Using streaming as a main source ---DSD, FLAC, MQA Streamers and DACS


As I read these forums, and watch copious amounts of Youtube, I'm struck by what a bad idea some of the streaming / digital formats are doing. I'm trying to build a system where I have a streamer, dad, and amplifier (with pre-amp) as separate components but what I keep finding is that the streaming/digital world is totally confused.

--MQA--

MQA seems to be both advancing with new MQair support and dying (few audiophiles seem to like it).

-- DSD -- 

Seems to be favored by High-end audiophiles but not streaming services. 

-- FLAC --

FLAC seems to be pushed by Qobuz which seems to be the preferred service for high quality audio (but not for music recommendations). 

 

Choosing a Streamer / DAC is a nightmare -- given the industry going back and forth on quality, formats, special licensing. Does one choose the formats they want to use and then find appropriate DAC etc or does one choose a DAC that sounds great and then accept its limitations.

I don't understand why streamers don't commit to upscaling to 24/192 or DSD256 for any format so the DAC peeps can focus on a single format. 

So how does one decide where to start? 

 

 

 

 

kiwiscott

Showing 3 responses by mlsstl

@kiwiscott -- "What I’m really wondering is -- should I spend my 7k on a set up which would set me up for the next 10 years or do I wait, spending perhaps half that now, and wait to see where the market goes."

And, after the market goes to that point, then, with time, it’s going to go to another point. In short, change is endless. You can easily find yourself endlessly frozen in place waiting to see what the next change is. 

The key is to listen to your current system, then see what is available within your budget, and then decide if the new stuff you’ve just heard is sufficiently better than where you are currently to justify spending the money. That decision is different for everyone. Only you can decide whether an upgrade is worth it for your musical enjoyment. I know many people -- often musicians -- who get great pleasure from listening to simple and inexpensive systems. And I know others who spend enormous amounts on fancy equipment who are never satisfied.

MQA was invented as a way to reduce the file size with ostensibly less loss of audio quality compared to MP3 and other lossy formats. MQA is still a lossy format -- they've intentionally tossed part of the music data to reduce file size.

That was probably a great idea back when they came up with it as internet service for most people back then had lower speed limits and many users had to deal with monthly data caps.  That's has ceased to be a problem for many people -- I'm sitting here with 1 GB service and no data caps and even the cheap plans often have speeds of 100 MB or more.  So, MQA is now addressing a non-existent problem.

If I can have an unaltered, lossless version of a music file, why would I want a lossy version to solve a problem that doesn't exist?

@motown-l -- a couple of thoughts...

-  Getting about a decade's worth of use out of a digital technology product is actually very good. Nothing to complain about there!

- There are a number of people that make a good argument that having 24 bit music files (compared to CD's 16 bit depth) is more important to good sound than whether they have 96K or 192K sampling rates. Personally, I find the care and attention to the recording by the engineers and producers way more important than the specific file format used.

- And though heresy to some, I find my Raspberry Pi makes for an excellent streamer for both my local collection and Qobuz subscription. It feeds a Schiit multibit DAC. I'm in the camp that finding a DAC you like is way more important than which computer picks up the signal and sends it to your DAC (and ALL streamers are computers, whether dedicated to just one function or not.)