Great that you are tackling this, Chris! I've done quite some web research on getting bit-perfect output from Vista 32 bits, and even though I have 15+ years of experience creating Windows software and doing web research about software, I can say that the web content on this subject is utterly untransparent and in some cases beyond my comprehension (e.g. I've given up on trying to *understand* XXHighEnd, although the threads about it offer excellent entertainment in some cases). I do like to keep an open mind though.

An effort like this could really help because with confirmation from an independent source that a certain setup is bit-perfect, I can leave the rest of my judgment to my ears, being assured that I'm not tricking my ears with something that was not part of the intent of the performers and recording engineers (don't want to mis-train my hearing, I think it's like good taste - with good food you'll develop it to more enjoyment... which is what it is all about, for me anyway).

So I'll be following your progress with great interest :-).

I do wonder whether you have made your journey more challenging than necessary by using the 64 bits version of Vista. Is there a specific reason why you choose the 64 bits version?

In my experience, there is a lot of software, especially drivers, that is not properly designed or tested for 64 bits operation, or it operates differently, or it simply won't work. Many companies that target consumers choose not to invest in this, because only a tiny fraction of consumers use 64 bits vista yet. Plain old economics again.

One thing that would help clarify this subject greatly would be a piece of Vista software that captures the digital output at the last possible moment before it leaves the machine *without impacting playback*, and then allows to test for bit-perfect or store it for comparison to the original sound file. Don't know if such software exists or is even theoretically possible in Vista.

Anyway, good luck with this new adventure!

Hi Vincent - Your concern about my selection of the 64 bit OS is a very valid one. There was no way I was going to touch XP 64 bit because support for that was a nightmare. Nobody built anything for the 64 bit OS. Since Vista's release the 64 bit version has really gained a lot of ground and my research suggests it's about 10% behind the 32 bit version s far as compatibility goes with consumer products. I definitely hear you about companies going the route that will bring in more cash, hence the 32 bit support straight away.

One large reason why I selected the 64 bit architecture and the 64 bit OS was for the huge memory support. I'm adding 6 more GB to the standard 2 GB for a total of 8 GB in my Mac Pro. While this may seem like a lot I think it's a wise move. Apple recommends at least four memory modules for best performance so FB DIMM technology takes advantage of multiple channel access. and the 256-Bit Wide memory architecture. Plus when playing back a 4 GB 24/192 album that is not broken up into tracks I want to prevent hard disk paging/swapping. I also want enough headroom to handle whatever comes up and the RAM from OWC is pretty cheap. 2x2GB modules from OWC is only $170. Through Apple the exact same memory is $1,000!

Anyway, thanks for the comments and I look forward to discussing the progress of the project.

Hi Audiozorro - In fact I am collaborating with some very respected people in the world of high-end audio and pro audio. We discuss this stuff on a daily basis. It would be great if all the readers used Macs and Macs produced sound that is much better than Windows PCs, but that's not the case.

I still use OS X as my music server operating system of choice. However, the newest results on Windows based PCs are very encouraging and some have even said the sound is better than OS X when properly configured.

Nothing but good things to come for computer based audio!

Very cool Gordon. There is so much misinformation around about Vista that it's really distracting everyone from achieving the best sound possible from the operating system. I think many people hoped Vista would just go away, but that's not going to happen any time soon.

Guidelines would be a fabulous step in the right direction.

Guidelines for Vista sure would be great. Would these also apply to a firewire device? (I'll be auditioning the Weiss DAC2 in September).

Just to help a bit in readers struggling against misinformation, I find Larry Osterman's WebLog a trustworthy and enlightening source about Vista audio implementation. Larry has been developing software at Microsoft for 24 years, is a member of the Devices&Media group, and has been working on the complete Vista audio engine redesign & implementaton since the very beginning in 2002.

Some interesting posts on Vista Audio by Larry:

• Audio in Vista, the big picture
• Windows Audio Quality Enhancements
• Volume in Windows Vista, part 1: What is "volume"?
• Volume in Windows Vista, part 2: Types of volume in Windows Vista

Some interesting tidbits I distilled:

• All calculations in the Vista audio engine are now done in 32 bits floating point (was integer in XP), which gives 24 bits accuracy.
• For Vista compliance, Microsoft requires all software to not touch the sample at all at 0 Db.
• According to Wikipedia, "IEEE 1394 (aka Firewire) audio support is slated for a future release of Windows Vista, to be implemented as a full class driver, automatically supporting IEEE 1394 AV/C audio devices"

Hth, VincentH