Media Server Reviews

Is nothing more than a low powered 'starter' PC in a fancy case. Even then it lacks a screen, keyboard, disk drive, and even a 'basic' DAC, (which that low powered PC will have though we 'hifi' people will be unlikely to use it).

Such a PC costs about 300 Dollars. Add a player, such as JRiver or something similar, it totals 350 Dollars.

Why then does the BDP-3 cost 3500 Dollars?

(BTW: I generally like Bryston stuff, particularly their power amplifiers, but this thing is a nonsense.)

... a refresher course in the concepts of poka-yoke.

"However, Bryston hasn't yet decided whether or not to include MQA capability in their digital gear, which may make some think twice about upgrading to a BDP-3"

Doesn't he know that the user's part of MQA takes place in the DAC, and this box hasn't got one, so nobody has to "think twice". If you want MQA it will work fine when you attach an MQA DAC.

Or is he under orders to mention MQA in every article?

It's one of those two as there aren't any other choices.

spacehound wrote:

Doesn't he know that the user's part of MQA takes place in the DAC, and this box hasn't got one, so nobody has to "think twice". If you want MQA it will work fine when you attach an MQA DAC.

Larry is referring to the fact that some other servers, like the NAD M50.2 I reviewed in the December issue, perform the first unfold of MQA files. The Bryston doesn't do that.

spacehound wrote:

Or is he under orders to mention MQA in every article?

As I have repeatedly written, Stereophile's writers are free to say whatever they feel relevant in their reviews and articles. I don't tell them what to say, other than what they honestly report what they hear and feel. If that upsets manufacturers and/or readers, so be it.

John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile

"Larry is referring..."

And of course the NAD M50.2 is going to spring instantly to our minds.

PS: I read your review and I saw this:

"I don't understand the antagonism to MQA expressed by many audiophiles. My own work has shown that the reduction in file size is significant, and my listening comparisons with recordings of known provenance suggest that the improvement in sound quality offered by the proprietary "deblurring" may vary from small to significant, but I have never heard a reduction in sound quality with an MQA-encoded file. And if you don't have an MQA-capable DAC, the fact that a source component like the NAD M50.2 will still give you another octave of ultrasonic information seems to me a useful benefit."

How about a FLAC compression of a 'regular' file has been demonstrated, every time they have been compared, to be smaller than a FLAC compression of the equivalent MQA file? So that's out of the window. I can only assume your were comparing it to WAV or AIFF, neither of which are codecs.

How is an octave of ultrasonic information, which by definition is inaudible, even at its low end, of benefit?

It's things like that, no matter who says them, that are causing considerable 'antagonism' towards MQA.

And there are of course others, such as Stuart's own:
"MQA is transparent as the sound the user hears is exactly the same as the sound fed into the ADC in the studio".
Which is utter nonsense as all MQA DACs would have to give exactly the same analog output given the same digital input, which they most certainly don't.

It's not mainly you, nor your equivalents at other magazines. It's the unending BS given out by the MQA people. Who have publicly stated they are not going to 'engage' with anyone who makes a criticism.

How big step up would be upgrade from my current streamer Aurender N100H to Bryston BDP 3? I am using Aurender to play from internal HDD mainly and I want to use same way with any future streamer. Except for more digital outputs (my N100H has only usb), is it worth upgrade sonically??