Lavaudio DS200Pro HiFi Bluetooth 5.0 Music Receiver Expired

How do you cast your own music playlists files, and change the EQ from your laptop?

Your statement lacks the fundamental understanding of what I was trying to say. That's probably on me.

This is for people, audiophiles included that would prefer to just make it easy and retain as much audio quality as possible.

Not every audiophile or layperson that just wants better than average audio wirelessly cares to learn about WiFi audio. Not every person cares to be that technical even if they care about audio quality. They just want the least amount of bottleneck when doing so.

Take SlickDeals itself... Variants of BT transmitters, receivers have been posted numerous times in the past year... There is a huge market for these. Are you suggesting everyone move to WiFi audio and they are doing it wrong?

You just need to separate your ideology that all folks that care about music, care as much as you to integrate their entire home to wifi or ethernet based sharing. It's simply not the case.

So for those people if they're going to use simple BT, might as well use the best there is... Even if it's not the best method in totality.

... Maybe it's a bit more expensive, but, again ...

... you can't be an audiophile and not be willing to spend what it takes to get high quality sound.

Why would an audiophile want to bother with BT except for portable use, where it's unavoidable?

You can be an audiophile at any willingness to spend. You just won't own the stuff, outside of gifts.

Nearly hit the nail on the head; these are for a type of convenience, and for those uninterested in tech outside of "plug this here, click this here." (A lot of family/friend users fall into this, too)

You make it sound like WiFi's this new and esoteric thing that people are only now just hearing about. Literally almost everyone with home internet has WiFi now, including where their home sound systems are, because there's likely a TV or computer there. So what's the problem? It's already established that WiFi audio is superior to BT audio. An audiophile who can't be bothered to tap into WiFi audio is a contradiction in terms, like an audiophile who's too cheap to spend more than $10 on speaker wires. It's not that complicated. Maybe it's a bit more expensive, but, again, you can't be an audiophile and not be willing to spend what it takes to get high quality sound.

This isn't ideology. It's reality. BT is not audiophile quality. It's good enough for most people, myself included, but I'm not an audiophile. If I was one, I'd buy a receiver with WiFi, or a WiFi DAC. Why would an audiophile want to bother with BT except for portable use, where it's unavoidable?

You missed the point....just because someone wants the easiest method for wireless audio doesn't mean they aren't willing to get just that bit better of audio with a device like this.

Some folks have an Experia phone as their main source of music with LDAC built-in and want to keep that level over a single stereo system.

You don't speak for all people so don't.

It's BT, not audiophile quality. It might be superior BT, but it's still BT. That was my point, which you continue to not get. I'm not the pedant here.

Sorry, but 96khz/24-bit is "audiophile" level quality.

Your arguments are situational and not based in fact.

You yourself admitted above that both BT's theoretical and real-world max data rates precluded the transmission of the highest quality lossless audio, so the argument becomes one of "What is audiophile?" as opposed to "Does this support even the highest-quality lossless audiophile standards?". So yes, this will likely please the vast majority of casual users and most "audiophiles", but it's not going to compete with WiFi let alone direct wire or optical connections at the upper high end.

And my point was that if you can afford and justify it, don't mind the additional bother and complexity, and care about high-end quality, WiFi is still preferable.

And I don't know what "situational" vs. "fact" means. Everything is situational with real-world applications, and doesn't preclude being fact-based.

If someone wants the best currently available for audio wirelessly, then they have to invest in wifi capable streaming units (side note, many times they are cumbersome and lose connection) and since the streaming services don't go passed 400kbps (let alone if the file was actually encoded that high) you'll only justify those wifi streamers using your own files. So you'll need a NAS, Hard drive or other device to serve them.

You're arguing common sense.

If someone wants to do that for the best available, no one here, including myself is telling them no.

Yes, a FLAC file can easily have a higher bit-rate, but audiophile doesn't mean the absolute highest quality. If it did, almost no one could claim to be. Audiophile simply means pursuing the highest quality. And for BT, this is it.

LDAC preserves lossless data on the frequencies you are likely hearing and makes the data on the extreme ends of the bands as lossy, but the entire file isn't compressed linearly.

I won't engage further. You destroyed your own counter-point by backpedaling and reneging on what an Audiophile means and tried to steer this simple post about the best BT available into what's a true audiophile.

Obviously you're either new and testing out the limits of your knowledge (you found them)... Or you fundamentally don't understand the dynamics of these technologies.

Take your FLAC, and pass it wired, wifi wireless or LDAC BT to a 30k system and you will not be able to tell the difference. If you claim you can... Well, then you just told everyone you're a liar.

Am I the only one here who thinks these are odd devices? Is BT 5.0 so excellent that it justifies an optical link to a receiver?

Sorry if this a dumb question, so after the audio transmits from your source (phone) to your receiver and I want to rebroadcast it to 2 Bluetooth headphones at the same time. Do I need another Bluetooth device to rebroadcast (that supports 2 or more headphones at the same time)?