This review page is supported in part by the sponsors whose ad banners are displayed below
As the booster sessions presaged, the Burson amp is probably as neutral as subjective listening would recognize without elaborate confirmation on the test bench. Words like 'accurate', 'exacting', 'firm' and 'articulate' should top the list of associated reviewer vocabulary. The best catch-all phrase might be matter of fact. This segues directly into parallel and likely heated discussions on the pros and cons of passive vs. active preamps. There the Burson amplifier would become a 'passive amplifier' equivalent. The vital difference is zero loss of drive particularly in the bass with actually low-register power and dry grip that exceeded the warmer gentler Mosfet circuits of the ModWright KWA-100 and FirstWatt M2 (the rather more expensive Nagra MSA reintroduced the slugger aspects of the Burson while being voiced more fulsome and texturally denser overall).

Teamed up with Burson's own preamplifier, the latter steers the presentation from a potentially cooler more abstracted and stiffer vibe into something warmer, richer and darker. As I put it in the KWA-100 review without the Pre 160, "...down the list of usual suspects—treble, midrange and bass—the Burson had the slammier grippier bass and cooler sharper top end. Far more decisive than any quantitative aspects however was a noticeable qualitative difference between both presentations. The Burson had a crisp and dry manner of just the facts about it. I couldn't really fault it objectively. Yet artistically, it left me cold. Not bleached, the ModWright had far more white in its color palette to sound more elastic, airy, buoyant and breathing. The Burson was stiff by comparison; correct but somewhat rigid.


"Arguably a tad less focused and locked, the ModWright was more expansive, texturally fluffier and with my quite crystalline front end the clearly more satisfying amp to listen to. Had I been the proverbial fly on the wall in their makers' respective facilities, I imagine the Burson team obsessing about pushing measurable specs to the max; Dan Wright applying subjective gut instinct honed by years as modifier, his ears as guide... One presentation was solid, unmoving and as such, hard not in terms of overdrawn etched attacks but how it would feel if you played Chopin without rubato. The other was breathing, fluctuating with and riding on the music. In that sense, it was soft - pliable, elastic. Objectively, the Burson had more control in the bass, more extension on top. Subjectively, the Australian more was less. The ModWright had fluidity."


In systems where the PP 160 elicits similar reactions, the addition of the 160 preamplifier should flip the very same attributes. To remind us of this relativity dance, reader Tim Patchett feels that the Burson "is a wonderful performer with the same attributes you describe but a different personal conclusion. I have the older P-100  integrated. With my Tonian TL-D1s, it's making the best sound my (limited) ears have heard. The Burson does everything so right that I find it refreshing in its exacting detailed presentation." To shift from exactitude to refreshing often requires nothing more than a different set of ears - or speakers, room, ancillaries. From my in-house amplifiers, the FirstWatt F5's flavor was closest to that of the PP 160. Mindful that the Burson's greater power makes it suitable for a larger variety of speakers, how would a direct A/B fronted by the Australian preamp peg specifics? How about the Wyred4Sound STP-SE preamp vs. the challenger from Oz? How about crisscrossing them all?

Wyred4Sound + PP 160 = Preamp 160 + F5. That's the neat but true nutshell conclusion. Compared to the F5, the Burson amp was weightier and more massive in the bass. It was generally a bit thicker and meatier and dimensionally not as lit up to portray recorded ambiance with a diminished sense of lucidity. By degrees this traded transparency for density, speed for mass. As does my Esoteric C-03 preamp in its higher gain settings, the class A Australian preamp with its 15dB of voltage gain added girth, bass power and warmth. Attacks blunted a bit and articulation softened compared to the passive-until-not Californian (it's always active but without voltage gain until one exceeds unity gain). The presentation got considerably darker. For the spatially most luminous energetically most vibrant sound, the Wyred/FirstWatt combo clearly topped the bill. The all-Burson combo made up the opposing polarity. The two bolded combos split the difference surprisingly even to occupy the middle ground. The F5's speed/illumination advantage could be handicapped with the Burson preamp to make the Australian amp (with Wyred's pre) the more powerful doppelgänger. The Pre 160 with its stable mate amp acted as brake.
The upshot is that team Burson—presumably strategically—did not apply the same voicing to each 160 Series component. The amp is cooler, very exacting, not sharp per se but grippy and particularly potent in the nether regions. The preamp is noticeably darker and mellower to well complement the PP 160 for those finding it "too neutral" on its own. Neither exhibits nasties like chalk, grit or steel in the treble. In terms of raw resolution as we tend to think of it when hearing more little details and particularly the illusion of alien space overlaid on our own acoustic, the amp had clearly more than the pre.


On a mundane matter, to get any kind of usable range for my 5.48V max Weiss DAC2, I had to step down its resistive trimmer by two notches to arrive at 1.78V. At full source output, the Pre 160 in the above system/room got too loud at just 3 clicks above mute yet not quite loud enough at 2. For standard 2V sources, the discrete steps of Burson's custom attenuator seem quite appropriate—I could get to about 10:30—but even then are nowhere near as many or as fine-toothed as most other popular solutions.
For higher source voltages, they in fact become painfully restrictive*. They come on too fast and are too coarse. I clearly suffered gain poisoning. That's my term for excessive voltage gain. The Burson duo alone provides a massive 44dB. For context—most consumers are poorly informed about 'how many watts' they actually listen to—the FirstWatt does just 15dB. I run that way below unity gain with my customary Esoteric C-03 preamp. Because the Burson combo is quite loaded with gain but doesn't offer anything like 0.5dB level increments, prospective shoppers must ascertain whether the stepped attenuator in conjunction with their source and average playback volumes gives the desired flexibility.
_____________________

* Let's remember also that the input sensitivity for a 1V signal is a very high 285mV. This preamp redlines very quickly.

Conclusion: Built like little domestic tanks, stripped down to the barest of feature essentials on the preamp but with a very rare and highly useful booster input on the amp, these 160 Series components from Down Under demonstrate what happens when hardcore DIYers go commercial. Sonics are as no-nonsense and robust as the build quality is. Return on investment particularly with the amp is high. Where prior comparisons had pegged the ModWright KWA-100 as soul brother to FirstWatt's M2, the Burson PP 160 is a FirstWatt F5 that trades some raw resolution for output power if preceded by a more lit-up faster preamp like the Wyred.

The Pre 160 majors on warmth, body and chewy darkness to be overshadowed on air, ambient retrieval and immediacy by Wyred's STP-SE. Then it is utterly annihilated on raw functionality. The Californian has RCA/XLR i/o ports, a configurable HT bypass and comprehensive remote facilities with display. It costs a tad less and for all its features not only suffers no audible compromises but in my context took a very clear lead. The admittedly gifted competitor refused to accept as golden rule Burson's declared credo of functional minimalism serves superior sonics. It's really just a choice that runs a hard line into hair shirt turf. Aren't you tired of the myth that convenience must mean compromised performance? Perhaps it's more difficult to pull off but that's simply part of good engineering. Or should be. All said, for what the money buys in this 160 Series, I was particularly impressed with the amplifier both in normal mode and as silent partner in a low-power valve dalliance. The compact PP 160 struck me as a real winner.
Quality of packing: Good.
Reusability of packing: A few times.
Ease of unpacking/repacking: Easy.
Condition of component received: On delivery, the amp suffered high noise. Burson diagnosed it as a semi-detached transistor and the repaired unit worked flawless.
Completeness of delivery: Perfect.
Website comments: Good. It's understandably a bit heavy on "opamps are evil" propaganda since that's the company's identity.
Human interactions: Dialogue over the very much delayed review process was often slower than anticipated. Despite clear descriptions of initial amplifier problems, the first Burson contact was frustratingly ineffective at taking it serious. It did get sorted promptly when someone else stepped in but involved getting a bit heavy handed with the first. As a consumer by proxy, that wasn't very impressive.
Pricing: High value.
Final comments & suggestions: Excellent build quality. The preamp could benefit from a shallower volume taper to accommodate higher source voltages; a second pre-out to connect to Burson's headphone amp; and many users might wish for remote control. While class A, the preamp only runs moderately warm. Turning the entire chassis into a heat sink is clearly effective. The amp's booster feature is very efficacious. While it does alter pure tube sonics, particularly transistor listeners would say for the better. This solution merits a definite investigation.
Burson Audio website