From initial listening, I'd say the Burmester is not only more accurate, but more resolving.
However, the McIntosh is not terribly euphonic either. I'd call it "slightly rich", where my Luxman Class-A amp was warmer sounding (more euphonic).
Remember, this is after about 2 days of listening and it depends on what you are comparing to. In my system, the Premier 350 sounds slightly more accurate than the Burmester, with the 911mk. 3 being slightly warmer, yet again the Burmester has more resolution than even the Premier 350, yet the P350 has more dynamic range.
At this level of gear, it's pretty much which set of nuance do you prefer?
The McIntosh is VERY dynamic with so much power on tap and has a huge sound.
Honestly, I could live with either. But, I need to listen with more speakers, etc. etc. The two are close enough tonally, that I think you could use either in your system, depending on what everything else is like. You wouldn't mistake the Mc's for Boulder, Bryston or Levinson, but they don't sound Class A solid state or tubey warm.
Does that make sense?
I think McIntosh has really hit a home run with these amplifiers.
