Link works for me. Pics were of a turntable. Disregard.

 

Forget brands. All three use the same hardware. Depends on the car and how big the budget was for audio.

 

I did not know that. Thanks!

Well, sounds like either way a true audiophile has nothing to complain about as it doesn't cut the cake in any relatively close way.

 

If audiophile grade music is what's desired then I suggest discernment with regard to your source. Personally you could not pay me to sit and listen to music playing from any sort of radio regardless of the hardware! Essentially, the higher in quality audio then the fewer the choices of source material. I generally do all my own digital encoding using command line parameters to ensure the absolutely best quality possible. Ripping from Original Master Recordings and/or High Resolution (better than CD Quality) recordings is also preferable with Remasters containing more recent production techniques and (generally) offering much improvement over the original recording.

For comparisons sake I have included some links to various recordings.

FLAC = Lossless = Some compression algorythms but no audio information removed so 'bit perfect' or same as original WAV

MP3 = Lossy = Less audible aspects removed to reduce file size. There are different encoders and parameters that affect quality but essentially: 32kps = telephone quality / 128kps = itunes quality / 320kps = best quality - The MP3's in the examples below have been encoded at best possible quality.

______________________
(1) David Bowie - Starman
[Original: 1972 Remastered: 2012]

Both of these sound superb although the higher quality your hardware, the more you will appreciate the difference that the lossless FLAC offers

(a) MP3:
https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/...2-remaster.mp3
(b) FLAC:
https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/...-remaster.flac

____________________
(2) Pink Floyd - Hey You
[Original: 1979]

This interesting comparison shows how a more recent Remaster (encoded as MP3) sounds considerably better than an earlier Remaster (even though the earlier one has been encoded as FLAC). Notice the 1994 version sounds less dynamic, lacking depth and punch in comparison.
Note that they both sound superior to the original - which itself was well engineered and an excellent recording.

(a) 1994 Remaster (FLAC)
https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/...-remaster.flac
(b) 2011 Remaster (MP3)
https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/...1-remaster.mp3

________________________
(3) Dire Straits - So Far Away
[Original: 1985]

As can be heard here even an MP3 can sound excellent if taken from a quality source and has been recorded and encoded using quality equipment, the right ripping software together with superior codecs using the correct parameters.

(a) 2011 Remaster (MP3)
https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/...1-remaster.mp3

_______________________________
(4) Deep Purple - Smoke on the Water
[Original: 1972]

And the last track has been included to show how good a well recorded song can sound from the original master recorded 44 years ago (with no lossy MP3 compression).

(a) Original recording (FLAC)
https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/...rple_1972.flac

 

Thanks man. I'll let you know. It's not like I'm expecting this system to sound half as good as my home stereo. I just want to be impressed with how it sounds for a CAR stereo. The best system I have ever had was a custom system in my trusty '91 325i. And it didn't have anything 'high end'. Just an Alpine Deck, some Boston mids w/ silk dome tweeters and 12" JLs in a sealed box that I made (precisely 1.5 sq ft per driver). I know the Burmester wont have the punch without the subs, but hoping the mids and highs are smooth. The fact that this system has silk dome tweeters is a good start (on paper anyway).

 

Thanks, more or less the point I was trying to arrive to - but not as eloquent or informative.

 

Well, if audiophile recordings are the subject, no MP3, AAC or WMA, especially down sampled from a CD, as most are, would qualify. In terms of those formats, MP3 is the oldest, and was created by accident. Engineers developing the video compression algorithm MPEG Layer 4 (MP4) discovered that when just an audio source (no images) was run through it, the result was a very small file size but good sound.

MP3's algorithm tends to homogenize the lows (every track sounds like it was recorded on the same drum kit) and the highs can get phasey, especially at the lower bitrates.

AAC, developed later by Apple intentionally as a music encoding format (and for DRM) tends to sound more natural than MP3. The default bitrate for AAC (ITunes) is 256kbs, including their streams. It's comparable to a 320kbs MP3.

Pandora is the only service I'm aware of stuck at 128kbs. We use it for the audio on our back deck and pool.

So when you rip stuff for portable players, you're ripping from a hi res studio master rather than a CD? What command line parameters are you changing?

 

As far as stock car audio goes, I think the Burmester is actually really good. It is certainly much better than the basic std audio in the W205. We had the C450 in the shop over the weekend and drove around in a stripped down C300 sport loaner. The comparison was night and day even with low quality streaming audio.

I think most of you guys are spoiled by aftermarket car audio and you forget how positively shi++y most car audio systems are. Even among the luxury brands, most of the systems are a joke.

The real PITA with modern vehicles is the fact that the head unit for the stereo system is no longer modular. Most of the cabin controls are now integrated through the HU. As late as the mid 2000's, it was pretty easy to just dump the factory audio completely and install aftermarket with a new dash bezel and steering wheel control adapters. For nav you had to manually splice in the vehicle speed sensor and directional leads to allow dead reckoning, but that was really the most complicated task involved in swapping out a factory system for an aftermarket one. Fast forward to 2016 and most of the manufacturers have all of their vehicle telematics routing through the factory HU.

I my 2004 Lariat F150 I swapped out the factory "premium audio" for a Pioneer nav/dvd headunit, added BT integration that actually worked, added custom steering wheel controls for both the audio and BT. I wouldn't touch a MB Command HU with a ten foot pool.

 

Yeah, you can't touch the COMAND unit, and since it's a proprietary fiber optic back to the amp, you need to get the signal very late in the chain, off the high side of the amp where there are still good old fashioned wires and run them into an OEM integration unit. From there you can add whatever amplification you'd like. That leaves the function of COMAND and the controls unaffected.

Not all OEM systems need remediation. But the W205 Burmester does IMO.

 

Ok, I listened to the DropBox files on my reference system. The FLACs were ripped from CD or a hi res track? The bitrate is consistent with CD (actually a bit low) but close enough. Couldn't tell the bit depth, presuming its 16?

I'm intrigued by the idea of ripping down sampled MP3/AAC from my hi res library and hearing the difference vs just making a lossless bit for bit FLAC/ALAC rip from a CD.

Do you have any files like that you could post for comparison..CD FLAC rip vs down sampled FLAC of the same track?

 

I've had a few weeks to listen to the Burmester. And you're right, Mike5215. It's very underwhelming. I think my MINI Cooper's HK system sounded better overall. The Burmester has better lower end than the HK, but no ***** and the highs are shrill as hell. I mean, for all those watts, this thing wont crank at all! I've also never had Sirius Sat Radio either and that thing blows on sound quality. I think streaming MP3s (which I never do anyway) would sound better. Oh well, enough whining. The W205 is an awesome ride though!

 

Yeah, divide that wattage number in half. The speakers as it turns out are 2 ohm. 4 ohm is the standard. 100 watts into 2 ohm is basically 50 watts into 4 ohm.

MP3 streaming or local files will sound better than satellite radio. It's really bad.

If you play local files on an IPhone there's a nice EQ app that can make a huge difference.

 

I have old Bose in my old Audi, Bose in Buick. I like it. I heard Burmester, I do not like it. I know nothing about D class, I heard about A/B class, but it means nothing to me.

Also, I heard Harman Kardon in BMW. It is nice for me, the best one.
I tested the same song in Harman Kardon in BMW, new Audi Bose and new Audi B&O, a few weeks ago. For me, the best one is Harman Kardon, after that my Bose in Buick and old Bose in my old Audi.

It seems that Bose in new Audi is not good as before, but it is even better for me than B&O($5.000 more) in new Audi.

Does it make sense with real quality or it is just my sound perception?

 

Anyone have a link or know what audio codecs the Burmester will decode? I've been experimenting a lot with ripping vinyl. I've been doing WAV files (burning to CDRs), but it sure would be nice having a higher bit/sample rate than 16/44.1.

 

only good audio system i've heard in cars is lexus's mark levinson premium audio on a GS. that was the most detailed sound i've heard coming from a car.
Asthetically audi a5, a7, a8 bang&olufsen takes the cake. those popping up and down tweeters is very well designed.

with that said, the mark levinson on the GS does not hold a candle to my schiit dac + amp stacks + sennheiser hd650. now my home audio (headphone + amp/dac) is not even high end. it's barelly entry level, but it destroys any car audio system ever made.

Which makes me come to the conclusion, no matter the car make/model, the audio is more of a marketing gimmick, just like beats by dre. All show no substance.

 

16 bit depth and 44,100 sampling rate is it I'm afraid. I'm not sure a vinyl rip needs more than that anyway. For convenience you could rip to FLAC or ALAC and use your mobile device's DAC as your player. No increase (or decrease) in quality vs WAV but slightly smaller file size and you're not messing with individual CDs.

 

Thanks Mike. I think I'm going to buy a couple 256 Gig SD Cards and rip them all (WAV files) onto those. Should easily hold 800-850 LPs between the two.

EDIT: Assuming it'll take that large of a card. 128GB may be tops.

 

Try ripping just one or two to an SD card before going all in. The system is picky about digital file formats. I'm not sure if it will pick up a .wav file from SD or USB (even though that's what the integrated CD player is doing). I'd be interested to see what happens.

 

I find the Burmester audio to be a lot more capable than my dad's BMW 5-series HK system in terms of classics and some pop songs. The bass is also really clean and clear on the Burmester with no distortion etc... The Burmester compared to the 5-series HK sounds a lot nice to me.

The funny thing is, compared to a Camry JBL factory sound system, the Burmester is on par, or maybe a little less capable. The Camry JBL puts in so much clean blass, and the treble and mid levels are almost perfect. Whereas on the Burmester, there is some distortion in the mid/treble levels but it's not that bad.

 

I have a 2005 Camry with the JBL system. It's really good. Nice tight, punchy bass. Clean mids and highs. Plenty of power. The 2017 Lincoln MKZ I have as a loaner has a standard system that sounds even better, and tosses in CarPlay to boot.

What is the special sauce that allows these lesser set ups to absolutely destroy a 205 Burmester? It's called "woofers". Yeah, turns out that when you don't cram a cabin full of wispy little 4" mids but instead put 6" woofers in all the door cavities, and when instead of trying to do a magic trick with wispy little "subs" in the cowl panel you plop a nice fat sub onto the rear shelf, you get music that sounds like music.

The term "Burmester", aside from sounding both vaguely familiar and exotic, is meaningless. It's a marketing gimmick. The system in the 205 is nothing any actual, respectable audiophile brand would ever get within a thousand miles of.

 

Ripped a CD and an LP and they both read perfectly fine. I only had a 32GB card though. But so far, so good. For kicks, I tried a FLAC file (CD rip) at 16/44.1 and it didn't detect any audio on the card. Had to at least try it.

 

Hello, can you confirm that if I want to replace the standard sound system, Burmester is the best choice, or is there anything better, and for how much ? Thanks.

 

You`re the first person I`ve seen on the net to say that . I`ve seen reports from 3 people (in forums) on the net who said the Harman Kadon has a much deeper bass sound and another report (compiled professionally ) saying the bass is slighly out-of-sync in the Burmester set-up.
Apart from my present vehicle I want to get another one (Merc) which can produce some nice deep sounds for the kind of music I like . Do I really have to get an " approved used " 2016 model in order to get that rich bass sound ?

 

I am still waiting for a reply if someone can post links to know what I should buy ? Thank you.

 

I took delivery of a C 200 2 door Coupe with a standard system. I’m an audio nut. Anything less than perfect annoys me. That said, the standard system is not what I would call horrific. It’s fine for the average listener and, I very nearly stuck with it. I’ve spent A$4k on an upgrade however (to be carried out this week), so I’ll comment more then. Thought I’d comment.