Somewhere in my 50s, I learned the difference in sound quality between Adcom and early Krell—the hard way. It didn't take golden ears to detect the difference; I rued empty pockets each time I heard the Adcom's highs. But, without listening experience, the unique qualities of Burmester and other non-US brands continued to elude me.
Jump ahead to 2022, when the Burmester Musiccenter 151 MK2 streaming D/A preamplifier ($27,500) arrived here for review. As much as I appreciated its qualities, I always suspected that this "little brother" to the since-replaced Reference Line 111 Musiccenter supplied only a taste of the sound Burmester's engineers could deliver in their top Reference and Signature lines. When Jim Austin reviewed the Top Line 216 amplifier as monoblocks in the January 2024 issue, in very positive terms, I became even more intrigued.
Enter the Reference Line Burmester 218 ($50,000 each), a stereo amplifier that weighs almost 93lb and is bridgeable to work as a monoblock. In mono configuration ($100,000 for a stereo pair), the 218 outputs up to 565W into 8 ohms or 785W into 4 (rated, apparently, at 1% THD+N). In the Burmester line, the 218 is bested in power (and presumably quality) only by the far larger, far heavier Signature Line Burmester 159, a 373lb behemoth that is specified to output a mammoth 1200W into 4 ohms.
As alluring as that monster seems, the 218 is more suited to my 20' × 16.4' × 9.4' music room. It also doesn't require a heavily insured bevy of handlers to unpack, pack, and ship across country for measurements, only to be unpacked and packed once again by the same or a similar bevy. Don't even think about shipping costs and possibility of damaging electronics and bodies.
All of which is to say, the Burmester 218 presented this serial monoblock reviewer with a shining-silver opportunity to explore the higher echelons of the Burmester line without breaking my back.
Presentation
Head to Burmester's webpage for the 218 (footnote 1), and you'll find evidence of dual ambitions in which visual appearance and technical advances meld as one. "The 218 power amplifier is visually and sonically oriented towards our flagship 159 amplifier ... [and] consistently benefits from the experience and knowledge that Burmester has derived from four decades of successful amplifier development," the website states. "The almost inexhaustible power reserves lead to an impressive sovereignty in music reproduction, which is supported by an outstanding spatial resolution and musical warmth. Power and elegance are perfectly combined behind the characteristic cooling fins. This monumental, but at the same time stylish, power amp easily handles even the most demanding loudspeakers."
To me, that dual emphasis is justified. This is one classy-looking amplifier. The lid is screwless, which adds to a seamlessly clean and elegant industrial aesthetic that Burmester describes as "minimalist." Heat fins are secreted in the amplifier's top and rear and operate so efficiently that the 218 remains cool to the touch. And while the chassis may lack handles and require strong fingers for lifting—the absence of protruding support feet means that you can't easily hoist it from underneath without the risk of crushing your fingers when you set it back down—it is a relatively manageable load for two people with fingers strong enough to wedge under the short protrusions on the amp's sides.
The website lists the following technical features: completely symmetrical design; optimized protection circuits outside the signal path; stereo and monoblock operation possible; input stages that utilize Burmester's X-AMP technology (class-A); a DC-coupled signal path, so no sound-distorting capacitors in the signal path; generously dimensioned power supply allows high-current delivery capability; effortless control of any loudspeaker due to high damping factor over the entire frequency range, even at high frequencies; stable at all loads and all relevant frequencies; solid screw terminals for speaker cables; remote on/off via Burmester devices; integration into Smart Home control possible.
Wanting to know more, I submitted a list of questions to the amp's designer, who was recovering from surgery. Because he needed more time to heal, I received answers from Alexander Rüger, Burmester's senior electronic engineer. Rüger clarified that the 218, which took 18–24 months to perfect, is a new creation; it does not have a predecessor in the Burmester line. Its base plate, derived from but lighter than the base plate in the flagship 159 monoblock, "creates a smooth transition to the side housing parts and the heatsink." Both amps have a "harmonious and coherent appearance" whose hidden side heatsinks are supplemented by "massive cooling blocks" that help minimize case openings and improve thermal management. As Rüger wrote, "The thermal concept is optimally adapted to the internal structure and the housing design and thus ensures comprehensive temperature control, even at high power demands. This not only has a positive effect on the service life of the components, but also ensures absolute dedication to music reproduction due to stable temperature level."
The 218's ultralow-noise toroidal transformer was designed to Burmester's specifications, and its "modern, oversized linear power supply" has extremely low-impedance pathways. The amplifier "provides consistently stable and reliable power, even with demanding loudspeakers. The 218 reaches full performance level very quickly from switching on or standby (less than 30 seconds)."
To ensure an "extremely low noisefloor, Burmester spent a lot of time optimizing the current paths as much as possible, both in the PCB design and the wiring layout. ... Particular emphasis was placed on a low-interference grounding concept that, thanks to new signal and cable routing, sets new standards in terms of sound quality."
The company's ultimate goal was to achieve "the Burmester sound, which melds warmth, inherent richness, and detail with an all-encompassing fullness in the soundstage. ... We aimed to further enhance microdetail and dynamics to achieve an even better user experience with modern, high-resolution sources. Compared to the 216, the 218 offers even more control and resolution, with more focus, bass depth, scale, dynamics and upper-end space and air."
When powering Wilson Alexia V loudspeakers, whose nominal impedance is 4 ohms, I asked, how much of the 218's power is in class-A before switching to class-AB? Rüger replied, "The design is a little bit different than the norm. The class-A stage includes dedicated circuitry that drives the loudspeaker and, at a certain audio level, the AB stage. The class-A part is consistently active and, to a certain degree, smooths out the crossover distortion even at higher output levels. The AB stage kicks in at just a few watts (less than 10)."
While Rüger asserted that Burmester products, including speakers, "are designed to work 100% optimally as supplied," he said it's fine to use aftermarket support feet. As for power conditioning, Burmester itself uses a combination of wall power and their own 948 power conditioner in their factory. "High-quality power conditioners can often contribute to low noisefloor to bring out the best in amplifiers without taking anything away. However, again, the power supplies found in Burmester products are ultralow noise (especially in the 218) and work at a super high level straight 'from the box'."
Rüger said it was "kind of okay" to use aftermarket power cables on the amps. "Burmester cables are specified to optimize and complement the sound quality and are of extremely high quality," he wrote. "We don't necessarily make an effort to overtly advertise this, but it is important to note. Again, for the purest, 'unadulterated' Burmester sound, it's best to use the supplied cables unless the customer has a personal preference for increased sound performance by using third-party power cables." Taking this as permission to use my own power cables, I left Burmester's cables in the boxes when I unpacked the amps.
Some designers and companies focus on measurements first, while others pay initial attention to sound quality. Which camp is Burmester in? "In my opinion," Rüger wrote, "knowledge of the technical parameters should be the basis for all further optimizations. Even though the final goal is the best sound, not the optimum possible numbers, it's essential to secure the inherent technical performance before any sound tuning or modifications are made."
Front, back, and in the box
On the 218's front plate, right below an all-but-invisible infrared sensor for use with a remote control and a small, tasteful "218" logo, sits a single, small power button. Below it you can barely see a teeny-weeny, recessed LED. When you flip the main power toggle switch on the rear panel to "On," the LED glows a soft orange/ yellow before switching to red. This signifies that the amp is in standby. Depressing the button once more takes the amp into active mode, signified by green. The light is not bright and will not interfere with listening in the dark. When the amp is in standby mode, you can change which LED color signifies which state of operation. You can also switch the "Auto Power Down" function, aka APD, on or off. When it's on, the 218 will switch to standby mode if there is no input signal for a period of approximately 30 minutes. The amp normally arrives with the APD function switched on, but it was switched off in my pair.
The rear panel includes left and right XLR analog inputs, left and right pairs of spade-lug speaker outputs with large, easy-to-turn handles, and a 20A IEC inlet with a horizontally aligned On/Off power toggle switch directly above. There's a proprietary Burlink connection for connection/coordination with other Burmester products, a fuse box, and identification information with serial number. That's it.
The shipping box includes RCA-to-XLR adapters for users who must connect their preamp with RCA cables, and an XLR two-to-one "Y" adapter cable for users who wish to bridge the 218 for use as a monoblock—as I did. Attaching these adapters to my XLR interconnects took seconds. The 218 manual, supplied as a thin hardcover book and available online as a pdf (footnote 2), includes diagrams for stereo-mode wiring, mono-mode wiring with the requisite adapters or jumpers, horizontal biamping, and vertical biamping. If you follow the appropriate diagram, you won't go wrong. I never saw or used a remote control.
Footnote 2: See burmester-media-production.s3.eu-central-1.amazonaws.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/04/20125206/ba_218_en_1-1_2405.pdf.
 | |||||||||||
|
|
| |||||||||
COMMENTS
Here we go again.
"Greed is good" said Gordon Gekko. Do we still think that in 2024? And did he also meant "waste is good"? 100k for a power amplifier? How much better does it sound than a 10k power amplifier? 10 times better? We all know that's not the case, 10%, maybe 15% at best. What would an economist/trader/opportunist say about that?
This are no normal prices, not even if we keep reviewing this kind of gear with these kind of prices over and over again.
I maintain that the Yamaha MX-1 is the best value for an amplifier on the used market and will come close to the performance of this Burmester on speakers that aren't super demanding in impedance. I spent 300 dollars shippyed on mine from eBay, taking a gamble on a storage auction. Goes for 600 or so usually. I spent 20 dollars on Nichicon fine gold audio grade and low ESR capacitors to recap it (not touching the very large ones that are assuredly good). I set the idling current to correct value. The amp performs as new now and drives my speakers with ease. The output transistors never completely turn off, HCA circuit. I've seen a guy on a forum compare it favorably to a Krell FPB-700cx.
https://community.klipsch.com/index.php?/topic/65588-changing-amps-again-yamaha-mx1-full-class-a-cx1-pre/&do=findComment&comment=655581
Go for a Yamaha like their V-FET or HCA models prior to purchasing a Burmester
... a $100K power amp might sound versus a $10K power amp, then read the review by JVS of the Rotel Michi S5. He compares the $7.5K Rotel stereo amp with a pair of the D'Agostino Progression M550 monoblocks, which cost $95K/pr.
He wrote that "As is usually the case with monoblocks, with the Progressions the soundstage was wider and a bit deeper. Bass was even stronger and more controlled, and treble was either more extended or a bit hotter (or both). The S5, in turn, sounded more transparent, with blacker blacks. As I thought back to all the times I've heard the Progressions, I realized that the S5 never quite overwhelmed me with the detail and clarity the Progression M550s. But if I'd never heard them, I would have been thoroughly convinced that the Rotel Michi S5 had delivered everything that artists and engineers could hope we will hear."
Further, he concludes that "What it deserves is a Class A listing in Stereophile's Recommended Components with $$$ (for value) beside its $7499 price. Even if you can afford much more expensive monoblocks and loudspeakers, you should hear the S5, or maybe the similar but even more powerful M8 monoblocks, for a solid point of comparison. It's that good. Music lovers who end up welcoming it into their homes are destined to enjoy music for years without end. The S5 is an engineering and musical triumph."
Doesn't seem as though the $95K pair of amps sound anywhere near ten times better than the $7.5K amp.
So you really don't know anything about the two amps (and where the differences lie)?
Yeah. That's right. You don't.
[Edited] get into these threads only as a manifestation of their overgrown egos, Glotz. They project and howl and make dumb assertions not based in fact or reason.
It reminds me of how in industrial projects half a dozen electricians will put a lockout on a circuit so it can't be turned on and kill them. The circuit is dead until every last lockout is personally removed.
Clowns in these threads say you don't need lockouts. They know when and how a system functions just by looking at it. No need to consult with anyone involved in the design of these complex systems when you can make an egotistical pronouncement instead.
A lot goes into these products but all intimately involved personnel are nullified by the sheer power of the intellect of one clown gazing at a review. It's so egotistical. So counterproductive. Maybe some day the comment system will have more features and we can just block them.
I think this is a fair assertion when referring to something as complex as a $50,000 automobile. Modern cars have indeed evolved into amazingly sophisticated vehicles that incorporate numerous complex systems yet still are reliable.
But a $50,000 solid state power amplifier? I have no problem with it, but it would be tone deaf to pretend to not at all understand where the griping is coming from.
You make the point: The negative commenter must start with a questionable assumption about the cost (and behavior) of a complex instrument and then preclude that his ignorance exceeds the expertise of those who made it. Those who've heard it. Reviewed it. Own it. Deal it from among other amplifiers and must know all about it.
None of them are qualified. Some clown in these comments is however.
You just did it yourself. No, I don't actually think that the sophistication of the device above and its rarity and its materials list, machine cost, and general bill of materials is excessive. Apparently you do.
A $50k car is typically involved in a multi-billion dollar manufacturing envelope. It has a production of tens of thousands of units. It shares almost nothing with these high end amplifiers.
But that's my *opinion* and I offer it as the very subjective thing it is. The typical commenter who comes here to blast one and all does so for no reason except that it's his personal character deficiency.
Can you explain in the complexity it would take to be properly elaborate just how this amplifier is excessive? You haven't so much as suggested you'd care to try. The same is true of the malcontented people here who've made a name for themselves muddying the water.
Now I know what it is. You are one of those people who just like to pick lengthy arguments in anonymous online forums.
Title: Factory Workers Are Dying Because Machines Aren’t Being Turned Off
Summary: Employees get caught in machinery that isn’t powered down during maintenance, with ‘lockout’ regulations often ignored in busy factories
by John Keilman. October 3, 2024
We do know where the differences lie, having read the Michi review and compared it to this. What percentage of the readers of SPhile are actually going to hear these? If direct experience is with the gear at hand is required to post here, its going to be very quiet.
I would never make a claim that a $100k product(s) would sound like a product at a fraction of the price- simply because my experience with other like-priced products (Audio Research, VTL, others) show their superiority in similarly priced systems.
'Close' is not not the same in my book. To make that distinction takes substantial experience- hence why JVS is a professional writer with audio as his expertise.
That is for JVS to state a comparison- or you if you heard the two at a show or a dealer. I would ask him, rather than me.
And you can post all you want- ideally about things you actually have experience with. That way people might develop trust with your statements.
It's an apples to oranges comparison, the Rotel is a high feedback design while the burmester uses much less loop negative feedback (power vs distortion curves - Rotel is like a triangle, the Burmester a ladle). My concern is that Burmester somehow hasn't gotten the message that pin 2 is f'ing hot. Period. There is no excuse for releasing a product in the 21st century with the XLR not wired with pin 2 hot per the decades old standard.
The Parasound JC1+ is the better comparison, though they're closer in price (only 5:1 difference mono-a-mono bloc). You could also go with the Parasound A21+, a fine sounding amp and one I would probably prefer to the more expensive Rotel amps you mentioned but I haven't heard (I own an A23+).
... the S5 and his comments were quoted above.
Parasound would be another option. but no review from JVS, as yet.
The JC5 is in the same price range as the S5 - perhaps Parasound can submit a sample for evaluation.
Hi-Fi News has reviewed both the Parasound JC5 and the Rotel S5.
FWIW, the JC5 was given a sound quality rating of 85% versus 88% for the S5. The D'Agostino S350 and M400MxV, which JVS uses as reference, were both rated 89%.
Rotel was cited because that's what you do - you "what about" everything with Rotel (or occasionally Yamaha). How much do you get paid to constantly promote Rotel products? I can't imagine you're doing it for free.
... for yourself.
Here's what MF concluded about the then $14K/pr Rotel M8 monoblocks:
"Having the M8s in-house was a pleasant surprise and one of the most enjoyable visits made by any piece of audio gear that's been here over the past 21 years—and for a change, it's affordable, at least by my usual standards. Mikey didn't like it: Mikey loved it."
JA1's tests determined that:
"The Rotel Michi M8 is one of the most powerful amplifiers I have had on the test bench. It delivered excellent measured performance."
Another example from Hi-Fi News is the 87% sound quality rating for the Rotel X3 integrated amp versus 85% for the twice as expensive Pass Labs INT-250.
Is an expensive amp, that is also a piece of sculpture, and will last the owners a lifetime, then go onto another generation equal more or less waste than a never ending flow of the flavor of the moment cheap amps that end up in a landfill after a short time?
No it won’t. It will definitely need to be recapped at some point. Good luck finding a service outlet for this in the US. You might be able to have this done through the dealer you bought it from… if they’re still around years from now.
Nothing is permanent, and that can especially be said for hi-fi gear.
Best enjoy it while you have it, and expect pride of ownership… but I wouldn’t expect it to hold significant value in the distant future.
I think this classic argument misses the point. We all know that there are diminishing returns. But if your goal is better sound, there is usually a direct relationship (on a whole) between price and performance. You can get from 0-60 in 6 seconds without paying too much. But if you want to get to 60 in 5 seconds, it may cost you 2x. Is the faster car 2x as fast? No. But in a race, one car will win. You can argue saving 1 second isn't worth the extra cost TO YOU. Fine. But if your goal is to cross the line first, there is no contest. Want to do 60 in 4 seconds? Now things get really expensive. God bless those that have disposable income that allows them to chase the minute differences. I love to listen to this stuff at shows. It gives me a sense of what is possible. I would rather have their gear than mine (most of the time) if I didn't have to pay for it. But I also shake my head knowing my rig sounds nearly as good for a fraction of the cost.
Stereophile reviewers consistently claim that everything should be done to ensure the lowest possible noise floor in a system. Measures to this end which are recommended include separate power supplies for digital and analogue stages, power conditioners, "cryogenically treated" cables or special equipment racks. The cost of these in many cases substantially exceeds that of an entire system that most people can afford, and the effects are often below what can measured - yet are claimed to be clearly audible and beneficial.
Yet when two separate units of a 50,000 USD (!) amplifier both develop not just measurable, but clearly audible buzzing it is claimed that "even when it was present, the noise never interfered with listening, and the amps sounded so good that I doubt anything serious was wrong with them".
So apart from the fact that 50k gets you either bad engineering or shoddy quality control, it also appears to move the goalposts for what constitutes great audio - just not in the direction one would expect.
-120db noise is commonplace among Yamaha power amps of the late 1970s (M2) and onwards. Why are all these extra noise precautions like power conditioners necessary if better circuitry makes them superfluous? These amps do not use power conditioners. The buzzing could be transformer buzz from poor construction. Pretty silly for a 50K amp to have a buzz...
This comment reminds me of th THD wars of the same era, with many mid-fi JVCs, Sonys, Technics, and other Japanese receiver manufacturers touting very low .0007% like THD figs as the main selling point in their designs.
Like dynamic power, many such designs can tout impressive measured specs in that one area and still not sound so great. And here’s why, from the horse’s mouth so to speak:
https://www.stereophile.com/news/072307national/index.html
I might add that a -120db noise floor while playing vinyl may be the height of superfluity. What’s the noise floor on an LP, even on a table with the lowest rumble and with the best cartridge and phono preamp available? Enough to make the 20db difference between -100db and -120db pretty undetectable I’d imagine.
The buzzing was almost certainly transformer related - they buzz mechanically unless you pot them in like non-conductive resin so they cannot vibrate. My Bryston 4B^3 has transformer buzz, but I can only hear it when it's quiet (no music/TV). Talked to Bryston, it's normal (I got it via accommodation pricing when I wrote for SoundStage!, so I wasn't talking to regular customer svc). A *lot* of amps do this.
Now, at $50k they should probably do more to eliminate things like transformer buzz but that's a different discussion.
My Yamaha MX-1 uses a 1cm thick steel plate at the bottom of the amp as well as rubber grommets for the transformer screws. I cannot hear any buzz even with my ear right to the amp. Common sense saves money
And price doesn't seem to be a factor - I have two primary amps that are within a couple hundred dollars list of each other. A Bryston 4B^3 and a Pass XA-30.8, the Bryston has some transformer buzz, the Pass does not. The Pass weighs about 2x what the Bryston does though. Very different sounding amps.
There's an error in the text below the square wave chart (there's a broken image placeholder instead). Also, no output impedence measurement but I think that is in the error area. Yeah, I'm that weirdo who looks at output impedence like first or second thing in amp measurements. I really like that you do it with speaker wire so it's more applicable in the real world.
Oh, that reminds me - do you use like plain ol' 12 gauge wire for your output impedence tests or something else?
There's an error in the text below the square wave chart (there's a broken image placeholder instead). Also, no output impedance measurement but I think that is in the error area.
Sorry about that. I was on the road when I posted the review and missed the error.
John Atkinson
Technical Editor, Stereophile
- less Supamark.
Gee, I wonder why both Mercedez AND Porsche offer Burmeister in their automobiles??
Naw, the usual mid-fi suspects know best! They, and only they, only know the cost of great sound and the rest is bs.
Those multi-billion dollar auto makers have been fooled again!
Not one poster actually talked about the amp's performance outside of the 'buzz', but instead rabidly attacked the author like mad dogs.
No one should take these children for adults.
Just get rid of the ability to post comments already.
Burmester have been in the business for so long that a lot of buyers of Mercedes and Porsche will have heard of the brand. Especially German men in their 50ies and 60ies often grew up reading about the legendary qualities of that shiny chrome gear in all the HiFi magazines. (Actually, in times of the Iron Curtain I talked to Hungarian HiFi gearheads and the gospel had spread so far that even they dreamt of one day owning a Burmester amp.) So it's a good way to convey an added sense of luxury. The actual audio gear in the cars is probably not bad, but automobiles are such hostile environments for sound reproduction (so many reflective surfaces at all kinds of angles, all in close proximity, plus engine, wind and road noise) that this presents some hard limits for playback quality.
So, you don't have the experience of actually listening to anything Burmeister. How am I to trust your experience that you write about above? Simple trust of a stranger in a post about 2nd hand experiences?
There are enough great reviews by trusted reviewers - like JVS - that have reviewed first hand this gear. Many German reviewers as well, you know, that do it for a living. Many in TAS as well. All of them have had excellent experiences.
But perhaps you think it's just 'luxury' that drives owners to purchase.
Most of all, you don't seem to think the Greatest auto manufacturers of all time don't really know what they are talking about nor the products they put into their vehicles. They didn't vet their greatness ahead of time? Porsche puts 'just good enough for luxury' in their vehicles??
Go to an audio show and hear it for yourself before you speculate and create a half-informed opinion.
The last few percentage points toward audio perfection have always been exponentially higher in price.
Jim Austin: "During my time with the 218s, one of the amps began to buzz. Sometimes the noise was low, sometimes it was a bit louder, and occasionally both amps buzzed."
My guess is this was caused by Burmester upping the Class-A bias a touch more than normal, to get it as sweet as possible sounding in the highs for the review.
Trouble is the transformer/s may start to resonate their windings when they get a little too hot after a while with that extra bias current being pulled through them.
Cheers George
"...caused by Burmester upping the Class-A bias..." - George S
From the specifications tab, quiescent power consumption is only 65W, so is not high bias.
Depends on the trany specs on what's not going to stress them a little.
Cheers George
interesting test, and always a pleasure to read JVS’ texts.. but when the bridged dual-mono setup was changed to a single Stereo one, with some success, my first question was - and bi-amping?
JVS$$ wrote: "During my time with the 218s, one of the amps began to buzz... the noise never interfered with listening, and the amps sounded so good that I doubt anything serious was wrong with them."
If they cost $80,000 per channel, the buzzing would presumably be even less of a problem.
You guys are just too much. And you don't even see it.
and yet you assume it's a fault or proof of something broken.
Read George's response above as well as SupaMark's.
PS- I thought you were giving up. Please do.
Ofc, Mr. Glotz (last time I called you by your first name, out of respect, you accused me of doxxing), buzzing coming from the vicinity of a $50,000 amplifier is not proof of anything being broken.
Of course not. Who would ever suggest such a thing?
The only thing that could make these buzzing monoblocks more perfect would be if they cost double the price.
There are valid explanations for the buzz, but you truly won't respond to any of it in a rational, adult way.
See George's response above. Biasing (too high) will have an effect. The level of buzz you are assuming is somehow causing an issue. It did NOT for JVS, the professional here.
George: "Trouble is the transformer/s may start to resonate their windings when they get a little too hot after a while with that extra bias current being pulled through them."
SupaMark also brings up a valid response. But you won't wait until the Manufacturer addresses it nor will you believe anyone's valid response. You rather like ranting without logic or fact.
My name is not Mr. Glotz. My handle is Glotz. You were doxxing before, you are not now.
Your lack of respect towards everyone exposes your lack of character.
You have no idea of why that buzzing was there...and yet you assume it's a fault or proof of something broken.
The most common cause of transformers buzzing is DC on the AC line. Perhaps one of Jason's neighbors was occasionally using some kind of industrial equipment that had a half-wave-rectified power supply.
John Atkinson
Technical Editor, Stereophile
As JVS wrote: "... even when it was present, the noise never interfered with listening, and the amps sounded so good that I doubt anything serious was wrong with them."
Undoubtedly, JA1 is correct here. And if it wasn't industrial equipment, somebody on his block was probably using their hair dryer.
Gentlemen.
I've never had the Parasounds in house, and I no longer have either the Rotel Michi or the Burmester 218s. If someone wants to round up broken in pairs, ship or cart them to Port Townsend and back, help pack and unpack and pack again, and join me in the music room for comparison listening, I welcome it.
I'd especially love to compare the Rotels and the Burmesters. Take a look at what was in my system then (including the unseen room treatment), and what is there now. I'd love to hear how the Rotel Michi sounds with the reference system in its present state. On which note, several months from now you'll read a review of the Moon 891 network player / preamplifier that includes a DAC. In that review, you'll find some comments on the contribution of the Innuos Statement Next-Gen music server / PhoenixNET switch combo to my system's performance. It will help clarify how big a difference there is between "then" and the ever-evolving "now."
jason
... which is Stereophile A-rated. A pair of them can be run as monoblocks. KR said it exhibited "superb sound quality." JA characterized it as an "extraordinary amplifier." It is about the size of a shoebox and weighs less than 15 lbs. Cost for a pair is about $7K. Neither a back-breaker nor a wallet-buster.
https://www.stereophile.com/content/benchmark-media-systems-ahb2-power-amplifier
I am one of those gullible consumers who notices the vast difference between a Yamaha amplifier and the Burmester 218. In weight, in bulk, in finish, in price, but also - dear me - in sound reproduction. And, to add insult to injury, at some stage I owned a Yamaha A1 integrated amplifier (and NAD and Naim electronics). As a classical music buff who often attends concerts, I immediately knew that the Burmester 216 reproduces acoustic instruments the way I hear them live. On top of that, the amplifier draws me into the recording. What makes the 216 exceptional? Ceteris paribus, a vanishingly low noise floor, which seems to expand the dynamic range to live proportions. And the 218 doubles down on the 216. Gullible as I am, I believe very, very few amplifiers achieve this (I also auditioned d'Agostinos, and remained "unmoved"; however, other circumstances might have been at play). So, 216 in bi-amp or 218 in stereo? I was mesmerized by the 218 and bought it. On a proper stand (very important), and with the help of some Nordost trickery, the 218 soars. In stereo mode, inversing the phase improves the 218 performance in 90% of the cases. Fortunately, no buzzing to report. Audition the 216 and 218 at your own peril.
FEATURED VIDEO
| Loudspeakers Amplification Digital Sources | |
Analog Sources Accessories Featured | |
Music Columns Retired Columns | |
Show Reports | |
Features Latest News Community | |
Resources Subscriptions |
© 2025 Stereophile
