-
I honestly don’t see the point of hi-res streaming - most of the stuff will have been recorded and mixed at a much lower resolution. It’s not like video where the ‘bandwidth’ of film/pro digital is noticeably higher than consumers can display.
Dramatic_Hammer-
It all helps to muddy the waters! I'm not sure your argument holds much water though.
Analog tape would be the medium until the early eighties, that has a resolution arguably higher than CD. Most digital studios are recording at 96/24 which is the baseline for a definition of hi-res. There are audible advantages over 44/16 (cd quality) as harmonics from the filters used in DACs can affect the audible band at 44/16 but are far less present at 96/24. There are also arguments for using the native clock speed of a DAC. 24 bit also increases the s/n ratio.
192+, DSD, MQA wrappers etc. all make things more complex and may not be an improvement on 96/24 but it's not true to say that most of the 'stuff' is recorded and mixed at a lower resolution.
Airhead
It's so complex these days. The argument regarding Nyquist and 96/24 audio used to seem pretty solid. There was no need to go further than that as solid clocking becomes more difficult to achieve but now we're in an age of streaming 192k and ripped SACD's at DSD resolution.
I am impressed by the Marantz though, lots of high end components, attention paid to isolation and power supplies. It certainly pays off in the analogue domain. The only thing that puts me off a dedicated streamer at the moment is the developments in software, ir convolution and more extreme dsp is starting to become the norm for a lot of digital hi-fi rigs.