I think BDA-2 is a very balanced perfomer in terms of inputs. It is my opinion that the USB input is as good as I have heard it on any dedicated USB-SPDIF interface. I preferred the Musical fidelity V-series 192 interface but BDA-2 is equally good and since it eliminates the need for an additonal digital interconnect, it is even better.
Now it appears to me that Bryston is not a company that includes new features as they become available on the market just for the sake of feature-count. The technology has to be proven and has to be adequately perfected. I think that is the greatest strength of Bryston but I can possibly see how it could be seen as a weakness.
Let me explain. When I was pondering which DAC to purchase, the thing that struck me about Bryston is how little it is known about it. Other manufacturers like NAD or Musical fidelity which are quite popular in Europe, seem to be inclined at posting as much technical information as possible, often displaying them in a form of diagrams or with symbols. Bryston doesn't do that and thus appears old-fashioned and frankly, over-priced. Some manufacturers go to ridiculous lengths to convince you that "clock" is 80% of the DAC or that 384kHz sampling is absolutely necessary. All of that doesn't bode well for Bryston. In a place where industry and sales are driven by specifications and symbols, it is not easy to make it.
That said, listening sessions are really the only reliable and reassuring way to go and I have to say Bryston BDA-2 took precedence in front of all of these competitors. It wasn't the nicest looking machine nor it was the biggest one but it did sound fantastic and to my surprise, significantly superior in some ways when compared to NAD for example. I then realized it was the single most important feature - how it sounds.
I studied the available literature and found more things to like about. It may not be a love at first sight but it does get under your skin.
As for symboly, they are nice but they don't really tell you anything. 384kHz sampling? Why would anyone need it when the studios here have only recently adopted the 176.4kHz standard and even that is only used for high-cost classical and jazz productions. It makes very little sense to weight 384kHz sampling vs properly executed analog stage for example. The former is easy to claim, the latter is not and the average customer doesn't even know "whether he needs it or not". Funny as it sounds, it is literally true.
But once again, mind over matter wins. It's love over gold, that's what it is!
Well done fellas!
Cheers!
Antun
