This is a review of the Burson Audio Conductor, a combined headphone amplifier and digitial to analog converter. But since the amplifier section of the Burson Conductor is identical to the Burson Audio Soloist, you can consider this a review of them both. Note: Since this review was written, Burson Audio launched the Burson Conductor Virtuoso. It houses the same amplifier section as the Conductor and the Soloist, but has a different volume control, featuring a remote.
The Burson Soloist sports a powerful headphone amplifier, evolved from its predecessor, the Burson HA160. It has three analog inputs, and a 1/4′ headphone ouput as well as a pre-amp output. Adding a multiple input digital-to-analog converter (DAC) to this, it makes the The Burson Conductor somewhat of a multitasking champion. First, it houses a headphone amplifier identical to the stand-alone Burson Soloist. Second, it has a great sounding DAC, with its own dedicated power supply (in order not to degrade the sound of the amplifier section). Third, it offers both fixed and pre-amp outputs. Thus, as opposed to many similar looking products, this is not a DAC with a secondary headphone amp, nor is it a headphone amplifier with an “add-on” DAC. This a serious head-amp and a great DAC, with full pre-amp functionality including multiple digital and analog inputs. Enclosed in a beautiful aluminum chassis the Burson Conductor can serve as the center for a great setup for both headphones and speakers.
Doing this review, I focused primarily on the on the Conductor’s headphone amplification capabilities. The Burson were compared track by track and headphone by headphone to some high quality headphone amps. It really did pretty well. And yes, I also checked out the DAC-section, which also did pretty well.
First impressions
My first impressions with the Conductor were quite good. Using the HD650, I found especially the soundstage impressive. The Shure SRH1840 felt good too, with a great soundstage and a detailed, yet easy flowing, natural sound. The Audeze LCD-2 rev.1 was very enjoyable with the Conductor, for the same reasons. With those headphones, it clearly bettered the Lake People G103P – my “value for money” reference,. Though having its own appeal, with a more meaty sound, the 103P felt a bit muted in comparison, especially in the upper registers.
However, introducing the 103P’s favorite headphone, the Hifiman HE-500, made things a bit different. The Conductor really didn’t drive them with the grunty authority of the little black box. The G103P offers good image depth, with more meat, and a deep, powerful sound. The Conductor is crisper and lighter sounding, more exciting in the top registries – but somewhat flatter sounding. During initial listening, I felt it sounded open and wide, but in a bit strange, somewhat hollow way. However, after giving the Conductor some more time with the HE500, I liked it more than I did at first. It plays the HE-500 different than my other amplifiers, but in the end I started to enjoy it, especially for classical music.
The Conductor felt more refined, but significantly less powerful than the 103P when driving HE500. This suspicion was strengthened when I introduced the ultimate power-test, the notoriously hard to drive Hifiman HE-6. The Conductor really struggled, way more than the 103P. But since the HE-6 is a special case I will not hold it against the Conductor.
Generally the Conductor comes out as quite a bit more refined than the 103P, and with the exception of the mentioned Hifimans, it has proper amounts of authority and grunt too. Thereby, it was declared fit to move on for some competition in its own price segments – and above.
Amplifier comparisons
The in-depth amplifier comparisons were done using the Violectric V800 as a DAC for both amps, bypassing the internal DAC of the Conductor. I wanted to see how the Conductor’s/Soloist’s amplifier-section worked, using a familiar and neutral DAC with balanced output for the balanced amps that would be in the competition. I checked out the DAC-section of the Conductor later, although in less detail.
Each listening session is coconcluded with a subjective preference indicator, making it easy to see which amplifier I preferred for each session:
“A = B” indicates no distinguishable differences
“A >< B” indicates equal preference, but not necessarily that A and B sounds the same
“A > B” indicates “A preferred to B”
“A >> B” indicates “A clearly preferred to B”
In the following pages I will compare the Conductor/Soloist to the Violectric V200, the Auralic Taurus, and the Leben CS300XS.
The Conductor vs. Violectric V200
Audeze LCD-2 rev.1 Playing Radiohead’s “Morning Bell”, the Conductor is a bit drier sounding than the V200, which is fuller and smoother. The Conductor has the thinner, but more obviously textured bass and crisper highs, the V200 has the fullness and authority, making me prefer the latter. Playing some Emerson String Quartet, however, the Conductor feels clearer and sharper and brings the violins more up front, again revealing some extra texture and timbre, which I like. All in all, I might slightly prefer the Conductor, but certainly not for all music.
Conductor >< V200
Audeze LCD-3 I never really found the LCD-3 to be a good match for the V200. It is not that it is terrible, sometimes I really enjoy the unique laid back way of that combination. However, most of the time I just find it dull. It is a somewhat of a mystery, since V200 is suh a delicious amp with the LCD-2. But comparing the Conductor using the LCD-3 never makes me doubt my preferences. The Conductor brings the midrange more up front where they should be. It has better clarity, better imaging, it sounds more open and engaging. Whether I was playing Portishead, The Alban Berg Quartet or the saxophones of BMX’s “Bergen Open”, I clearly prefered the Conductor.
Conductor >> V200
Hifiman HE-500 With the HE-500 the V200 has the upper hand, with an appealing authority, retaining detail and imaging at the same time as it gives that extra little smoothness. The Conductor gets a bit dry in comparison, without gaining in any particular area. The soundstage is wide, but a bit “hollow”. The difference is less apparent on string quartets than it is with electronic and vocal music.
V200 > Conductor
Ultrasone PRO 2900 Listening to BMX, both the saxophones and the percussion are a bit more airy and crispy with the Conductor, whilst the V200 has a darker sound. It is neither grainy nor muffeled, just more “rooted”. With Mahler’s symphony the Conductor is more controlled and tighter in the bass region, with clearly more texture, while the V200 generally is fuller sounding. Since I tend to see the Conductor as a slightly bright amp, I expected it to make the treble happy PRO2900 a bit too bright, but it really didn’t. All in all, I cannot really say which of the amps are better or more preferred, so I have to call it a tie.
Conductor >< V200
Beyerdynamics T1 This is my brightest can. Trying some string quartets, BMX’s saxophones and the female vocals of Portishead, I always prefer the V200 for its slightly warmer touch and slightly punchier punch. Not a huge difference, actually they are sometimes remarkably similar – but I always end up preferring the V200 – especially on the Portishead track where the Conductor/T1 gets a metallic shine on the vocals.
V200 > Conductor
Summing it up, the Conductor fares well against the V200. They have different characters. I tend to think of the Conductor as lighter, brighter and wider, and the V200 fuller, darker and smoother. The Conductor is conveying more texture, the V200 is more fluid, but still has lots of detail. The V200 feels like it has a deeper soundstage – like the imaginary room stretches further away, while the Conductor has a wider and more open soundstage. What I prefer depends to some extent on the headphones and the music, generally finding the Conductor better for classical pieces, as its name might suggest.
The Conductor vs. Auralic Taurus
Beyerdynamic T1 Playing Portishead’s It Could Be So Sweet using the Beyerdynamic T1, I find the Taurus to give a more precise and detailed presentation than the Conductor, with more air between instruments, sharper imaging, generally tighter and more controlled. However, it sometimes feels almost too sharp, and this combo never was my favorite, even though it can be spectacular on some records. The Conductor do have a slightly fuller and rounder sound, which have some appeal, however.
Playing some Mahler, the Taurus is digging out significantly more detail. With male singer/songwriter Thomas Dybdahl, the Conductor feels slightly muted in direct comparison. On Olga Konkova’s “It could be so sweet” (jazz percussion and female vocals) makes the hint of extra warmth that the Conductor offers nice, but still it is a trade off between that extra little hint of smoothness at the cost of the sheer clarity of the Taurus. I find neither of these amps ideal for the T1, but the Conductor cannot match Taurus’s clarity, and offers too little to compensate. I also find the Conductor strangely giving the impression of having to go to its limits driving the 600 ohm load – I had to almost max the volume on the Mahler symphony recording.
Taurus > Conductor
HE500 is one of my favorite cans for the Taurus, and sure enough, moving from the T1 to the HE500 with Taurus is a delicious experience. To my surprise, the Conductor isn’t that far away, quite enjoyable and not different in over-all sound signature. Initially I felt the Conductor was making the HE500 sound a bit strange, but after getting used to it, it felt totally fine. But the the Taurus has the edge – on the edges, so to say. More alive up in the highs, digging deeper in the bass, faster and more intense. Both offers good punch, but the Taurus’ deep end grunt is not matched.
Playing some experimental rock (“Fire!” with Jim O`Rourke) the Taurus again demonstrates its superb authority and clarity, punch and just the right dose of warmth for the HE500. The Conductor is no slouch and is not too far behind, but the difference is significant. With the Emerson String Quartet, the Taurus is sharper, faster and clearer and more lively, but here the Conductor adds some smoothness that has quite some appeal. Still – this round is consistently in favor of the Taurus.
Taurus >> Conductor
HD650 Starting with some strings (Alban Berg Quartet) Taurus is the more lively and clear sounding ampplifier also here. But now the Conductors slight smoothness is quite appealing, making the HD650 more like the “smooth operator” I like it to be. The jazz saxophones of BMX is equally enjoyable, for the same reasons. On the Portishead track, however, the Taurus just is so much clearer without getting dry and edgy, that the Conductor sound slightly less resolved in comparison. Still, the HD650 is a great phone for the Conductor.
Taurus > Conductor
LCD3 A slow jazz track from “The Splendor” reveals that the Taurus is significantly more open and transparent sounding. The Conductor is good, but I remember reading over at 6moons that the Taurus has got a special “dry warmth” – and here it is really obvious how good a description that is. Playing some Smashing Pumpkins, the Conductor is smoother and slower sounding, the Taurus sounds tighter, more aggressive and with better separation. On the noisy and jazzy track from “Fire!” I don’t find the difference that big, actually for some reason enjoying the Conductors presentation more, it has a bit more meaty sound to it. I feel the same way with the Emerson String Quartet – the Conductor is fuller sounding without loosing much on detail and imaging.
Taurus > Conductor
Concluding, the Taurus is more lively and dynamic. It is is more resolved, has more grunt, is faster, and sharper without getting edgy (unless the recording is so, I guess). However, the Conductor is not that far behind, and its slightly smoother nature is often very appealing and sometimes preferable to the Taurus’ rawer sound.
The Conductor vs. Leben CS300XS
SRH1840 The noisy, indie rock track from “Fire!”, is sounding great with the Conductor . But the Leben is more vivid, spacious and up front, though, and in comparison the Conductor offers a somewhat flatter soundstage and feels slightly less dynamic. With Portishead, the Leben still is more vivid, but on this song I might like the Conductor better. Maybe it smoothes things out a bit – in a good way. The Conductor also makes a good show with Mahler, but compared to the Leben it just doesn’t feel that alive. The Conductor plays well, but there is just more symphonic drama with the Leben. Even though I am generally preferring the Leben, I really think the Conductor does a great job with the SRH1840.
Leben > Conductor
LCD-3 With Mahler’s symphony, the Leben is a bit more vivid and spacious, as well as more upfront. The Conductor is feeling more neutral but less alive. Less bass punch, but slightly better control in some ultra-complex passages. Playing Thomas Dybdahl’s pleasing vocals, the Conductor again is leaning more towards a “neutral” sound, whilst the Leben has more of that energetic vividness, and a slightly clearer sounding presentation.
The Conductor is really good with the saxophones of BMX, but the Leben just makes the drums feel more like a drum skin vibrating, the cymbals shimmer in a more cymbal-like manner, the wooden blocks feel more like real wood. The music is just more up front, more real sounding when amped by the tubes of the Leben, and this happens without sacrificing detail and imaging. All in all, the Conductor is really great with the LCD-3, and the Leben is even better.
Leben > Conductor
AKG Q701 The Conductor plays the BMX’s jazz album beautifully with the AKG Q701. Wide open, spacious and musical. So does the Leben, but the differences are actually not very big with the Q701. They are different flavors, the Conductor feeling again more neutral and less vivid. Thomas Dybdahl is a very pleasant listen on the Conductor. It feels smoother than the Leben, a smoothness that suits this track well. But the Leben has a liquid touch to it, in a very clear way. Playing the strings of the Alban Berg Quartett, I find the Conductor to be a bit more polite in its presentation, but it sounds great, with superb imaging . So does the Leben, again in a bit more upfront way. Some might call it more engaging, some might prefer the Conductor calling it more neutral. On the AKG, I found it hard to find a clear winner, they both do a terrific job.
Conductor >< Leben
Conclusion: The Leben and the Conductor are quite different amplifiers. I feel the more expensive Leben certainly defends its quite significantly higher price, but the Conductor has a smoother, more neutral sounding tone to it – without getting clinical. The Leben might be called more natural, in the way that it makes the instruments come alive in a way only a very few amplifiers can. In my experience, it is hard to beat a nice tube amplifier in that midrange liveliness, retaining superb imaging and detail. The only place the Conductor had a clear advantage were in bass control in very complex passages, but the Leben might change in that regard with other tubes.
Continue reading on the next page (click below)……
