Why are so many people spending so much money to build “perfect” streaming system?

Anyone trying to put together the ultimate system knows that such a system does not exist.  When having an obsession with musical reproduction, it is difficult to say this is it, but this is what some on this forum have been able to do.  I've built my system over the last eight months after almost twenty years away from the hobby due to space and clutter issues as perceived by the boss. I started with the McIntosh MA12000 and Wilson Sabrina X. Neither are "the best", but both are worth building a system around.  Everyone has differing demands for musical reproduction.  Nobody in my family has ever had any interest in sitting down in my two channel room.  Everyone is in the media room watching KDramas...guilty of that myself.

My sense of what I wanted in musical reproduction has changed radically over the last eight months.  I now realize that many gear suggestions on this forum stem from a limited exposure to varied gear and environments and personal taste vary wildly.  That said, there are some with a great deal of experience and keen ears.  Some of these members have replied to this thread.  I'm not in that category.

A personal response to your question is that my improvements in analog left me interested in improving the digital and then better digital drove me to improve my analog.  So why did I do this?  Improvements added a difficult to describe musicality to reproduction that I really appreciate when temperatures outside hit 110, or conversely 8 degrees.  My digital and analog are now quite satisfying and much of this I attribute to cable selection.  All of it I attribute to direction from members on this forum.  Musicality to my streaming allows for a vast selection of material and analog provides what my film cameras provide.  What is it?  A routine, a need for great care and to some degree skill and a satisfaction when the end product meets expectation.  Digital anything gives me variety and ease of access.  All of this is personal and if you are happy where you are, consider it a gift.

@vonhelmholtz 

Very well said.

Charles 

Access to millions of songs for the cost of Netflix, which, with the right gear can sound phenomenal and for most, the best quality you can afford.

@charles1dad 

There have simply been a huge number of people who have begun streaming at a modest level and subsequently moved upward in sound quality and performance. They are not delusional or gullible.

51% of Americans believe in UFOs, even though a vehicle traveling at the fastest known speed of any non-gas, non-particle object in the universe (2.3 million MPH) would have to travel 12,000 years to reach us from our nearest star (and theoretically wormholes, if they exist at all, are impossible for travel). And 40% of people believe in ghosts. I have no doubt people "think" they hear a difference. The mind is a powerful convincer. But there is no objective reason that they would hear a difference. Both the human ear and frequencies are measurable, and have been for decades, and the measurements say any differences in equipment continually show that those measurements are beyond the level of human hearing. And having worked on software and networks for decades, I know how the internals of these devices work and what the variables can be. Can the sound of a DAC be different. Sure. If you want to see how read the book Schiit Happened. They tweaked the software of the analog conversion by ear. I wouldn't doubt if other companies do/did that as well. But that's not an accurate conversion. And those tweaks show up in measurements. Accurate conversions are always formulaic.

The belief in something despite overwhelming evidence is the definition of belief perseverance that I mentioned in my previous post, so I'm not attempting to change anyone's mind. That is likely impossible. And some people actually prefer inaccurate sound, hence the continued existence of tube amplifiers. I have nothing against that. If you prefer a particular inaccuracy that cost an extra $10,000 and you have it to spend, more power to you. As long as it's not hurting anyone else. But for those whose goal is accurate reproduction and preservation of their capital, myths and subjective perceptions are antithetical to those goals and I'm just pointing out alternate options and their reasoning as I always prefer others to do when I'm researching a subject. Humans are infinitely fallible, and "because I heard it" without an objective context is not a compelling reason for someone to start throwing their hard-earned money around anymore than "I saw a ghost" is to start buying EMF gauges and thermal cameras. The first question to answer is "why?" The "why" is answered by the measurements or psychology. Either can be just as powerful based upon the individual. Measurements usually produce cheaper results.