How can I listen to High Res above 96hz

[henree]

Hi I have a 2009 mac mini which is limited to 96hz. What type of computer can play higher res files than a mac mini?
I am using a matrix headphone amp and Schitt Bifrost optical connection. 
Headphones Denon d-7000

 

[andrewberge]

Before investing money in this, i suggest you read this article.
The article basically says that anything higher than 48 kHz, 16bit doesn't make sense. You're free to disagree with that.
It also talks about how higher frequencies like 192 kHz can actually harm fidelity, though, and what can be done about it (most of them involve special hardware).
 
That's my two cents, if you disagree with my comment or the article, feel free to ignore me

 

[astrallite]

You could get a receiver with pre-outs. Run HDMI from PC--HDMI can play pretty much any sampling rate--then run the pre-out of the receiver to your headphone amp.

 

[mnarwold]

I'm missing something. You're using the Schiit Bitfrost as your dac? The Mac should be able to output whatever signal it wants over that digital connection. It's the dac that has to process the file, and the Bitfrost can go up to 192khz, although as Andrew said, I don't think it will actually improve the sound.
 
What program are you using? The mac should be able to do this (unless apple has put some stupid limitation on it *gasp* are you not using apple certified 192khz files purchased from iTunes?). Anyway, it should work with a good program that can access the 192khz files and output the 192khz to your dac.
 
It sounds like a software issue, although I'm not sure of a good program on a Mac (J.River is in Alpha on mac).

 

[Roseval]

[size=medium]The Toslink standard (SPDIF over optical) is limited to 96 kHz max.[/size]
[size=medium]Apple sticks to this standard.[/size]
[size=medium]Modern Toslink hardware outperforms the standard. Running Win7 on an iMac I can output 176&192 over the Toslink.[/size]
[size=medium]In case of OSX you need a DAC with a UAC2  compliant USB input to do > 96 kHz or a media player [size=small] (if they exist)[/size] able to overrule the audio midi setting[/size]

 

[mnarwold]

Yet another reason to not own a Mac. Thanks Roseval for the explanation. As to the OP I would then definitely suggest that it is not worth "upgrading" to higher than 96khz since it seems to be very expensive and scientifically and practically a downgrade. Of course, if you're not into science then believe whatever you want about it.

 

[netdog]

Oh yeah. That's a big reason not to own a Mac. Sure it is.

 

[Todd R]

Quote:

Hi I have a 2009 mac mini which is limited to 96hz. What type of computer can play higher res files than a mac mini?
I am using a matrix headphone amp and Schitt Bifrost optical connection. 
Headphones Denon d-7000

 
It's not the Mac, it's your DAC.
I use a 2008 iMac and I can output 192 as well as DSD (with the correct driver) to my Mytek DAC. You need to use USB, not toslink, that's the problem. I also use Pure Music or Audirvana which does the automatic sample rate switching, gives better sound & more options than iTunes.

 

[netdog]

Bit Perfect will hand the automatic sample rate switching automatically out of iTunes too if you prefer iTunes for any reason.

 

[henree]

I use audirvana plus.

 

[Sherwood]

Yet another reason to not own a Mac. Thanks Roseval for the explanation. As to the OP I would then definitely suggest that it is not worth "upgrading" to higher than 96khz since it seems to be very expensive and scientifically and practically a downgrade. Of course, if you're not into science then believe whatever you want about it.

3 points, in order of how strongly I feel about them:

1) Adhering to industry standards is exactly what you want in a product. It is not in any way "a good reason not to own" a product. Operating a TOSlink receiver out of spec is an awful idea, and will result in audibly worse sound. Apple avoided padding a spec sheet with an impressive stat, giving their consumers a more enjoyable product without their even knowing it. I'm happy to support practical engineering.

2) OP never asked for your opinion on whether he should upgrade the bitrate of his collection. Presumably, he already has 192 files and would like to play them. I'm confident, then, that he will consider your suggestion with the care with which it was offered.

3) the phrase "Yet another reason to not own a Mac" employs a silly use of confirmation bias, an argumentum ad populum fallacy, and (arguably) a split infinitive. It is a truly terrible sentence.

So I am glad to see that you believe in science. Perhaps we can restore your faith in grammar, logic, and comprehension next.

 

[mnarwold]

Quote:

3 points, in order of how strongly I feel about them:

1) Adhering to industry standards is exactly what you want in a product. It is not in any way "a good reason not to own" a product. Operating a TOSlink receiver out of spec is an awful idea, and will result in audibly worse sound. Apple avoided padding a spec sheet with an impressive stat, giving their consumers a more enjoyable product without their even knowing it. I'm happy to support practical engineering.

2) OP never asked for your opinion on whether he should upgrade the bitrate of his collection. Presumably, he already has 192 files and would like to play them. I'm confident, then, that he will consider your suggestion with the care with which it was offered.

3) the phrase "Yet another reason to not own a Mac" employs a silly use of confirmation bias, an argumentum ad populum fallacy, and (arguably) a split infinitive. It is a truly terrible sentence.

So I am glad to see that you believe in science. Perhaps we can restore your faith in grammar, logic, and comprehension next.

All well stated. Let's just say I was having some other issues with Mac IRL and wasn't of sound mind