Streamer vs computer?

The debate over MQA is a big can of worms. Some think it sounds great for what it was intended for....a streaming option. Some think you lose bits and it does not sound good. Still others think it was invented by Darth Vader and will kill all music via the Death Star.
I am not sure (except I don’t think the last option is valid). The Node 2 (internal DAC) should not be compared to the Ayre codex. Because the Ayre is 4x the price of the Node 2. One should expect it to sound much better. And lastly, when I sent a signal out to my Schiit Bifrost Uber and also the Benchmark DAC 1 they will were getting the Redbook res. In those cases, the Bluesound sounded as good or better. With MQA master files, the Node 2 sounded better on about 80% of the albums compared to redbook. Once again, IMHO.

Thanks @2psyop -- I agree the Ayre is a false comparison, given its price.  I'm also going along with you on that Death Star thing.  It sounds like everyone who is finding fault with MQA is either comparing it to a DAC I can't afford, or they haven't actually listened to MQA for a fair comparison.  Maybe someday I'll be able to afford an Ayre, or a Yggy, or an e32, or whatever -- but until that day comes, $500 for a Bluenote sounds pretty good.

What I was trying to say is that the Bluesound DAC, while being good for the price, could be improved upon with an external DAC. 
Whether MQA sounds better through the Bluesound, I cannot say.
If it does, then it seems MQA is doing something that cannot be replicated by a DAC ' 4x the price of the Node', If that is so, I would be circumspect of MQA decoding.   
B

 Thanks Bob, I suspect you’re right — that the Bluenote’s digital output of a Redbook file may sound better through an Ayre DAC (or equivalent)  than an MQA version of the same file from the Bluenote. However, until I can afford to spend $2000 on a DAC, the Bluenote maybe a good intermediate step. Thanks again for your advice!