST's peformance opposite to Ultrakaz's experiences even compared plenty with a Krell FPB600c driving both Maggie 3.5Rs and B&W N802's. Maybe Marsh amp is that good and a better performer... I don't know.

The Marsh 200s sounds fast and clear and free of grain or glare. In my setup it does not sound "electronic" if you know what I mean. It does not double power when impedance is halved, but it never strained driving my Totem 1 speakers. The 200s costs less than the 3BST and the 400s is a little more. The Marsh amps are very good, the 400s is more powerful with better bass with some speakers.