Bricasti M3 vrs Meitner MA3

The built-in streamer inside Meitner MA3 is actually quite good. Unless you're going for high-dollar streamers (think > $10K), you would be hard pressed to find an improvement. I recently bought an MA3 and took it to a friend's house who has also recently purchased Aurender N200. We didn't notice any difference in SQ using MA3 by itself or hooking up to Aurender. I sold both my streamers -- Aavik S-280 (one of the best I've owned thus far), and Innuos Zenith MK3. I plan to use MA3's streamer until I'm able to afford more expensive streamers (> $10K retail).

In my system, the MA3 is fantastic! Very balanced, natural, zero digititus, and a truly three-dimensional soundstage. The focus here is on creating a natural sound vs. hyper-realism. 

“The focus here is on creating a natural sound vs. hyper-realism.” @arafiq +1

@robshaw it rakes a while to fully appreciate the sonic virtues of the MA3 over lesser DACs, but you will. Plus the MA3 needs 300 hours to fully “come into voice”. Give it time before you choose.

I’ve owned both DACs as well and preferred the Meitner in my system.

A kinder gentler system could benefit from the Bricasti while an edgier or brighter system might go better with the Meitner.

As always YMMV.

I have a M3 and a retailer who sells both says it’s basically a toss up considering the rest of the system. 
The MA3 can play attached local files where the Bricasti can’t so that could eliminate the need for a Nas or server. That might be a big deal to some peeps. 

Benzman, thank you very much for the info. I had updated my first post, which included the Bricasti m3 vrs Meitner MA-3.  Now considering The MA-3 Meitner vrs the Bricasti M1 SE version, which comes with the remote and the Streamer. Can't decide, the Bricasti is 1K more????? Robert