Meitner MA-3 vs Lampizator Baltic 4

The streamer in the MA3 is not endgame, and the Aurender N150 is likely better than it. That said, you will also have a hard time getting smooth analog sound from the Aurender N150. The N200 will sound more robust as a streamer with a bit more tonal density, lower noise floor, and larger soundstage. That said, the N20 is really where you can leave $20-30K vinyl front ends behind. I am an Aurender dealer and have compared these units.

As far as the DAC section goes, the MA3 is pretty good. It gets toward the analog sound and retains better control at the frequency extremes, at least when I demoed it against the Baltic 3. I wasn't aware there is now a Baltic 4. With the Baltic 3, I got very 'analog' sounding digital, but I couldn't live with the loss of control in the bass and the rounded highs which took away from the size of the soundstage and effects toward holography - and I was experimenting with excellent tube choices. I  ended up returning the Baltic after not having a great experience with it. Ultimately, I went with T+A. I loved it so much, I ended up becoming a dealer for them.

I just read the WBF on the Lampi Baltic 4. So far it’s got Ron Resnick, owner of WBF breaking in his unit, while basically another fanboy is gushing over the unit when it is placed in a fairly near-field setup with bookshelves right against the wall. While I have no doubt there will be some improvement, I doubt it is that significant. When I owned the Baltic 3, I could not tell the difference between it and a Modwright Transporter AT ALL. (Dan Wright modified the Logitech Transporter to add a linear power supply and tube-based analog output stage). Keep in mind that the Modwright Transporter hit the market in 2008. The reason I wanted to try the Baltic 3 wad because it used similar tube sets as the MW Transporter, which I already had on hand. While the Baltic 3 was good, it further reinforced the value of the MW Transporter, which could be had for less than $1K used these days. I did roll the tubes in the Baltic 3 with some of the best available: Sylvania VT-231, Tung Sol 68FG BGRP, Psvane T-II CV-181, EML 5U4G, Philips 5RYGYS, etc. At the end of the day, I still preferred my heavily modified PS Audio DirectStream DAC MK1. For me, it would require a significant improvement in the Baltic 4 to make it worth its price. Some people just go nuts about tube DACs, when at the end its a tradeoff with other things that you won’t get back... mainly speed and noise floor that leads to control and holography.

Regarding the MA3 - yes, I would definitely keep the Aurender. Look inside the MA3. For a full-sized chassis, this combines DAC, streamer and volume control all in one:

I don’t see much in the works of isolating the streamer from the analog stage at all, and keeping the digital signal noise free is incredibly important due to its delicacy. I actually don’t see a robust design for the analog stage at all.

The DAC 200 on the other hand has a much more robust power supply, more sophisticated circuitry, and requires external streamers:

It has dedicated DACs for PCM and DSD, an incredible analog stage output, and great DAC filters to help shape the sound a bit further.

My suggestion? Go for the DAC 200. With the remaining funds, also trade in your N150 and upgrade to an N200. That will get you significantly farther than going for an MA3.