I had a lot of trouble interpreting the Bryston review in this month's magazine. One of the issues (why this thing is needed) was answered with a 'because the unit is much better quality and much quieter than a computer. (see the comments in the June issue forum)
I remember a lot of comments a few months ago. I asked how it was possible that a computer based front end could rival a dedicated transport as the computer was noisy, full of cheap parts, and was in no way constructed to audiophle standards. I was assured 'bits' was 'bits' and that bit perfect signals to a DAC from a computer is every bit as musical as a bit perfect signal from a transport or audiophile CD player.
Now we have the Bryston device and its sole advantage over a computer is touted as exactly what I assumed a year ago. The Bryston is 'better' because it is a better source to the DAC then a noisy, cheaply made computer!
I have to be missing something about this argument...If bits is bits, then the Bryston device is simply an expensive, well made but hard to use front end sounding no better than a computer based front end at 1/4 the cost...If the thing does sound better, then why? If the better sound is software based, then the same software on a vastly chaeper computer could do the same thing. And why are the bits coming from this device more musical than the bits coming from a computer going to the same DAC?