Burson Soloist Review​

Introduction

As any of the Sydney Head-Fi crew could tell you, I'm obsessed with tone. If a system gets tone right, I'm prepared to forgive quite a few shortcomings in other areas. If a system gets tone wrong, it doesn't matter how fast, resolving, spacious or engaging it sounds; I won't like it long term.
 
Considering that my budget for audio equipment has never been vast (I try to keep each component under the 1 kilobuck ceiling), I've usually had to pick gear that compromised in one or two areas in order to maintain that all-critical natural tone.
 
As such the Burson HA-160D has lived in my audio rack for over a year now. Like all Burson equipment it is voiced in a very natural way, and provides a great deal of heft, weight and realism whilst sacrificing very little in return (my full review can be read here: http://www.head-fi.org/products/burson-audio-ha-160d/reviews/5532).
 
About a month ago, Burson sent me an email about a new amplifier they'd designed: the Soloist. They touted it as the successor to the HA-160 "classic" line, a statement product that should close the gap between themselves and their competition. Needless to say, I was keen to give it a try.
 
 

Packaging and Build Quality

The first Soloist unit I received was actually dead on arrival; it wouldn't power on. The fuse wasn't blown, and there was no visible damage to the case, so I was at a loss as to the cause. Burson support responded in a timely manner and organized a courier pickup for the faulty unit and shipped me out a replacement.
 
The second unit took packaging to a new level; It was covered with clear plastic wrapping, underneath which was two layers of bubble wrap, underneath which was the cardboard box. Within that was the "normal" fitted styrofoam, cloth wrap and silica gel pack I've come to expect from Burson. It'd take a pretty evil postie to damage the unit this time around!
 
As a standalone amplifier, connectivity and usability has been greatly improved since the HA-160 days; three selectable RCA inputs, one headphone jack and 3 gain settings. Those who like to connect multiple headphones so friends can listen in won't like the single jack (Wink, I'm looking at you!), but for most single-user headphone recluses like me it won't be an issue.
 
The aluminium casing on the Soloist has changed slightly from the HA-160D; it looks like a combination of sandblasted and then brushed, giving a slightly more "powdery" look. Fingerprints and dust don't show up quite as readily as a result, which suits me just fine.
 

 
On popping the lid on the Soloist, I was greeted with a beautifully clean internal layout. I'm no engineer, but the board is very visually appealing at least. Burson seem to have gone for a completely encapsulated toroid this time as well, rather than the shielded versions they've used previously.
 

 

Review Setup

For this review I have compared the amplifier section of the HA-160D against the Soloist, in the following setup:
 
Laptop as source (Foobar with WASAPI for music playback, FLAC lossless files) > USB input to the HA-160D (volume attenuator set to 12 oclock) > preamp outputs to the Soloist's RCA inputs (volume attenuator set to 11 oclock), medium gain selected  > LCD-2 rev1 headphones.
 
The low gain jack on the HA-160D seems volume-matched to the jack on the Soloist in this configuration, allowing me to quickly switch between amplifiers.
 
The Soloist was burned in for approximately 15 hours (the HA-160D has over 100 hours), and all equipment was allowed one hour to warm up prior to listening.
 

Listening Impressions: Casual

After a year of owning the HA-160D I'm very familiar with its sound signature. So the last week was spent listening to the Soloist exclusively for enjoyment, without any critical listening. This allows me to get familiar with the Soloist's overall presentation and character before I start nit-picking at fine details.
 
My overall impression was one of both musicality and refinement. Two poetic words that often get bandied about in audiophile reviews, but in a nutshell those were my thoughts. The Soloist takes the classic Burson strengths (tone, texture, immediacy) and adds a very liberal dose of technical accomplishment.
 
Even in casual listening I was detecting much greater instrument separation, creating a few 'eargasmic' moments (if that's not a word, it should be) as details were revealed in recordings that had been masked previously.
 
The time I spent listening to the Soloist seemed less fatiguing than normal. There was an ease to the Soloist that hadn't been present on the HA-160D, allowing me to listen longer and enjoy my music more.
 

Listening Impressions: Critical

Following the week of casual listening I spent a day of critical listening, where I performed A/B comparisons of both amps with short sections of reference music.
 
Test Track #1: Angus and Julia Stone - For You
 

 
Angus and Julia Stone are among my favourite artists at the moment, and I've listened to their 'Down the Way' album obsessively over the past year. Not only does this track sound magical with Julia's very clear and forward vocals, it also really tests a system's ability to image accurately.
 
Julia's vocal in this track is positioned in the front-left of the soundfield, around about 11 O'Clock. So some ability to portray depth is required to position her vocal correctly. Furthermore there are layers of acoustic guitar in the front and extreme left and right of the soundfield, which often tend to get obscured by the dominant vocal in the mid-left.
 
The HA-160D struggled to image Julia's voice correctly. Her voice had a tendency to waver too far to the left, creating an unpleasant mono-sound that impacted on the realism of the portrayal. Guitar chords on the extreme ends of the soundfield were also muffled slightly, becoming indistinct and part of a background "wall of sound".
 
In contrast, the Soloist displayed much better depth portrayal with Julia's voice. She remained very firmly mid-left, her voice resonating naturally across the soundfield. Guitar chords remained distinct, even as Julia unleashed those glorious vocals. Easy win for the Soloist on this round.
 
Test Track #2: Bruce Mathiske - 23 Hours in Geneva
 

 
For the non-aussies out there, if you're into acoustic guitar you should check out Bruce Mathiske. This track in particular is very vibrant, with layers of long-decaying guitar notes reverberating throughout the soundfield. This provides a great tone and timbre test, showcasing whether a system can re-create natural decay and harmonics well.
 
On this track the Soloist and HA-160D were much closer in performance, requiring numerous A/B comparisons to detect a difference. My initial impression was that the Soloist was somehow easier to listen to and more engaging, but the "why" of that impression was much more difficult to ascertain. Leading edges have similar levels of bite and shimmer, decay lengths were about the same, and neither seemed more forward than the other.
 
Eventually I figured out the key difference resided in the domain of depth portrayal again. The Soloist was providing a deeper, more 3-dimensional soundstage for notes to reverberate within. The HA-160D in comparison was flatter, creating a less natural ambiance that was ultimately less enjoyable and more fatiguing to listen to. A narrower win for the Soloist this round.
 
Test track #3: Infected Mushroom - I'm the Supervisor
 

 
I have weird and eclectic musical tastes, I know. Infected Mushroom routinely make well-recorded and extremely dynamic albums, and this is no exception. The cover track in particular has a very localized, thumping drum hit in the centre of the soundstage that makes for an excellent test on slam and impact.
 
Once again the HA-160D and Soloist were quite close, providing comparable levels of impact. After many A/B comparisons I felt that the Soloist had perhaps an iota more slam quantity than the HA-160D, but the major difference was in the domain of quality.
 
The Soloist portrayed the beat throughout the intro of this track squarely in the bottom-front of the soundfield; it became an almost visceral pulse through my noggin. The HA-160D portrayed the same beat in a less localized and defined manner; it was in the bottom somewhere, but diffused. The lack of cohesion to the impacts reduced their viscerality (another non-word that should be), and thus reduced my enjoyment of the track. Three strikes, the HA-160D is out.
 

Verdict

This amplifier has truly impressed me. It seems the days where I have to live with compromises in my sanely-priced audio gear might be over, for it is difficult to find any weaknesses in the Soloist. Well, until the hunt for a new Source begins. Ah Head-Fi, what a wallet destroyer ye be.
 
On a side note, I recently attended a small mini-meet with some of the "old crew" from Sydney, with some ridiculous gear present. Blue Hawaii SE driving Omega 2 (MK1 and MK2), a frankenstein 40W amplifier (called the Mongrel, aptly enough) driving HD800, and 300B monoblocks driving a bass-heavy K1000.
 
The best part about the meet was that I actually left feeling satisfied with my own system. It ticks all the boxes for me, and leaves me wanting very little. And that "very little" is mostly in the Source domain anyway.
 
So unless Nattonrice converts me to the dark side with speakers (damn you for letting me listen to them!), my headphone and amplifier "search" is basically over. I know, I know, "end of the road" only exists until upgradeitis strikes again; I'm familiar with this addiction we call audio. But for now I'm content, and will be shifting my focus back to finding new music, where (some might argue) it should have been all along.

 

 

Introduction

Burson Audio are quickly making a name for themselves as purveyors of solid state amplifiers with a difference. Namely, introducing the ephemeral quality musicality into the transistor domain, a sphere previously dominated by somewhat derogatory terms such as "analytical", "clinical" and "sterile". Only a few years ago, the world of high-end audio was neatly split into two camps; those who cherished a valve amp's ability to recreate natural tone and timbre, and those who preferred solid state's low noise floor, transient speed and frequency extension. Combining both traits usually required very deep pockets, and was a pinnacle that only the very best (and most expensive) high-end amplifiers could aspire to.
 
Enter Burson Audio, whose all-discrete designs seem to be aimed more at the tone-obsessed music lover than the detail-fanatic-critical-listener-audiophile (rolls right off the tongue, doesn't it?).  When I first discovered Burson Audio, I was intrigued by their design ethos and keen to give a local company some exposure, so I contacted them via email to introduce myself and inquire into the possibility of borrowing one of their amplifiers to review. A demo HA-160 unit quickly followed, and I was not to be disappointed (you can read my HA-160 review below):
http://www.head-fi.org/products/burson-ha-160/reviews/5387
 
A year later, and Burson have added a new creation to their line-up; the HA-160D amplifier/dac/pre-amp, building on the success of their standalone headphone amp. Naturally, I wanted to try one A few short emails later, and the generous folks at Team Burson had agreed to send me a demo unit. 300hrs of factory burn-in later, and my review sample HA-160D was on its way.
 

Packaging and build quality

One thing that Burson Audio has definitely improved on with the HA-160D is the quality of their packaging. The unit arrived covered in a seemingly waterproof outer layer of plastic, underneath which was a layer of bubble wrap. Within that was the product’s cardboard box, and within that was fitted Styrofoam surrounding the amplifier. Furthermore, the HA-160D itself was also double-wrapped within the Styrofoam, once with plastic and then with microfiber cloth. Nestled inside this innermost layer was also a large pack of silica gel, just in case some iota of moisture manages to make its way through all the above. Geez.
 
Included in the box is a user manual, and every kind of cable that could be conceivably needed with the HA-160D; a set of RCA interconnects, a USB cable, a coaxial digital cable, and a power cable. This was a welcome surprise, as I was only expecting the obligatory power cable and maybe a USB cable with the device.
 
In comparison to the somewhat spartan HA-160, the "D" version offers a plethora of connectivity options. It features both a high and low gain headphone jack (which are actually labelled on the HA-160D, unlike its predecessor), three sets of switchable RCA inputs, an RCA preamp output, and both coaxial and USB digital input. The inclusion of coax is of significant benefit to me, as it means I don't need to have a laptop on hand that's been correctly configured for bit-perfect audio. I can tote the Burson along to a mate's place and potentially turn any crummy CD player into a high-end rig. Swish.
 
The unit itself feels marvellously solid and well-engineered. The brushed aluminium case looks very striking in person and is a definite improvement over their earlier sand-blasted cases in my opinion.
 
Another notable improvement is the stepped attenuator on the HA-160D. Gone are the heavy mechanical clicks of the early HA-160 amplifiers; the 160D’s attenuator operates smoothly and easily, turning with just the right amount of pressure and inducing no audible artefacts or distortion while music is playing.
 

Review Setup

For this review I decided to focus on the “D” side of the HA-160D, as I’ve already covered the amplifier section in my HA-160 review. The following equipment was used in my listening tests:
 
Headphones: HD600, HD800, LCD2 Rev1, LCD2 Rev2
Amplifiers: HA-160D, balanced (4-channel) Beta22.
Sources: HA-160D, HeadAmp Pico DAC, Twisted Pear Buffalo 32S DAC
 
FLAC lossless music was played via Foobar, using WASAPI to generate bit-perfect output for the various DACs being compared.
 
Some of the albums I used as testing/reference music include:
Art Vs Science – The Experiment
Enigma – The Screen Behind the Mirror
Infected Mushroom – Vicious Delicious
Loreena McKennitt – The Book of Secrets
Matchbox 20 – Mad Season
Metallica – Black Album
Michael Buble – Self Titled
Michael Jackson – Number Ones
Paramore – Brand New Eyes
Porcupine Tree – In Absentia
Rasputina – How We Quit the Forest
Shpongle – Tales of the Inexpressible
Sting – Sacred Love
The Presets – Apocalypso
Tool – Lateralus
 

Listening Impressions: HA-160D Vs the HeadAmp Pico

I've owned the HeadAmp Pico DAC for many years (and before that, the Pico Amp/Dac). It remains my benchmark for the best price/performance ratio source available in the sub-$500 category. As an upsampling dac based on the Wolfson WM8740 flagship chip, its most notable sound characteristics are smoothness and a non-fatiguing nature, while remaining quite resolving of fine detail.
 
I had initially planned on doing a track-by-track comparison of the Burson Vs the Pico, listing the pro's and con's of each, but it quickly became apparent that this approach wouldn't work. Why, you ask? Because the Burson adamantly, vehemently refused to exhibit any "con's". In direct comparison with the Pico, over many hours of critical listening, there was not one track where I preferred the Pico over the Burson in any respect. The HA-160D forsakes the smoothness of the Pico in favour of a more, for want of a better term, analogue presentation. Tonal accuracy and texture is noticeably increased over the Pico, with vocals in particular rendered in a more vivid, palpable way. There is a minor gain in detail retrieval and frequency extension to be found in the Burson, as well. Although the differences were slight in the overall scheme of things - I've always found different headphones and amplifiers to have the biggest impact in overall system sound - the presentation was decidedly more natural and convincingly rendered on the HA-160D.
 

Listening Impressions: HA-160D Vs the Buffalo 32S "Sabre" DAC

Alright, if the Burson can so handily defeat the little overachiever from HeadAmp, it's time to enter the ring versus a more accomplished opponent. The Buffalo 32S is based around the mighty ESS Technology ES9018 Sabre Reference chip, and is considered one of the best DACs available by the DIY community. The particular Buffalo 32S that was used for this review belonged to Johnwmclean, so he will be able to provide further input to the specific build if requested.
 
Four of us from the Sydney head-fi community compared the Burson's dac section against the Buffalo, in a quiet room at the recent Blue Mountains meet:
http://www.head-fi.org/forum/thread/567222/blue-mountains-sydney-meet-13-08-11-impressions
 
The DACs were compared by connecting the Buffalo to one of the Burson's RCA inputs, and plugging both DACs into Johnwmclean's Macbook. During audio playback, we switched back and forth between the two by option-clicking on the volume bar of the Mac and then toggling between the RCA and USB input on the Burson.
 
The results of this comparison were truly surprising. Neither Johnwmclean nor Nattonrice could find any noticable difference between the Burson DAC and the Buffalo 32S - and both have been Buffalo DAC owners for some years now. Wink and myself both thought we could detect minor differences - Wink found the Burson's leading edges to be slightly harsher than the Buffalo, and I found the Burson to add an iota of deep bass detail while lacking an iota of midrange creaminess - but I would be very hard pressed to tell the difference in a blind test.
 
The reason for this startling similarity may be simply a result of the finer nuances of the Buffalo being masked by a lack of resolution in the Burson's headphone amplifier. Or it may be that both are very resolving, neutral DACs and the differences between them simply aren't detectable under meet conditions. Whatever the case, the HA-160D can seemingly stand in the same lofty leagues as the Buffalo 32S.
 

Some notes on headphone synergy

During my loaner period with the HA-160D I've had the pleasure of listening to the unit as an all-in-one solution with a number of fine headphones, notably the Sennheiser HD600, HD800, and the Audeze LCD2 (both revisions).
 
I've noticed that Burson have added a picture of the Audeze LCD2 combined with a HA-160D to their homepage, and think it's a very smart move to be marketing themselves that way. The HA-160D + LCD2 combo sings. It provides all the lush tonal richness I could ask for, as well as producing a very 3-dimensional and accurate (albeit small) soundstage. The combo makes music; that's the best way I can phrase it.
 
The HA-160D also lends itself excellently to Sennheisers, providing the necessary drive to open them up, at the same time as adding weight and conviction to their presentation. But even the HD800 pales in comparison to the LCD2 when driven by the HA-160D, in my opinion. The former presents a more immediate sense of detail, and provides a larger soundstage (which can be ideal for complex, layered music). But the LCD2's tone makes the HD800 almost sound artificial in direct comparison. The HA-160D's innate finesse in the domains of tone and presence mate perfectly with the LCD2's natural inclinations in that direction, providing an overall frighteningly real reproduction.
 
However, it is at this point that I feel compelled to make one major criticism of the HA-160D as an all-in-one solution. Compared against truly top-tier amplification like Johnwmclean's balanced Beta22, the Burson definitely lacks in terms of air and soundstage expansiveness. The balanced LCD2 being driven by the Beta22 provides a noticeably clearer picture into the music than the LCD2 driven single-ended by the Burson, with greater air and more sense of space.
 
That being said, the HA-160D can match the balanced Beta22 in all the core qualities I look for. Comparing the LCD2 out of both systems, I never thought it lacked in the all-important domains of tone and timbre accuracy, frequency extension, and overall conviction. The HA-160D + LCD2 system did not lack; the Beta22 + LCD2 system simply added. And at a considerably higher cost for the Beta22, it comes as no surprise that it should.
 

Summary

In my opinion, the HA-160D exemplifies Burson's goal of combining the best qualities of vacuum tube tonal richness with solid state's inherent accuracy and speed. The all-in-one solution provides a very high level of resolution and performance while still making music, and does so in an affordable and aesthetic single brushed aluminium chassis. I recommend it highly for anyone who, like me, considers musical immersion to be the highest goal in this hobby.

[size=large]Introduction[/size]
I’ve been a “headphone audiophile” for the better part of 5 years now, searching for the elusive holy grail of headphone systems. During that time I’ve had the pleasure of auditioning some of the best headphones from every significant manufacturer, including the AKG K701 and K1000, Beyerdynamic T1, Stax Omega 2, Sennheiser HD600/HD650 and HE60, Grado RS-1, PS-1 and GS-1000, Audio-Technica W5000, W11JPN, and L3000, Ultrasone Edition 9, and others. Some of these I’ve even owned myself for periods of time.

Audio nirvana is a very personal thing. What sounds magical to me and sends chills down my spine might well sound artificial and grating to another. That is the nature of this hobby. With almost every top-tier headphone system I have tried, something has been lacking. Sometimes this “something” could be quantifiable – overly harsh treble response, lack of bass impact, flat or unrealistic soundstaging, and so forth – but often it could not be. The headphone simply didn’t move me, didn’t connect with me emotionally throughout the gamut of diverse musical genres I listen to. The Sennheiser HD800 is one of the very few headphones that have done so.

I have very eclectic musical tastes, ranging from psytrance and electronica, to Celtic and new age, metal, pop, progressive rock, modern jazz, and even some blues and easy listening. Sting and The Corrs are frequently queued right alongside Tool and Shpongle on my playlist, for example. Any headphone that aspires to a long term place in my rig, therefore, needs to be first and foremost a capable all-rounder. One-trick ponies often have a big initial “wow” effect; “The bass on these is incredible!”, “I’ve never heard so much detail before!”, and so forth. This kind of focussed excellence is often found in high end headphones whose manufacturers are known for having a “house sound” that appeal to a niche market. Grados, for instance, tend to excel at rock. Their unique combination of lush, tonally rich midrange and fast, well-textured bass impact make them ideally suited to the genre. But you won’t often find a classical music lover relying on the RS-1 as their primary headphone. Grado have addressed this in their own way, with the GS-1000 being the soundstageous departure from their typical house sound, but such an approach doesn’t appeal to me personally. I’m not a headphone collector, and I don’t want to be reaching for a different headphone every time a new song starts on my playlist. Is a headphone that excels at everything and has no glaring weaknesses an unrealistic expectation? Not any longer.


[size=large]Build quality and comfort[/size]
An aspect of high end headphone listening that’s often overlooked is comfort and build quality. To me, this area is every bit as important as how a headphone sounds. What good is it to find a headphone that sounds sublime, only to be prevented from losing yourself in it because your ears are being rubbed raw?

The HD800, thankfully, doesn’t suffer from this shortcoming. In fact, it’s one of the most comfortable headphones I’ve ever worn. It might lack the luxuriance of leather padding found on some high end Ultrasones, or even the Denon imitation pleather, but it makes up for that with huge earcups that do not touch the ears at all. And despite the size of the headphone, the HD800 is remarkably lightweight, which contributes to the feeling of the headphones simply disappearing when one puts them on.

The stock headphone cable is also one of the very few that I’ve actually liked. It seems very resistant to kinking, is not microphonic at all, and is lightweight enough not to cause cable drag. A cable that gets out of the way and doesn’t remind you it’s there is a good cable.




[size=large]Listening Impressions[/size]
It’s far too easy to simply forget about critical listening with the HD800 on, and just enjoy the music. However for the sake of this review I’ll bust out the reference tracks and see how the headphone performs when put under the microscope. The HD800 was burned in for at least 100hrs prior to critical listening, and run through the following system:

Foobar configured with WASAPI for bit-perfect output, playing FLAC > HeadAmp Pico DAC > Jaycar 80W pure class A discrete amplifier > HD800 with stock cable.

First up is Shpongle’s Dorset Perception, a complex electronica passage that excels at testing a headphone’s imaging abilities. Throughout the intro of this track the HD800 keeps up with the increasingly chaotic soundstage, isolating each musical image in its own space and minimising “bleed” between them. I was able to take in the whole picture, as well as isolate and listen to each individual instrument in the soundfield without much effort on my part.



Moving on to Porcupine Tree’s Heartattack In A Layby, a test of ambiance and midrange presence. There’s a deep reverberation present in this track that underlies the vocal, and the challenge for a headphone is to present this reverberation in such a way that it emphasises the vocal rather than swamps it. Again the HD800 performs admirably, Steven Wilson’s voice rendered faithfully amidst the layers of electric guitar. More importantly, the overall emotional message of the track is communicated, creating an eerie feeling of transposition out of oneself and into the story of the music.



Alright, let’s try something with some grit. Onto Metallica’s Enter Sandman, from their celebrated Black album. An unhealthy few decibels of increased volume later and I was out of my chair yelling “Eeeeexit light! Eeeeenter night!”, much to the annoyance of my neighbours I’m sure. The power metal of Hammerfall was likewise rendered with sufficient crash-of-rhinos impetus to get me head banging. Sure, the Denons and Grados can rock harder, let that never be questioned. But the HD800 CAN rock, and it can rock well.



Lastly, Loreena McKennitt’s The Highwayman to test the HD800’s capabilities with female vocals. Her sweet, effortless voice is rendered with such conviction on these headphones that this proved another moment of eerie transposition for me. The palpability of Loreena’s voice, combined with the wide, holographic soundstage of the HD800’s transport me to the lonely road in the moonlight, up to the old inn door... linked arm in arm with Loreena as she sings the story of the Highwayman. I do not feel the HD800 lacked anything in conveying the atmosphere of this track.



[size=large]Conclusion[/size]
The HD800 is one of the best all-rounder high-end headphones I’ve heard. To my listening experience, it has 3 main competitors – the Stax Omega 2, the Sennheiser HE60, and the bass-heavy AKG K1000. All of them perform similarly (or even slightly better) than the HD800, but all cost considerably more, only one of them is still in production (the Omega 2), and they all demand very specialised systems to drive them. This is not to say the HD800 isn’t a picky beast to drive as well, because it certainly is. Sennheiser designed them to be as open a window into the music as possible, and that goal is what they have achieved. If anything is lacking in your connected equipment, you’re going to hear it.

Regardless, anyone who (like me) values a headphone which excels at many things rather than one, and has the ability to connect the listener to the emotional message of their music definitely owes it to themselves to try the HD800. I doubt you will be disappointed.

[size=large]Introduction[/size]
Burson Audio Melbourne, or Team Burson as they’re affectionately known, don’t seem to like integrated circuits much. As a matter of fact, they’ve published an extensive article on their website as to why integrated circuits suck and are only used by dodgy manufacturers that want to cut down production costs. Surprisingly however, their argument against little bits of silicon doesn’t take the predictable and well-worn track back to the glowing triodes of audiophile antiquity. Enter the HA160, based on the Burson discrete HD opamp and their answer to the travesties of IC-based amplification.

I can make no comment as to the validity of these claims. I’m nowhere near technically savvy enough to be able to tell the difference between good engineering and just good marketing. But having owned an M3 in the past, I can attest to the frustration involved in dealing with those little wafers of six-legged arbitrariness. Want a full, present midrange? Be prepared to give up your frequency extension at each end. Want a linear response across the board? Brace yourself for listener fatigue and sibilance. It quickly becomes a game of picking the lesser evil, and the search for “one opamp to rule them all” ultimately proves too much of a distraction from what’s important, the music.

So when I heard about a Melbourne company producing a new all-discrete headphone amplifier, capable of putting 650mW of class-A goodness through my beloved Sennheisers, I was immediately interested. A few emails to John later, and I had a review sample on its way.

[size=large]Build quality, functionality and usability[/size]
The HA160 arrived in a Burson-branded white cardboard box, inside which was fitted Styrofoam inserts to protect the amplifier from the destructive forces of Australia Post. Also included was a user manual, power cord, plastic covering and the biggest satchel of silica gel I’ve ever seen. I almost pity the moisture that tries to work its way into this box. Stay tuned for my next review where I test the silica as an umbrella replacement under heavy rainfall.

The amplifier itself is a fairly spartan silver box, marked with the Burson Audio logo, a large volume knob and two sets of ¼” headphone jacks on the front panel. Neither jack has any markings to differentiate them, but the manual explains one to be optimised for low impedance (15-150 Ohm) and the other for high (150-500 Ohm). It’s interesting that they only recommend up to 500 Ohms for the high impedance jack, which is bound to raise doubts in the minds of Beyerdynamic owners considering the HA160.

The rear panel features only a single set of RCA inputs, an IEC power inlet, and a display showing what voltage the amplifier has been set to. To all those who like source selector switches, multiple inputs, preamp outputs and other such functionality, prepare to be disappointed. Although the lack of such paraphernalia makes a statement of its own – the HA160 was designed to do one thing, and do it well.

Last but not least, the stepped attenuator. This has been my main cause for contention since receiving the HA160. With the HD800 plugged into the high impedance jack, I have 5 steps of usable volume range. That leaves 19 steps useless, and makes finding the optimal listening volume quite difficult. A further cause for worry is that as one turns the knob, volume increases before the attenuator has actually reached the next step. It “cuts in” somewhere between steps, and occasionally does so only in one channel. Step 7 on my attenuator actually seems to be mono – not that I would listen at that level for any sustained period anyway, but such inconsistencies trouble me when putting an amplifier through its paces.

[size=large]Test setup[/size]
The HA160 was burned in for 100hrs prior to critical listening, and used in the following setup:
Foobar configured for WASAPI bit-perfect output, playing FLAC > HeadAmp Pico DAC > Burson HA160 > Sennheiser HD800 with stock cable.



[size=large]Listening Impressions[/size]
I start the gamut of listening impressions, as all good reviewers should, with Shpongle. The fast paced and complex electronica of Dorset Perception proved to be no challenge for the HA160, coping with layer upon layer of psychadelica with startling finesse. I might or might not have invented a new word there.



One gladiator successfully defeated, the HA160’s next opponent comes in the form of Tool’s Reflection, a test of bass texture and imaging. The HA160 began to show a few weaknesses here, glossing over some of the finer details and resonance in this track. Reverberation from the drums didn’t carry quite as far as it should, adding a slight unrealism to their portrayal. On the flip side, cymbal strikes shimmered spectacularly, creating vivid pinpricks of colour amidst the unrelenting darkness of this track.



Following on the theme of bassy and atmospheric, next up is Enigma’s Gravity of Love. This track features a deep, subterranean rumble that the HA160 rendered faithfully, juxtaposed against the crystalline tinkling of a triangle above. Again though, there seems to be less sense of space in this track than normal, as if the decay of notes is being cut prematurely short. Not by much, mind, but with such a clear window into the music as the HD800 on your noggin, any compression of airiness is difficult to miss.



Now it’s time to mix it up a bit, with Michael Jackson’s Don’t Stop Till You Get Enough. The HA160 breathed an almost audible sigh of relief, and then proceeded to inundate my ear canals with fast-paced pop. It seems that dynamic attack-oriented music is where the HA160 is most comfortable, and it certainly had no troubles whatsoever with the rendition of this track.



No aussie review, of aussie equipment, would be complete without some aussie music. Introducing Mr Bruce Mathiske’s 23 Hours In Geneva, a slowly building acoustic guitar instrumental. Having had the pleasure of hearing Bruce perform this track live in the past, all I can say of the HA160 > HD800 combo was that it recreated that experience. I can close my eyes and be back in my seat in the theatre, about 4 rows up from Bruce, as he tells a story with that one instrument.



Last but not least, we have Loreena McKennitt in Dante’s Prayer, as a test of female vocals. This is one of those musical experiences where no matter what you were doing before, as soon as Loreena begins singing all distractions fall away before the glory of her voice. This track seems to have been recorded in a church or cathedral, and it shows as Loreena’s voice reaches for the sky and finds no barriers. None imposed by the recording venue, nor by the amp’s limitations. The lovely shimmering of cymbals noted in previous tracks seemed to be hinting at something that Loreena has now revealed clearly – the HA160 excels at treble extension and sparkle.



[size=large]Conclusion[/size]
“Burson sounds good, like a solid state should!”
The Burson marketing slogan is, if anything, an understatement. The HA160 conveys a startling level of conviction for an amp at its price point, the overall impression being one of authority. Compared to truly world-class solid state amps like the Beta22, the HA160 keeps up in most ways. It portrays vocals, and particularly female vocals with palpable vividness, and handles complex passages of music admirably.

It only begins to struggle with tracks requiring a large sense of space and atmospheric reverberation, sounding comparatively closed in. The stepped attenuator is a worry as well, both in terms of minor glitches and lack of usable range. But all in all, I have no qualms recommending the HA160 as an incredible sounding amplifier in the sub-$1k price bracket.

[size=large]Recent Updates[/size]
Since posting this review I've sent the demo HA160 back to Burson, and they have identified a mechanical fault with the stepped attenuator that was causing the issues at step 7, as well as the distortion/imbalances as the knob was being turned. They've assured me they'll be tightening their QC processes and packing methods to eliminate this problem in the future.

I've also bought my own brand new HA160, which as I hoped exhibits none of the issues with the stepped attenuator that the demo unit did. Additionally, an error in Burson's user manual has come to my attention - the manual has the two headphone outputs reversed, and what I thought to be the low impedance jack was actually the high, and vice versa.

Which dispels my initial concerns that low impedance, efficient headphones would simply be unusable with the HA160. I tried a JVC DX1000 through what I thought was the low impedance jack on the demo unit and only got 2 steps of range, but I now know this to be because I had the jacks reversed. The DX1000, which is 64 Ohm and quite efficient at 102dB/mW now gets 5 steps of range, which is enough to be usable.

Burson have assured me I can use the low impedance jack for headphones higher than 150 Ohm with no loss of SQ as well, which is a good thing considering that the high impedance jack has far too much gain for Sennheisers. Maybe 600 Ohm beyers will suit that jack better. But regardless, my issues concerning the attenuator are largely resolved with the arrival of my new unit.