I need help to select a music streamer

Shofar,

Thanks!

You did not say where you stand on this.

larry5729

... they all said in a blind listening test, no one would detect the difference.

It's interesting how often "blind tests" are cited without providing any details of the test: who designed it, who participated, what the raw data show.

Good point Cleeds.  There is a huge difference between the public who is satisfied playing music through small wimpy speakers and Audiophiles who want to hear a recording with greater detail and the way it was designed to listen to.

Here’s a good compilation of blind tests. You could spend a solid half day going through them, and it is pretty sobering.

https://www.head-fi.org/threads/testing-audiophile-claims-and-myths.486598/

and if you want to get further on which populations have the best ears, at least in terms of detecting distortion and frequency response variations, Olive and Toole have published a few on that - http://www.aes.org/e-lib/browse.cfm?elib=12206

Since that paper is gated, here's a taste of their research, explained:
https://www.audiosciencereview.com/forum/index.php?threads/are-our-preferences-different-in-audio.284/

Here's a large N internet-based test of resolution audibility, with very explicit methodology-
http://archimago.blogspot.com/2013/02/high-bitrate-mp3-internet-blind-test.html
(link to results at the bottom of the explanation.  Notice the demographic composition of the test group)

You can test yourself on lossless vs MP3 here - https://www.npr.org/sections/therecord/2015/06/02/411473508/how-well-can-you-hear-audio-quality
(I find I do a lot better with Orchestral music on resolution tests. Others say you just need something fairly dense. I could distinguish between levels of mp3 with 100% reliability on any of the material, but more trouble with 312k to lossless)

What do I think? (I assume you meant me). I think MQA is more of a scheme to grab licensing revenue than an important improvement in streaming audio quality. I am a fan of true Hi-Res recordings, although I think the hi-res availability is often more of an indicator of the engineer/label’s goals than a significant step up from Redbook (ie you are less likely to get an entry in the loudness wars). I certainly think studios should have hi-res masters, starting with the widest dynamic range possible. Recording quality is a HUGE variable relative to a 16 bit vs 24 bit version of the exact same recording, IMO.

I use both Qobuz and Tidal at the highest resolution tier. I browse and favorite recordings that sound good, regardless of resolution.

I often hear differences in uncontrolled listening that, I’m afraid to say, are unlikely to be replicated under controlled conditions. Of course I don’t listen under controlled conditions, so contributions from factors that may not be strictly audible are important and worth understanding.

The main problem I see with blind tests is that negative results from a single test have very little meaning or significance since there are so many things that can go wrong with a given test. E.g., the tester could be all thumbs or the system could be miswired.

Positive results for a single test, on the other hand, are more credible since positive results were obtained in spite of any problems or errors that may have occurred in the test. As tests are repeated in the same system and are performed in other systems independently results begin to have more meaning and credibility.