[svyr]

I have to say, the idea of this being a mistake seems rather strange. How can any competent manufacturer not realise what USB implementation they are using in a product they are designing? The alternative to Burson knowing about this and deciding to let the misinformation stand (the correspondence with one head-fi reviewer suggests this) is that they did not understand the USB implementation in their own product, in which case it seems doubtful their products are worth much IMO - however, that is obviously ridiculous, right? Leaving one other possibility.

heh, that's certainly concerning, with the Burson argument being "we specialize in analog/don't concern ourselves with the USB implementation". I do think they should've verified it (USBProber or USBView would've shown them the lack of async endpoints). I do find it strange that they paid the 'OEM people' the money without double-checking what they got (provided they didn't just take the reference TE7022L implementation and the whole OEM thing is...And the mac 48k problem seems to point to that, since other TE7022 implementations seem to have the same issue namely, Yulong U100). I do question why their 160D product page never publicized the usb implementation, despite it being a major feature (in red) in the 6moons ad and Burson making a small inset/separate page for everything else. And I personally find the alternative speculative explanation more appealing.
What's more, I find the lack of a public statement from Burson curious... (indirectly they have a position via the 6moons feedback section, but clearly both 6moons and burson are aware of this thread, yet ...Why not turn up and clear their good name by addressing all the concerns raised? This is an open forum after all, so no one is bashing either, they just don't seem to want to come here and explain)

What I have an issue with is that they knew about the DAC not having an async transfer mode usb since late march (at least), and have made no attempt to correct the review until this poo-storm thread was started. (at the very least they're obliged to make an effort by law re: misleading and deceptive advertising). I also find it concerning that 6moons can't manage to edit all of the review pages and in such a way to reflect the actual USB implementation after being prompted by this thread. (leaving page 5/conclusion of the burson review and page 4 of the $4000 sabre dac review unedited.) The other thing is, 6moons editing page 2 of the burson review, removing async, but leaving the residual points about the clock from the claimed async implementation suggests to me they don't quite grasp how adaptive vs async works, despite using it as a marketing point and a major attraction in many reviews.

 

[estreeter]

6Moons take nice photos, and they do review kit that is of interest to many on Head-Fi - I feel similarly about Headfonia. Anyone who spends a lot of time reading the text that accompanies said photos probably needs to start reading the Penthouse letters section - I know which is more amusing, even if both are somewhat predictable.

 

[PatMick2]

Svyr has a point.  It is disappointing that Burson did not come clean earlier.  6Moons aren't responsible for Burson's omissions, however as soon as the facts were known the review should have been corrected and Burson given space to comment.  There is no doubt that the deal clincher for many 160D purchasers was the async usb. 
 
My own experience with Burson was very positive.  I sent my cd player to their recommended tech person (3rd party, not Burson) for a new clock, op amps, caps etc.  He became ill and rather than tell me, he held onto the player for many months.  I called Burson and John Delmo arranged for the player to be sent to him.  It transpired that the work had been badly done and was incomplete.  Burson redid the work, one week's worth, and sent me the player free of charge.  Great service.  That player sounds sublime.  I would buy a 160D on that basis alone.
 
I think that the glowing reviews turned the 160D into something of a Frankenstein's monster for Burson.  "Production's up, orders are up, great reviews-crap, what are we going to do?!!"  Perhaps a small company ramping up too quick.  This doesn't make it right, Svyr, I agree.
 
Burson have delayed the release of their stand alone DAC 160 for another month, see 6Moons.  It has two usb inputs.  It would be nice to think that the reason for the delay is to make sure it has async usb.
 
Let's give them a chance to redeem themselves.

 

[svyr]

> 6Moons aren't responsible for Burson's omissions, however as soon as the facts were known the review should have been corrected

and the ad.


>6Moons aren't responsible for Burson's omissions

well may be. Could do with a bit more technical skill and professional skepticism though. What Srajan says in http://www.6moons.com/lettersfeedback/lettersfeedback.html

'Thanks, I wasn't aware of this thread. I just took a look. Burson indeed notified me about 2 weeks ago that their USB protocol wasn't asynchronous as they'd originally believed and told me (apparently this part of the design was OEM'd and they'd been misinformed by their supplier). Obviously I corrected that info in the review.'

Is simply untrue, since the datestamp on the edited ad and page 2 of the review is a day after this thread appeared not 2 weeks before or 1 week before. I'm also confused why he didn't fully correct the whole review (page 5) and the invicta review (page 4)


>Burson have delayed the release of their stand alone DAC 160 for another month, see 6Moons. It has two usb inputs. It would be nice to think that the reason for the delay is to make sure it has async usb.

If they chose to use the new Tenor chip like Firestone Audio ILTW USB DAC (TE8802 does need drivers though because it's a class 2.0 usb audio device, but you get a higher supported sampling rate) or the TAS1020B (driverless) custom async one, they may well end up with async USB.


>Let's give them a chance to redeem themselves.

They can/could do it at any time by commenting here.

 

[svyr]

>"Burson indeed notified me about 2 weeks ago that their USB protocol wasn't asynchronous as they'd originally believed and told me (apparently this part of the design was OEM'd and they'd been misinformed by their supplier). Obviously I corrected that info in the review."

a) doesn't come up on google (link?. edit - ah ok http://www.6moons.com/lettersfeedback/lettersfeedback.html). b) They've known for months now (see the first post with the links to related posts where burson suddenly changed their mind. NOT since 2 weeks ago) but have not taken the ad down, until a few days after this thread was started (YET to take the review down). That remark is full of utter cow manure. The manufacturer of the chips has been quoted in the other thread saying TE7022L DOES NOT support Async transfer mode (the chip product page has a distinct lack of async isochronous endpoints mentioned). There is no way they would've told Burson otherwise. Moreover, Burson has an obligation to verify sh!t they advertise. Especially in red. 'ASYNCHRONOUS USB' my backside.If they'd like to use the 'my dog ate my homework excuse', might as well provide the details of the OEMer, so their claim can be verified. Otherwise it sounds like a soft excuse. c) he only corrected the 1st of 3 review pages/ad on the 24th May (1 day after the thread was started, and not prompted by burson contacting him)

He did not edit the reviews as he suggested in the newsletter The review is still up with incorrect facts. Two of them and clearly they're aware of this thread.
http://www.6moons.com/audioreviews/burson5/5.html

Final comments & suggestions: The HA160D can develop hum with unshielded interconnects which won't be a ground loop and can be remedied with properly shielded cables. By request Burson can lower the output impedance and overall circuit gain to adapt the machine to specific applications. Overall circuit gain is fully sufficient to stand in for active preamps and drive amplifiers directly. During the review period, my OSX 10.6.4 iMac could not recognize the 24/96 potential of the asynchronous USB input. It referred to it as a 44.1kHz device with maximally 48kHz acceptance. Burson was made aware of this and has already contracted with a software developer to write a code patch.

http://www.6moons.com/audioreviews/resonessence/4.html

Burson Audio HA160D. With a twin-toroid linear power supply, discrete custom voltage regulators, discrete op amps, a stepped resistor volume control, 10V max output, BB1793 DAC, 24/96 async USB and rich class A bias, this underdog with no street cred proved so strong on 'analog' values that none of the digitally perhaps more advanced challengers could reset my lust button.

edit:to be fair he did edit ONE page of the ONE review (out of 3 in 2 )http://www.6moons.com/audioreviews/burson5/2.html Last-Modified: Tue, 24 May 2011 04:50:08 GMT
The USB input does 24-bit/96kHz and is implemented asynchronously with an independently powered 10ppm low-jitter clock. -> The USB input does 24-bit/96kHz and is implemented with an independently powered 10ppm low-jitter clock.

I'm still struggling to see the relevance of that '10 ppm low jitter clock' bs, since the USB is vanilla TE7022L in adaptive mode. That part is clearly left-over from when they were claiming async and that clock was supposed indicate uber-leetness and actually do something (used to drive the flow of data from the PC). so even his edit needs more editing

So after a few weeks that's still the state of affairs and 6moons doesn't have enough of a conscience to edit the async out of the reviews or provide a reasonable explanation that doesn't look like flat out lying.

PS the thread has been sanitized from flaming by mods, so please keep it civil with your epic "omg don't be mean to burson/6moons " and "I love my burson and yur gey" 'arguments'

 

[drez]

Quote:

OK, I went a bit deeper and actually read "Technical Answers about the LessLoss Blackbody", sentence by sentence. I was hoping to read a paper on EM interference protection backed by real measures and.. this is sad. Then some looking revealed this thread. Here's a link to Blackbody's main designer bio. The guy is a musician, worked as a jeweler and spent some time in recording studios. His recent public activity involves showtimes on "innovative methods in product marketing". The other person in LossLess configured several of the computers which are used in much popular production, including one for the keyboardist who co-wrote Michael Jackson's “Thriller.”
 
 

I think Lessloss roll on the floor laughing each time they receive an order... for anything...  Just looking at the dudes you can tell they are epic con-men.
 
I'm pretty sure the 6moons review is intended as a satire given Srajan's usual review technique.  But given this I can't see how he would think that Burson is asynch.
 
 

 

[sinae]

I wish 6 moons would have permit comment on their review so that everybody could pitch in and give their opinions at the same time.
 
I really taught 6 moons was neutral and honest.. dammit
 
So is the Nos mini dac Octave review has been paid too???
I was hesitating between that one and burson DAC-160 or H-160D... but i was clearly influenced by 6moons.
 
Anybody can comment on those..  I listen and compose electronic music so if I go NOS, it need to have PRAT and handle complex music well..
 
The burson was another option but i'm not sure at 900$ it's such a great deal since they remove the passive stepped attenuator + the headphone amp/preamp of the H-160D.. Also why not including balanced out??? It seem Home studio are still fu... in th aa... by DAC companies.
And yet it's their future. Why no low latency asio implementation on async USB DAC??? It's like we don't exist and yet the market of home studio is a lot bigger than the audiophile market will ever be.
 
Is there other sites where we can find tons of honest reviews of dacs??
 
 

 

[Szadzik]

The mistake (made on purpose or not) does not make HA-160D any lesser amp/DAC combo. It still is a great unit worth the money.

 

[svyr]

yet...how long does it take to remove 2 words from the reviews mentioned in http://www.head-fi.org/forum/thread/555084/6moons-and-burson-have-been-naughty/75#post_7533947 ? ... Simply appalling the async mentions are still there and it looks like neither 6m nor burson are in a hurry to do anything about it.

 

[drez]

erm it is a pretty big difference - if the USB receiver operated asynchronously (along with supporting 88.2) I'm pretty sure far fewer people would go out and buy Hiface or other USB interface to use with the HA-160D.
 
$200 (for a hiface), add in a coax cable (maybe $25 if your'e sensible) and you're spending a lot of money you weren't planning on for something that is falsely advertised.
 
This is not a small mistake.

 

[svyr]

>I wish 6 moons would have permit comment on their review so that everybody could pitch in and give their opinions at the same time.

They'd go broke cleaning up the trolls lol... or people who have a point about the bs that goes on but they would censor.


>Anybody can comment on those.. I listen and compose electronic music so if I go NOS, it need to have PRAT and handle complex music well..

there's a burson thread somewhere in the same forum, please take those sort of questions there.


>The mistake (made on purpose or not) does not make HA-160D any lesser amp/DAC combo. It still is a great unit worth the money.

What drez mentioned is true. It does. The tenor chip is far from great. It's been already discussed above along with the fact that advertising it as async misinforms and nudges people into buying as a comfort thing. (It's the "if the analog section is good and the dac is also async, what more do you want" type of argument)
It's not a mistake. They're deliberately refusing to remove it as every day it stays up makes them money which makes it even more shameful.

Enough playing deaf and stupid already bloody 6moons.

 

[Szadzik]

Misinformation on 6moons side, not Burson's.
 
Not a very good idea to take specifications from a 3rd party website as 100% correct, always best practice to check with the manufacturer.

 

[svyr]

Misinformation on 6moons side, not Burson's.
 
Not a very good idea to take specifications from a 3rd party website as 100% correct, always best practice to check with the manufacturer.

yea nooo. The thing is half of why it looked suss in the first place is because Burson doesn't actually publish the info on their site.
The other half is because they bought an ad on 6moons and supplied a review unit (and you betcha read the review/did nothing about it). So yea, I'm glad you enjoy your DAC and feel the need to defend them, but clearly it's on them as well.
Please read the topic. This has been discussed over and over and over and over and over again.

 

[Szadzik]

I do not fel the need to defend them, but there has to b someone who is more impartial than you and some guys in this thread. I do not believe in the majestic 12 or other theories like that and until I see proof against either 6moons or BA I will not consider them guilty - not guilty unless proven otherwise.