Amplifier Choice for Triangle Borea BR08: Burson vs Atoll vs Audiolab

[RandomEar]

There are also some additional measurements with more detail on power and different loads from hifinews.com. It is one of the few staying stable as the power increases and load is changing (measurements are THD not THD+N but some calculations can be made). Bridge Mode was disappointing though. The website image of bridge mode is not correct. There is one hidden reflecting the officially published one (THD bridged mode).

Interesting. Those measurements don't seem to agree very well with those from Stereo.de. Maybe Stereo doesn't use THD @ 1 kHz but some averaged value, which would be higher due to the increase towards 20 kHz as shown by hifinews.

There is no free lunch as with bridge mode the load is getting in half increasing the noise and THD. There should be an option or done automatically to decrease gain. Maybe then could had better results. Still I have seen rare cases that bridge mode can work well on 4ohm let alone lower. I tried to compare stereo mode vs bridge mode on one of my speakers (Quad Revela 2) and I much proffered the stereo mode. In bridge was less clear, although there was a hint of more bass maybe as it was getting less controlled (increased harmonics). I was waiting a much more analytical review/measurements from soundstagehifi.com too. But they have published only for 9000Q leaving the promise for 9000P unfulfilled.

Unless you're power-limited or the amp is a really bad design with an abysmal dampening factor, there really should be zero audible difference between bridged and non-bridged operating modes. Unless you had good controls in place during testing and switched very quickly, it's much more likely that it sounds the same and the results are due to bias.

As for measurements alone, they can tell something but maybe something is missing from measurements themselves. I compared Audiolab 9000P and it was much better choice than Topping LA90. I observed that the Topping having more loose bass sounded bloated on some cases/speakers. Audiolab produce more correct tight bass, that is why one year before I chose that over risking getting two Topping B200. Topping LA90 could theoretically have a more clear reproduction, but at least if you check the 20Hz protection or the recent measurements on B200, you can see the limit that a power supply can have. Purifi and Hypex options can be much safe options, especially the 1ET9040 as it can reach safely 1200 watt at 2 ohm. In the past I was thinking that those class D options where not as good as Topping offerings on high frequencies. I checked though that the situation is slightly getting worse at 10 kHz and more obvious at 15 kHZ. The second harmonics of those frequencies are not though hearable so we shouldn't care at all. On some measurements it can be observed a deep on 10kHz and beyond as they choose actually to take into account the noise only and not the harmonics.

The LA90 is not a powerful amp, so that may be limiting in some applications. Still, there should be no subtle difference in sound - either it runs into clipping, or it performs like any other competent amp. It's kind of shame it lacks a clipping indicator, though - that might have been helpful in your tests.

 

[RandomEar]

Some DACs and preamps open the soundstage, and that’s what you should try by yourself. After the choosing of the speakers and setting them in your place, DAC and preamp will affect the way you perceive the sound in your place. A powerfull power amp will ensure the power, but that’s something that you will only get at high volume listening.

Outside of tube designs or really badly performing outliers, DACs and pre-amps won't have any audible effect on your sound. Any DAC which sounds "different" is simply not performing its main task correctly (disregarding stuff like tone controls and EQ).

Sound stage is a property of the recording and affected by your speakers and room acoustics, it really isn't something affected by DACs, pre-amps or amps. You would need to add complex DSP filters including EQ, simulated reflections, delay and so on to audibly alter the perceived sound stage of a recording. Those are not things DACs or pre-amps can or should do.

 

[Miniyouuuu]

I agree that speaker/room interaction is far more critical to perceived soundstage than DACs, preamps or amplifiers.

My point is narrower: apart from digital filter behaviour, the most plausible audible differences between DACs or preamps are likely to come from the analogue output stage: I/V conversion, buffer topology, op-amps vs discrete circuits, output impedance, channel balance, crosstalk, noise, distortion profile, power supply design, gain staging and behaviour under real load.

These are small measurable implementation differences, but they can slightly change the way we perceive focus, depth, separation or tonal density.

Ideally, we should reproduce the source as transparently as possible. But if differences are measurable, level-matched, and a listener consistently prefers one presentation over another, I don’t see the issue. Some people may prefer the most neutral recipe; others may prefer a slightly different balance, even if that comes from a small increase in distortion.

That does not mean the DAC or preamp is “creating” soundstage. It only means that small implementation differences can affect perceived presentation, and listeners may legitimately prefer one over another.

 

[Multicore]

After having moved from an Audiolab 9000P to a dual mono Purifi 1ET9040 I have to say the following: do yourself and your wallet a favor, buy any Purifi 1ET9040, Purifi 1ET6525 or Hypex Nilai.

I would go to a Purifi 9040 or Nilai 500 based power amp

What in particular do you like about Nilai? Comparing Amir's reviews of both the NCx and Nilai, I didn't think Nilai had any clear advantage.

 

[RandomEar]

I agree that speaker/room interaction is far more critical to perceived soundstage than DACs, preamps or amplifiers.

My point is narrower: apart from digital filter behaviour, the most plausible audible differences between DACs or preamps are likely to come from the analogue output stage: I/V conversion, buffer topology, op-amps vs discrete circuits, output impedance, channel balance, crosstalk, noise, distortion profile, power supply design, gain staging and behaviour under real load.

What matters is what comes out of the device. The signal does not care about buffer topology, op amp choices and what not: If the result at the DAC output is audibly tranparent, clearly, the designer chose the right components and topology. You cannot "hear" discrete circuits or the power supply design. If there is zero audible distortion and noise, there is zero audible distortion and noise.

It's fine to prefer certain component choices for other reasons like longevitiy or reliability. But suggesting audible differences between for example capacitors is just nonsense.

These are small measurable implementation differences,

Yes, but measurable does not mean audible.

but they can slightly change the way we perceive focus, depth, separation or tonal density.

What is there to hear if the signal is an essentially perfect representation of the digital source material? Again: It does not make sense to imply that somehow, things we cannot hear are suddenly audible due to some obscure reason such as "using the wrong topology output stage". We can measure the output signal from DACs and pre-amps with precision far, far higher than human hearing is capable of. As in: Orders of maginutde better than our hearing. And the results are that for many modern devices from these categories, they perform audibly transparent.

You cannot, under any circumstances, differentiate between transparent devices in a controlled, level-matched blind test. That is the definition of "transparent" as used on ASR. When comparing them sighted, any impression of sound differences is 100% due to perceptive bias.

Ideally, we should reproduce the source as transparently as possible. But if differences are measurable, level-matched, and a listener consistently prefers one presentation over another, I don’t see the issue. Some people may prefer the most neutral recipe; others may prefer a slightly different balance, even if that comes from a small increase in distortion.

That does not mean the DAC or preamp is “creating” soundstage. It only means that small implementation differences can affect perceived presentation, and listeners may legitimately prefer one over another.

It's fine when people prefer the slightly distorted sound of tube amps over clean(er) transistor designs. You cannot force people to like a certain sound. It's not fine to suggest that devices which measure essentially perfect in all dimensions still sound different. At least not until you can provide clear, objective evidence for this claim.

 

[rjp]

That is correct, a sinus is the best for multimeters without true RMS capability.

I would not worry about frequency response in modern amps. Outside of tube amps and the very cheapest class D without PFFB, I can't remember a single review on ASR where an amp showed a relevant deviation in the FR. If it were present, it would affect the extreme top or bottom end of the spectrum. If one of your amps FRs looks like a rollercoaster nonetheless, I would argue that it's time for a repair

I agree completely. I'm just addicted to fun and learning too
I like the details!

 

[rjp]

After having moved from an Audiolab 9000P to a dual mono Purifi 1ET9040 I have to say the following: do yourself and your wallet a favor, buy any Purifi 1ET9040, Purifi 1ET6525 or Hypex Nilai.

Fyi, in part due to your post I ordered the Buckeye Purifi 1ET6525SA 2 channel Class D amp. It will be fun to have both this amp and the Audiolab 9000p to compare and see what my ears and brain think of the two side by side.

I am so impressed with what I have been learning about modern class D, and am excited at the possibility of finally having a perfect amp where the output is merely a bigger version of the input. Clearly testing of THD, IHD, SINAD @1KHz, freq response, and more support this. I hope me ears agree.

 

[Morinor]

Fyi, in part due to your post I ordered the Buckeye Purifi 1ET6525SA 2 channel Class D amp. It will be fun to have both this amp and the Audiolab 9000p to compare and see what my ears and brain think of the two side by side.

I am so impressed with what I have been learning about modern class D, and am excited at the possibility of finally having a perfect amp where the output is merely a bigger version of the input. Clearly testing of THD, IHD, SINAD @1KHz, freq response, and more support this. I hope me ears agree.

It would be interesting to hear different views. The rest of my system consist of Eversolo DMP-A8 as DAC/streamer, Aune S17 Pro as preamp and Quad Revela 2 are the speakers I use. I have placed also my Quad Revela 2 speakers on Isoacoustics Gaia II Neo. My listening room measures 4.5x3.5x3 (WxDxH) meters or 15.75 square meters or 47.25 cubic meters.

Unless you're power-limited or the amp is a really bad design with an abysmal dampening factor, there really should be zero audible difference between bridged and non-bridged operating modes. Unless you had good controls in place during testing and switched very quickly, it's much more likely that it sounds the same and the results are due to bias.

The change needed some time moving on speaker cable using banana plugs and making the XLR switch. I always compensated the additional gain and I hoped to not hear any difference or even hear the bridge mode better. My speakers can reach about 3.2-3.5 ohm at bass so they can be moderate regarding load and that could affect the results. Bridging amplifiers targets quantity over quality. It needs less load demanding speakers. Which to be honest there are not many or they can be really expensive. Usually they are 2 way speakers. For those 9000P can be enough at 4 and 8 ohms it seems to provide a stable clean power reaching at peaks 500 watt. But even in that case there is a small increase on THD and the price doesn't make sense at around 3000 €/USD.

What in particular do you like about Nilai? Comparing Amir's reviews of both the NCx and Nilai, I didn't think Nilai had any clear advantage.

Yes I would put NCx500 in my list. I actually preferred it over the Nilai when I compared the first results from Amir. It looked like providing more power and being a little more clean on high frequencies.
It is just that Hypex claim that Nilai is a newer design than just an improved one. Some say that Nilai sound more "like an AB amplifier". Which I doubted and now even more. I just put it in the list for those thinking that.
I have some preference towards Purifi as I nitpick. Maybe could call me biased as at least early measurements of Hypex looked worse than those of Purifi.

 

[Multicore]

It is just that Hypex claim that Nilai is a newer design than just an improved one. Some say that Nilai sound more "like an AB amplifier". Which I doubted and now even more. I just put it in the list for those thinking that.

Good quality amps don't sound like anything. As far as I am concerned this is by definition. An amp that has an intrinsic sound of its own isn't a good quality amp.

 

[rjp]

Let's just say this is true, that modern good quality amps don't have any sound that humans can distinguish. That is, they are acoustically transparent.

We also know that with Purifi anf Hypex, transparency can be purchased for 1000.

Where does this leave the high-end audiophile amplifier industry still trying to sell multi-thousand dollar amps they claim all sound better than something else and therefore worth the high prices?

 

[Morinor]

There are also some additional measurements with more detail on power and different loads from hifinews.com. It is one of the few staying stable as the power increases and load is changing (measurements are THD not THD+N but some calculations can be made). Bridge Mode was disappointing though. The website image of bridge mode is not correct. There is one hidden reflecting the officially published one (THD bridged mode). There is no free lunch as with bridge mode the load is getting in half increasing the noise and THD. There should be an option or done automatically to decrease gain. Maybe then could had better results. Still I have seen rare cases that bridge mode can work well on 4ohm let alone lower. I tried to compare stereo mode vs bridge mode on one of my speakers (Quad Revela 2) and I much proffered the stereo mode. In bridge was less clear, although there was a hint of more bass maybe as it was getting less controlled (increased harmonics). I was waiting a much more analytical review/measurements from soundstagehifi.com too. But they have published only for 9000Q leaving the promise for 9000P unfulfilled.
As for measurements alone, they can tell something but maybe something is missing from measurements themselves. I compared Audiolab 9000P and it was much better choice than Topping LA90. I observed that the Topping having more loose bass sounded bloated on some cases/speakers. Audiolab produce more correct tight bass, that is why one year before I chose that over risking getting two Topping B200. Topping LA90 could theoretically have a more clear reproduction, but at least if you check the 20Hz protection or the recent measurements on B200, you can see the limit that a power supply can have. Purifi and Hypex options can be much safe options, especially the 1ET9040 as it can reach safely 1200 watt at 2 ohm. In the past I was thinking that those class D options where not as good as Topping offerings on high frequencies. I checked though that the situation is slightly getting worse at 10 kHz and more obvious at 15 kHZ. The second harmonics of those frequencies are not though hearable so we shouldn't care at all. On some measurements it can be observed a deep on 10kHz and beyond as they choose actually to take into account the noise only and not the harmonics.

Soundstagehifi.com has finally come out: https://www.soundstagehifi.com/index.php/equipment-reviews/2043-audiolab-9000p-stereo-mono-amplifier
It gets good subjective review (close to my experience), but the measurements are not what I would expect compared to other similar amplifiers like Arcam A25 or Cambridge EXA100. THD+N of 1kHz is quite good across all the power range.

 

[rjp]

I am really enjoying this 9000P amp so far. Still waiting for the Buckeye Purifi 2ch to arrive.

Then the testing begins.

 

[Martin Rony]

Hi everyone,

I wanted to circle back, thank you all for your insightful analysis and suggestions on my previous query, and share a quick update on my journey.

After evaluating the options, I finally pulled the trigger on the Burson Timekeeper 3i Reference, and it has been powering my Triangle Borea BR08 speakers for some time now. I was lucky enough to find a pre-owned unit in mint condition, complete with the remote and the Cool Stand, all for a fantastic price of just $800 USD!


To say it's an upgrade from the Audiolab 6000A would be an understatement. The 6000A is a fantastic integrated amp, but as some of you rightly pointed out, it just didn't have the current reserve to handle the BR08's impedance dips (down to 3 Ω) during demanding tracks.

With the Burson Timekeeper 3i, the difference is night and day:

• Current Delivery & Stability: The Class-A topology paired with their Max Current Power Supply (MCPS) provides incredible grip. Even at high volumes during heavy bass segments, the sound remains rock-solid, composed, and effortless. No signs of strain whatsoever.
• Sound Signature: The refinement and musicality are exceptional. The soundstage has opened up significantly, and the tonal accuracy—especially in the midrange and vocals—is beautifully rendered. It strikes a perfect balance between technical precision and musical warmth.

A Quick Question for the Community:
Now that I am fine-tuning the setup, I would love to get your thoughts on the best settings for my specific listening preferences. My playlist consists almost entirely of Indian Classical Music (both Vocal and Instrumental), Ghazals, and Blues.

Since natural timbre, vocal textures, and organic decay of instruments (like the Sitar, Bansuri, or Acoustic Guitars) are my top priorities:

1. Digital Filters: The internal Sabre DAC offers several PCM digital filters (Brickwall, CMFR, Linear Fast, Linear Slow, Minimum Fast, Minimum Slow, Apodizing). For acoustic instruments and soul-stirring vocals, which filter would you recommend to minimize pre-ringing and keep the presentation most natural?
2. Gain Settings (Low vs. High): The BR08s are relatively sensitive (92 dB), but they do have those heavy impedance drops. In terms of absolute refinement, micro-dynamics, and a lower noise floor, should I stick to Low Gain or will High Gain provide better control over the woofers without hardening the upper-midrange?

Would love to hear your technical insights and personal experiences on this!

Thanks again to this amazing community!

Best regards,
Martin Rony

 

[Paul7777x]

Well. First I’d take with a pinch of salt the manufacturers blurb. It’s always, at best, fluff and usually cringe inducing ad-speak.

But… as you’re delighted with your amp that needn’t detain us.

What source are you using? And if you have a picture of how you’re set up that will help many on here to help out.

 

[Paul7777x]

Ps. As to the sensitivity claim; a manufacturers numbers are frequently pulled out of thin air to impress.

It’s unlikely that the BRs will actually measure at 92dB. And it hardly matters anyway. Your amp will deal with whatever the ‘real’ number is quite well indeed.

For your stated requirements, positioning and some room correction will be much more crucial.

 

[RandomEar]

Since natural timbre, vocal textures, and organic decay of instruments (like the Sitar, Bansuri, or Acoustic Guitars) are my top priorities:

1. Digital Filters: The internal Sabre DAC offers several PCM digital filters (Brickwall, CMFR, Linear Fast, Linear Slow, Minimum Fast, Minimum Slow, Apodizing). For acoustic instruments and soul-stirring vocals, which filter would you recommend to minimize pre-ringing and keep the presentation most natural?

Linear phase fast roll-off filters deliver the most faithful reconstruction of any music signal. Pre-ringing is not a defect and is not an audible concern. I have occasionally tested linear phase vs. minimum phase filters on my system and could never detect an audible difference - as expected. In general, the influence of filters is vastly overstated in audiophile circles.

If you would like slightly less energy in the treble and do use mostly 44.1 and 48 kHz material, you can try using a slow roll-off filter. For "high res audio" with sampling rates above that, the slow roll-off shouldn't have an audible influence on the treble anymore.

1. Gain Settings (Low vs. High): The BR08s are relatively sensitive (92 dB), but they do have those heavy impedance drops. In terms of absolute refinement, micro-dynamics, and a lower noise floor, should I stick to Low Gain or will High Gain provide better control over the woofers without hardening the upper-midrange?

Would love to hear your technical insights and personal experiences on this!

Since the gain has absolutely no influence on the sound apart from potentially amplifying noise, you should simply use the lowest gain setting which produces the desired peak SPL you are looking for. Gain isn't related to frequency response, speaker impedance or anything else.

 

[Paul7777x]

It would be interesting to hear different views. The rest of my system consist of Eversolo DMP-A8 as DAC/streamer, Aune S17 Pro as preamp and Quad Revela 2 are the speakers I use. I have placed also my Quad Revela 2 speakers on Isoacoustics Gaia II Neo. My listening room measures 4.5x3.5x3 (WxDxH) meters or 15.75 square meters or 47.25 cubic meters.


The change needed some time moving on speaker cable using banana plugs and making the XLR switch. I always compensated the additional gain and I hoped to not hear any difference or even hear the bridge mode better. My speakers can reach about 3.2-3.5 ohm at bass so they can be moderate regarding load and that could affect the results. Bridging amplifiers targets quantity over quality. It needs less load demanding speakers. Which to be honest there are not many or they can be really expensive. Usually they are 2 way speakers. For those 9000P can be enough at 4 and 8 ohms it seems to provide a stable clean power reaching at peaks 500 watt. But even in that case there is a small increase on THD and the price doesn't make sense at around 3000 €/USD.


Yes I would put NCx500 in my list. I actually preferred it over the Nilai when I compared the first results from Amir. It looked like providing more power and being a little more clean on high frequencies.
It is just that Hypex claim that Nilai is a newer design than just an improved one. Some say that Nilai sound more "like an AB amplifier". Which I doubted and now even more. I just put it in the list for those thinking that.
I have some preference towards Purifi as I nitpick. Maybe could call me biased as at least early measurements of Hypex looked worse than those of Purifi.

I’d suggest the Aune is at least superfluous. The preamp in the A8 is likely be indistinguishable.

 

[Ropeburn]

I really don't get how so many people call speakers like these "significant impedance drops" and worry about current delivery and all. They drop to 3 Ohm, the only significant thing here is the difference to the nominal 8 Ohm rating which is false, they're just 4 Ohm speakers. Fairly efficient too, rated 92dB so maybe 90 in reality. Very very regular.

That's an easy load for any proper amplifier that isn't exactly a weak arse AVR with tiny PSU. No need to worry here, you do NOT need a 500W amp that does 40A. 100-200W amp and you're set for house parties.

 

[RandomEar]

After evaluating the options, I finally pulled the trigger on the Burson Timekeeper 3i Reference, and it has been powering my Triangle Borea BR08 speakers for some time now. I was lucky enough to find a pre-owned unit in mint condition, complete with the remote and the Cool Stand, all for a fantastic price of just $800 USD!


To say it's an upgrade from the Audiolab 6000A would be an understatement. The 6000A is a fantastic integrated amp, but as some of you rightly pointed out, it just didn't have the current reserve to handle the BR08's impedance dips (down to 3 Ω) during demanding tracks.

With the Burson Timekeeper 3i, the difference is night and day:

• Current Delivery & Stability: The Class-A topology paired with their Max Current Power Supply (MCPS) provides incredible grip. Even at high volumes during heavy bass segments, the sound remains rock-solid, composed, and effortless. No signs of strain whatsoever.
• Sound Signature: The refinement and musicality are exceptional. The soundstage has opened up significantly, and the tonal accuracy—especially in the midrange and vocals—is beautifully rendered. It strikes a perfect balance between technical precision and musical warmth.

Sorry, but I have to add: What you describe about the sound differences between the Audiolab and the Burson does not make sense. There is only a very mild difference in power (75 vs. 100 W into 4 Ω or about 1 dB peak SPL) and there is no significant difference in other parameters like THD or noise. In a controlled blind test, I would bet that you could not differentiate between these amps.

The Burson is also not a class A amplifier - only the headphone section is. The speaker section is a regular class AB design. Not that it matters - amplifier classes do not possess an inherent sound. But audiophiles always gush about class A and this is a prime example of amp classes not mattering in an (involuntary) blind test. Also, all the rest about "musicality" and "sound stage" is not something an amplifier can affect. Sound stage is a property of the recording, influenced by you speakers and room. It can also be altered by EQ or DSP effects. None of this should be touched by any competent amp.

I get it, you've bought a new amp. It looks cool, came with nice accessories and you're happy and listening to your music, pushing the volume and maybe having a cool beer. Your brain tells you that this is feeling good. Nothing wrong with that. Doesn't mean it sounds any different at all, though. Once you discover how testing audio stuff correctly makes almost all those perceived differences vanish, you can simply be just as happy and save all the money for future expensive upgrades which don't improve the sound.

 

[Multicore]

I'm pleased to read that you're pleased with a nice new (to you) amp.

To say it's an upgrade from the Audiolab 6000A would be an understatement.

Oh boy. I am surprised it was that bad.