Widget suggested we post our impressions from the time we spent together evaluating the sonic characteristics of the Bryston. So, here goes... What follows is largely subjective, as one cannot measure the sonic differences in gear. What one can do is critically listen to the gear's ability to reproduce sounds "honestly" and with the least coloring and most transparency. The impressions were unanimous - they were not vague nor subtle.

I had Bryston special make a 10B with the voltage drive of the HPF from the 3145 four-way:290Hz, -12dB slope. I talked this over extensively with Giskard - he was very generous with his time discussing the background of the 3145, design topology, and the difference between the 3145 and the 5234a. He cautioned about the difference between the -18dB slope of the 5234a (and the -24dB slope of the Ashly XR1001 I was using) and the more subtle -12dB slope of the original 3145 design. I opted for the -12dB slope.

I hope Widget will chime in here, but let me add to other posts I made on the 4343 to 4344 upgrade thread in the DIY subForum.

Switching from the Ashly, immediately I noticed an increased voicing in the entire spectrum >290Hz. Widget confirmed this. I hadn't expected this large a change, but clearly the Class A circuitry in the Bryston produces a more "open" sound. All tonality and voicing is improved - there is also a noticable improvement in imaging. The sibilance of the HF was "returned". This is not to say the Bryston is "bright" as others have posted - that is simply not the character. The Bryston is open - un colored - and presents the natural sibilance of the voice and percussion and whatever in a good, natural balance. It was more acoustically "real" (or live sounding) than the Ashly. This translates into improved imaging.

Widget and I made numerous measurements comparing the response of the Ashly to that of the Bryston. I prepared a number of screen-saves if they prove to be of interest. In short, the Ashly simply does a great job, and is unequalled in it's price range. The crossover is very managable, allowing great flexibility to the user. Smaart helped the usage of the Ashly, in that in revealed a lessened response from 2.5kHz upwards, which I was able to adjust for with subtle EQ. While I had elsewhere pondered if this EQ was "endemic" to the 4345, it is not. The open character of the Bryston obviated the need for any EQ boost in that range. Frankly, the Bryston required less EQ, period.

The only area where Widget and I tweaked things a bit was at 290Hz. Smaart revealed what EagleEar Widget described as a "wooliness" in the lower range of female vocals - in-particular a Joni Mitchell he was fond of. Smaart showed the slight bump at 290Hz as expected with the -12dB slope. There it was, a hump of about +2 dB, maybe a half-octave Q. It was easy to very subtly EQ out, and the improvement quite material.

So, what did we learn? At this level of gear, even somewhat subtle improvements are very costly. For average listening, this could not be justified. But, if you have the means and find yourself doing a good deal of critical listenting (without dogs walking about, and laundry running or dinner cooking...), a Bryston should improve your experience materially. I'd suggest a steeper slope. Brtyston makes switchable versions, but I opted for simplest, purist design. -18dB would be a good choice, but at-the-same-time at this level of gear one must have access to good measurement gear and this allows very, very subtle EQ adjustments which vastly improve the response.

What you say there, Widget...?

-----

btw - Widget has a great set of ears. He is quite practically sensitive to voicing characteristics.