[Alwayswantmore]

Hi, first time playing around with hi res DAC (Cosecant V3 with Numerator 24/96 DAC Module). Downloaded first hi res file off Blue Coast Collection 24/96. Comparing to Redbook, with no real sonic benefit??? More about system settings:

iTunes 9.1.1.12

Macbook with 10.5.8

Used Max to convert files for iTunes (sbooth.org/max)

iTunes shows 24/96 in Get Info, so it looks like the file in iTunes is hi res

Are ther other settings in iTunes? I've looked at all menus but don't see anything else to adjust?

Thanks for any help. Kent

[low.pfile]

Just go into your Audio Midi Setup application in the Utilities folder in the Applications folder.

There is an Audio Output section change to the 96k hz and 24bit in the Format section.

[ted_b]

Yes, unless you manually change the sample rate and resolution under Audio Midi, the file will play at the last resolution that was manually set (which is undoubtedly 16/44).   However, there are music players on MAC that automatically change sample rates for you, and use itunes as the GUI and library manager (so you can still use Apple Remote app to control songs, browsing, etc via ipod Touch or iPhone).  These programs are ChannelD's Pure Music (trial license available) or Sonic Studios Amarra (trial also available).  And boy, do they sound wayyyy better than iTunes too. 

[Alwayswantmore]

Great info. Glad to hear I was doing it wrong. Redbook was slightly better 

[Napalm]

So, how does it work now?

Nap.

[Alwayswantmore]

So, how does it work now?

Nap.

Wife watching news in the "media room." It will be a couple hours before I get the room back.

[Alwayswantmore]

So, how does it work now?

Nap.

Macbook now set to 96/24 as noted above. Only one cut of hi res to compare. Went back and forth on hi res vs Redbook on the same cut. For starters, Redbook plays louder than hi res. And even compensating for differences in gain, RedBook IMO has better tone, better overtones and more natural decay. Again hi res is new for me, so it's possible I'm still doing something wrong.

[Alwayswantmore]

...one more thing... I was away from the system for a few hours, and made no attempt to switch back to 44/16 to verify, but I'm pretty sure the hi rez settings helped Redbook recordings.

[ted_b]

One thing about Cookie's recordings, the redbook sounds great too.  And your experiment in your last post was 24/96 native vs 24/96 upsampled redbook, so that's one reason it was close.

[Alwayswantmore]

One thing about Cookie's recordings, the redbook sounds great too.  And your experiment in your last post was 24/96 native vs 24/96 upsampled redbook, so that's one reason it was close.

Her recordings are amazing. I play in a band with a guitar player who favors acoustic over electric (or as he calls it, "the dark side"). He has several acoustic guitars in the $3-4K range like Taylor, Breedlove (sp?), etc. I played this cut for him and his response was "better than live!".

Cookie sent me a note. My Redbook version was ripped from the original collection CD. Turns out Redbook was compressed during mastering for this version (which may explain in part why it sounds more dense). She said a better test would be the art lande songs, which are the same mastering.  Plus, the new blue coast collection gold disc is 44.1 with no compression.. and should sound comparably to the 96k.

Thanks for the help getting this set up. I'll crawl back under my rock.