I was also surprised at the suggestion of the burmester preamp adding coloration. To me this goes against their design philosophy and would be somewhat shocking to see in their reference unit. I have not heard it so cannot comment.
Burmester 911 mk3
- Thread starter AudioExplorations
- Start date
Every piece of audio equipment adds some form of "coloration". I prefer the term sonic footprint. When I listened to the 808 MK5 during 6 months, it was paired with the 069 and of course a 948 and extra power supplies. The amps however, were Mark Levinson No.53 monos., and all Odin cables.
Last edited:
Hi Thf and Rocco, what's the improvement percentage of getting a pair of 911 monos over a stereo 911?
Jtein,
I have not heard the 911 monos but from experiences with the BEL 1001 monos vs stereo, the main benefit is much better control over the entire musical spectrum. The musical presentation is much more relaxed and difficult passages can be reproduced without strain. It will probably be the same for the 911s. It will be difficult to quantify the benefits in terms of percentage. It also depends on whether your speaker needs the extra power.
I have not heard the 911 monos but from experiences with the BEL 1001 monos vs stereo, the main benefit is much better control over the entire musical spectrum. The musical presentation is much more relaxed and difficult passages can be reproduced without strain. It will probably be the same for the 911s. It will be difficult to quantify the benefits in terms of percentage. It also depends on whether your speaker needs the extra power.
Better at all. Outstanding in micro and macro dynamic, accurately reproduce low level musical information, immediacy, body of instruments, higher contrast resolution and transparency. With 911's monos the sound reaches easily the heaven.
Hi JTein - I agree with Thf and many who have noted the improvements of monos over their stereo counterparts...control, effortlessness, and in some cases, channel separation. As for whether the speaker needs more power...some speakers clearly use/require more power than others (Sound Lab A1s, Magicos)...however, i will say that most every speaker i have heard (even bookshelves) will reflect a benefit in monos.
I am told even the Gryphon monos improve over the stereo...which is in fact dual mono (totally mono internally, just one shared chassis.) The Antileon Signature even has 2 plug outlets (as does the new Mephisto). Hey, more power is more power is more effortless.
Hi lloydelee,
I've something very interesting to share regarding power. When I look at the meter of the ARC ref 250 that I'm currently testing, the needle hovers between 0.025 to 0.25 watts only for normal listening volume! Even when I cranked up the volume to deafening levels, it only reads 2.5 watts! So, how much power do we really need?
I've something very interesting to share regarding power. When I look at the meter of the ARC ref 250 that I'm currently testing, the needle hovers between 0.025 to 0.25 watts only for normal listening volume! Even when I cranked up the volume to deafening levels, it only reads 2.5 watts! So, how much power do we really need?
A lot more than you would think ... Even with HIgh Efficiency speakers... I know that Tom Danley wrote something about this in the WBF and to me it was eye opening ... I can't even recall in which thread it was but the gist of it is the following:
What SPl meter gives you is an average in most cases or a weighted value. If you were to take an oscilloscope connected to a microphone and have a look at the real instantaneous peak SPL of sounds surrounding us it would show you that a simple metal pan falling on the floor has peak SPL well over 120 dB ..Oh Yes people .. Well over.. An SPL meter would average the reading and give you a nice tepid 95 dB if that much. The reality of the wave shown on an oscilloscope would be much higher. Danley measured these at 136 dB!! .. for that you need horsepower ..Lot of it ... I started a thread on the subject some time ago and it could be that Tom Danley answer is in this thread Wil look at it . It was about "how much power is really needed" or something to that effect
Call me lazy I refuse to search my own threads ... What I believe the monos give really in those instances is more watts and that is audible. I was very satisfied with stereo 911 .. I now, can imagine what 400 watts at 8 ohm of Burmester 911 watts can produce in term of musicality, control and instantaneous peaks ... Thus my attraction to another fine amps unfortunately not well known by audiophiles: the fabulously great sounding and stupendously powerful Bryston 28B SST2 monos . 1000 watts/ch at 8 ohms of Excellence ... I am dreaming how that would sound with something like the Burmester 077 or the 808 preamps driving them sourced by a Burmester DAC...So very true. Getting monos over stereo amps of the same model does not guaranty sonic improvements. But, I am not talking about the 911 as I have not compared stereo and mono side by side.
I would tend to agree with the above as it's actually not so much how much wattage (power) but the current that the amp is able produce.
Not as much as some believe. More power does not greater sonic quality in some cases. Some of the most incredible, amazing amps I have ever herd are 8-25 wpc. Of, as usual, it is system dependent.
Here's my own take on power...yes, i would rather have 50 great watts than 1000 sh-ty ones. (Yes, i know...not saying much! ) A better example is i always preferred the Forte 4 (50 watts pure Class A) to the Forte 5 and 6 (100+ watts but not Class A.) Even the dealers admitted it...the 4 sounded by far the best.
But i would take 200 great watts over everything above! The reason i like some of these higher powered amps that have huge capacitors and current capability is that the amount of stored energy gives the amp the ability to instantly provide high-juice for the 120db peaks/crescendos that can come from even mid-volume music. It's kinda like superb, super-powerful, super-clean bass...once you've had it in your system, it is so hard to give it up. Once i heard effortless micro and macrodynamics, boy would it be hard to give it up.
) A better example is i always preferred the Forte 4 (50 watts pure Class A) to the Forte 5 and 6 (100+ watts but not Class A.) Even the dealers admitted it...the 4 sounded by far the best. But i would take 200 great watts over everything above! The reason i like some of these higher powered amps that have huge capacitors and current capability is that the amount of stored energy gives the amp the ability to instantly provide high-juice for the 120db peaks/crescendos that can come from even mid-volume music. It's kinda like superb, super-powerful, super-clean bass...once you've had it in your system, it is so hard to give it up. Once i heard effortless micro and macrodynamics, boy would it be hard to give it up.
Neutral on the Class A debate. The best amps I have heard so far be they tube or SS were not Class A.. The Burmester 911 is a case in point ... There are many others ... Spectral 360, The aforementioned Bryston, Some VTL, The ARC Ref..etc.. The list is very long of amplifiers of distinction that are not Class A... And Let's not take the Bryston Lightly it is a superior amp .. And an extremely powerful one at that ... And it is not that Dieter Burmester would not know how to design a Class A amp .. They (Burmester design team) found, like many others that that Class AB can offer the goods as well as Class A..
Similar threads
 | Steve Williams Site Founder | Site Owner | Administrator |  | Ron Resnick Site Co-Owner | Administrator |  | Julian (The Fixer) Website Build | Marketing Managersing |