I saved alot of money.

@goldern210.....No need to have to make excuses for using your cell for a 'head unit' to this immoral mortal....*G*  Been using a cell to drive the audio in 3 vehicles (Focus, Landcruiser, Dodge dually) and the 'shop' audio system with Spotify Premium.  The same service frequently drives my office system and the 'main' system.  (The latter too big to be mobile, anyway....office and main running Ryzen 5 processors...*L*)

Updated the cell to a Pixel 4A recently; haven't nosed around for any 'enhancements' as yet (usually an eq that has more bands 'cause of the varied 'environments') but will get around to it soon enough.

Understand a limited budget; although 'retired' in concept only, I've not free rein as to what I can spend on 'audio only' pursuits.  But there's no reasonable rationale to apologize for what one enjoys or the means of attaining such.  The 'digital realm' of audio is expanding daily, especially in terms of the device that's in your hand.

BTW...I do like analog, but since it gets 'run through' a primarily digital process en route to my speakers.....one begins to wonder and doubt....;)

That is the beauty of digital. It is just numbers. Does not matter where the numbers come from. Only the final clocking is important. 
I just did a similar comparison of a high res file to the same file being played over my Sonos network. Could not tell the difference.

Golden210, I think it is because you and I have crappy hearing:-)

What a great concept buy what you can afford and enjoy what you have. It’s all about the music in the end.

@bluemoodriver,

"..but there's a kicker: after we all confirmed that we could hear meaningful differences, Wilson whipped a fake component shell off the digital source and revealed that with the Wilson speakers we weren't listening to the $20,000 CD player that had been used for the competitor's speakers, but an Apple iPod playing uncompressed WAV files!”

"Airplay is red book standard now, and blind testing tells us differences in rates above that are inaudible."



Even through premium priced products.

That was a little naughty of Dave, but he proved his point though, didn't he?

Perhaps we would all do well to remember these valuable little lessons?

Otherwise we can risk ending up like the art critic that was extolling the qualities of a particular work of art. 

Only to later discover that it was created by a chimp. Beauty might well be in the eye of the beholder, but apparently not if they are wearing a blindfold.

In another thread I said that effectively, a good $150 DAC is far more accurate than a $10K (or much higher) turntable setup, and that a $150 DAC playing a well digitized version of R-R, would be much closer to that R-R than any turntable would be. I consider those to be honest statements. They are about communicating the recording, not preference. It does not take massive spend to communicate the music in the data. If you want a particular flavor to that communication of the music, that is where the big dollars comes in.