# Fidelizer Pro - Real or Snake Oil?



## watchnerd

I don't use Windows for audio (or really at all these days), doing all my audio exclusively on Mac or Linux.
  
 This Windows software seems to be making the rounds with a big debate about whether it's useful and has a real impact, or just inconsequential:
  
 http://www.fidelizer-audio.com/


----------



## RRod

watchnerd said:


> I don't use Windows for audio (or really at all these days), doing all my audio exclusively on Mac or Linux.
> 
> This Windows software seems to be making the rounds with a big debate about whether it's useful and has a real impact, or just inconsequential:
> 
> http://www.fidelizer-audio.com/


 
  
 Does windows let you capture the PCM stream? If so it would seem trivial to capture the samples going to the DAC and compare them to the originals.


----------



## nick_charles

It has been measured by Archimago - I skimmed this and it seems to hint at no significant effect on audio parameters..


----------



## WindowsX

Some opinions from the experts about archimago's test

http://www.audioasylum.com/cgi/vt.mpl?f=pcaudio&m=150062

Let us know if you have any question related to Fidelizer products.

Regards,
Windows X


----------



## mmerrill99

Archimago's home tests are the equivalent of home run ABX tests - not fit for purpose - not even hobbyist fun because of the pretense of it being an actual serious piece of scientific investigation


----------



## bfreedma

watchnerd said:


> I don't use Windows for audio (or really at all these days), doing all my audio exclusively on Mac or Linux.
> 
> This Windows software seems to be making the rounds with a big debate about whether it's useful and has a real impact, or just inconsequential:
> 
> http://www.fidelizer-audio.com/


 
  
 For it to actually have an impact, you would have to assume that a modern Windows PC can't successfully process audio while potentially executing other tasks in the background.  That hasn't been the case for many years.
  
 I suppose you could simply manually turn off and/or change priority the Windows Services and Processes that Fidelizer does via a script, but the chance of any audible change/improvement is essentially zero unless your Windows system has existent significant performance issues unrelated specifically to audio.  Those who espouse the type of change Fidelizer makes to Windows will also frequently recommend running Windows Server OS instead of a desktop OS because in theory, you have more control over what processes and services the OS is running.  Again, we are so far past the threshold of potential CPU saturation on modern hardware that this is a solution in search of a problem.
  
 If you really wanted to ensure audio playback wasn't compromised via contention with other processes, you could set the Process Priority of elements involved in playback to "Realtime" or "High" via task manager, but unless your system is already running at heavy CPU loading, it won't make any difference.


----------



## watchnerd

windowsx said:


> Some opinions from the experts about archimago's test
> 
> http://www.audioasylum.com/cgi/vt.mpl?f=pcaudio&m=150062
> 
> ...


 
  
 I just see a lot of arguing on that thread.


----------



## watchnerd

bfreedma said:


> For it to actually have an impact, you would have to assume that a modern Windows PC can't successfully process audio while potentially executing other tasks in the background.  That hasn't been the case for many years.
> 
> I suppose you could simply manually turn off and/or change priority the Windows Services and Processes that Fidelizer does via a script, but the chance of any audible change/improvement is essentially zero unless your Windows system has existent significant performance issues unrelated specifically to audio.  Those who espouse the type of change Fidelizer makes to Windows will also frequently recommend running Windows Server OS instead of a desktop OS because in theory, you have more control over what processes and services the OS is running.  Again, we are so far past the threshold of potential CPU saturation on modern hardware that this is a solution in search of a problem.
> 
> If you really wanted to ensure audio playback wasn't compromised via contention with other processes, you could set the Process Priority of elements involved in playback to "Realtime" or "High" via task manager, but unless your system is already running at heavy CPU loading, it won't make any difference.


 
  
 What's the alleged symptom?


----------



## WindowsX

watchnerd said:


> I just see a lot of arguing on that thread.


 
  
 I'm just providing more source for you to read. There's also another link but it violates the rule to link to that website so please search for Fidelizer snake oil and you should find it.
  
 As a maker, I don't intend to sell products that don't really work out. If you can't see anyone ever complaining about Fidelizer Pro, there should be some good reasons to support this cause. 
  
 Regards,
 Windows X


----------



## mmerrill99

bfreedma said:


> watchnerd said:
> 
> 
> > I don't use Windows for audio (or really at all these days), doing all my audio exclusively on Mac or Linux.
> ...



Or it could be a change in the spectrum of the noise transmitted on any cable connection to the computer including USB cable


----------



## bfreedma

watchnerd said:


> What's the alleged symptom?


 
  
 Not really specified.  The web site talks a lot about "Sound Quality Improvement" but seems to carefully avoid any specific issues other than the need to prioritize Windows functions related to audio playback.  Notionally, the theory being espoused is that "other functions" being performed by a Windows PC may be compromising audio playback by over saturating a subsystem (CPU, Disk, Memory) but in reality, this is a non issue unless you're also using the system in question for high demand applications.  It's trivially easy to look at the utilization of a Windows system via the Resource Manager and to determine that none of the elements of audio playback are stressing a normally operating system (and see the overall workload).  And even then, we're ignoring the buffering that occurs which makes impacting audio playback even less likely to be an issue.
  


mmerrill99 said:


> Or it could be a change in the spectrum of the noise transmitted on any cable connection to the computer including USB cable


 
  
 How would stopping or optimizing Windows services and processes have that result?  If that's the claim, then the Fidelizer team needs to validate it via objective data.  Seems highly unlikely at best in the digital domain.  In many decades of working with Windows and multiple other OS's, I'm unfamiliar with any tuning that would result in a changed set of data.
  
 Bottom line - this is a solution in search of a problem.


----------



## mmerrill99

bfreedma said:


> mmerrill99 said:
> 
> 
> > Or it could be a change in the spectrum of the noise transmitted on any cable connection to the computer including USB cable
> ...



Ah, yes, the old chestnut - if the bits haven't changed then the sound hasn't changed - I thought the enlightenment had reached these dusty hollows of head-fi, I was obviously wrong - please continue.


----------



## bfreedma

mmerrill99 said:


> Ah, yes, the old chestnut - if the bits haven't changed then the sound hasn't changed - I thought the enlightenment had reached these dusty hollows of head-fi, I was obviously wrong - please continue.


 
  
 Your claim, your burden of proof.  What other data within the Windows PC processing cycle of music reproduction is there other than the bits?
  
 What you're basically suggesting is that all digital data is unreliable. It's not a concern in any other realm of data processing, but somehow it is in processing audio data?  Is there something you suggest datacenters that process mission critical data should be doing to avoid catastrophe?  Sorry for the hyperbole, but your reply was insulting.


----------



## mmerrill99

bfreedma said:


> mmerrill99 said:
> 
> 
> > Ah, yes, the old chestnut - if the bits haven't changed then the sound hasn't changed - I thought the enlightenment had reached these dusty hollows of head-fi, I was obviously wrong - please continue.
> ...



No, I'm not saying that the data is changed - that is just your blinkered view or your debating tactic, I don't know which because you are using such a hackneyed line of argument?

Anyway, the world of computer based audio has moved well beyond that luddite view of "bits are bits" & it's not a debate I'm interested in revisiting. Maybe you can use a galvanic isolator on your USB DAC connection to your computer & report ?

please continue


----------



## bfreedma

mmerrill99 said:


> No, I'm not saying that the data is changed - that is just your blinkered view or your debating tactic, I don't know which because you are using such a hackneyed line of argument?
> 
> Anyway, the world of computer based audio has moved well beyond that luddite view of "bits are bits" & it's not a debate I'm interested in revisiting. Maybe you can use a galvanic isolator on your USB DAC connection to your computer & report ?
> 
> please continue


 
  
  
 Care to provide a concrete example of your claims - something that indicates Fidelizer has the capability of improving audio reproduction.  What, specifically, other than bits is involved in the Windows digital audio processing cycle.  We aren't discussing DACs, or the connection to the DAC, but simply taking the data from it's storage medium and processing it within the PC in preparation for output.  Moving the goalposts by introducing galvanic isolation has zero impact on the discussion of Fidelizer, what it does (or doesn't) do, and whether it addresses any real world problems.
  
 It would also be appreciated if you could discuss this without the continued insults.  I see a lot of hand waving, but no substance.


----------



## cjl

Bits are bits though. We aren't talking about power supply noise (and PSRR), ground loops, or anything like that here, since we're purely talking within the software ecosystem of Windows itself, and in that context, the only thing that matters is whether the bits have been accurately transmitted or not.


----------



## mmerrill99

bfreedma said:


> mmerrill99 said:
> 
> 
> > No, I'm not saying that the data is changed - that is just your blinkered view or your debating tactic, I don't know which because you are using such a hackneyed line of argument?
> ...


But there's your mistake in your thinking - your not considering the receiving end of the communication chain. When signals remain in the digital domain obviously noise (within the limits that it doesn't flip bits) has no effect. When considering audio, digital bits have to be converted to analogue at some point & this is where noise can have an influence. It does this conversion using a hopefully very stable voltage or current reference & a very stable clock. Anything which affects this stability can have an audible effect. Noise coming in on ground connections between PC & DAC is one such source of possible interference. If the spectrum of this noise varies, I would expect that it will have an effect too. 

But, should all DAC be immune to such noise intrusion - probably but are they - mostly not!

That's all I want to say about it as it's an endless debate which goes nowhere & achieves nothing - I was simply suggesting that this is a possible mechanism whereby Fidelizer & other changes on a PC can affect what goes on in a connected DAC or audio device


----------



## watchnerd

I don't use Windows as my DAW.
  
 But I know guys who do.
  
 None of them have reported this as an issue, even in environments doing enough audio manipulation to tax the computer.
  
 There can be issues with latency to an external interface (i.e.  the lag between the live mic feed and the monitor feed), but that's a separate issue and most easily solved by moving to a faster data bus.


----------



## watchnerd

mmerrill99 said:


> When considering audio, digital bits have to be converted to analogue at some point & this is where noise can have an influence. It does this conversion using a hopefully very stable voltage or current reference & a very stable clock. Anything which affects this stability can have an audible effect. Noise coming in on ground connections between PC & DAC is one such source of possible interference. If the spectrum of this noise varies, I would expect that it will have an effect too.


 
  
 Are you saying Fidelizer reduces RFI by re-ordering tasks?
  
 That's pretty head scratching....
  
 Because noise should be related to the total load and demand on the system,  not the process order.


----------



## mmerrill99

As I said, all these abstract discussions lead nowhere - just try galvanic isolation between PC & DAC to check it out for yourself in a practical way.


----------



## bfreedma

mmerrill99 said:


> But there's your mistake in your thinking - your not considering the receiving end of the communication chain. When signals remain in the digital domain obviously noise (within the limits that it doesn't flip bits) has no effect. When considering audio, digital bits have to be converted to analogue at some point & this is where noise can have an influence. It does this conversion using a hopefully very stable voltage or current reference & a very stable clock. Anything which affects this stability can have an audible effect. Noise coming in on ground connections between PC & DAC is one such source of possible interference. If the spectrum of this noise varies, I would expect that it will have an effect too.
> 
> But, should all DAC be immune to such noise intrusion - probably but are they - mostly not!
> 
> That's all I want to say about it as it's an endless debate which goes nowhere & achieves nothing - I was simply suggesting that this is a possible mechanism whereby Fidelizer & other changes on a PC can affect what goes on in a connected DAC or audio device


 
  
 None of what you discuss above is related to Fidelizer functionality.  You're simply throwing things at the wall.  "Anything can effect anything" isn't a valid argument, much less a supporting position that Fidilizer is capable of making an audible difference.  It's simply argumentative.
  
 Are you actually suggesting that individual processes introduce RFI by their processing priority or sequencing?  Again, you're going to have to give some concrete examples, because that's a very unique claim.  And again, why are we discussing DACS in regards to Fidilizer's Windows optimization approach?


----------



## mmerrill99

I introduced the DAC because you have to have a D to A conversion & you have to think in terms of systems rather than a blinkered, individual unit consideration. If you can listen directly to the digital signals then that is a wilder claim than any I could make.


----------



## bfreedma

mmerrill99 said:


> I introduced the DAC because you have to have a D to A conversion & you have to think in terms of systems rather than a blinkered, individual unit consideration. If you can listen directly to the digital signals then that is a wilder claim than any I could make.


 
  
 None of which has anything to do with Fidelizer and how it handles Windows processes and services and the resultant impact on audio processing in the Windows ecosystem.
  
 Nice try at moving the goalposts though.


----------



## mmerrill99

Come on now - this is being idiotic in the extreme. When Archimago did measurements using Fidelizer, what did he measure? The output from a DAC, of course, doh!!

When the link to his measurements was posted by Nick Charles, nobody said "moving goalposts, Nick"

Anyway, it's time to leave this dusty hollow - there's no light down this rabbit hole!


----------



## Narayan23

watchnerd said:


> I don't use Windows for audio (or really at all these days), doing all my audio exclusively on Mac or Linux.
> 
> This Windows software seems to be making the rounds with a big debate about whether it's useful and has a real impact, or just inconsequential:
> 
> http://www.fidelizer-audio.com/


 
 As a long time user all I can say is try it in extremist mode (which is where the difference is more discernable on the normal non-pro version I use) and enjoy a free upgrade to your sound. I´m not here to debate or promote, just download it and try for yourself (not addressing you watchnerd just the doubters or those on the fence).


----------



## bfreedma

mmerrill99 said:


> Come on now - this is being idiotic in the extreme. When Archimago did measurements using Fidelizer, what did he measure? The output from a DAC, of course, doh!!
> 
> When the link to his measurements was posted by Nick Charles, nobody said "moving goalposts, Nick"
> 
> Anyway, it's time to leave this dusty hollow - there's no light down this rabbit hole!


 
  
  
 You keep avoiding answering the question of how Fidelizer can improve Windows sound reproduction.  I never once referred to Achimago's measurements so not sure why you believe bringing that up helps your cause.
  
 Windows system utilization is a tangible and measurable entity.  Spin it however you like, but nothing Fidelizer does or claims to do will impact audio processing on any reasonably modern Windows system that isn't already overtaxed by other applications.  If you have any evidence to the contrary, please post it.  It would be far more useful than your insults.


----------



## WindowsX

The reasons why you won't see much of Fidelizer explanations in front page because I'm focusing contents for people who's interested in improving sound quality to understand what Fidelizer does in simple terms. I'm not going to write a thesis to prove bits are bits scientists in my website's front page. You can read elaborated explanation about Fidelizer here and take it as you may whether you want to believe it or not.
  
 http://www.fidelizer-audio.com/about-fidelizer/
  
 If bits are bits, foobar2000/J River/HQPlayer/Bughead Emperor should all sound the same using bit-perfect playback.
 If bits are bits, WASAPI/ASIO/Kernel streaming should all sound the same because they're all bit-perfect output.
 If bits are bits, Amarra/Pure Music/Audirvana should all sound the same because with bit-perfect playback (no DSP applied).
 If bits are bits, Integer and floating point mode should all sound the same because it should make no difference in Core Audio.
 If bits are bits, Tweaking Alsa configuration, changing to Jack, writing script to optimize system should all sound the same with bit-perfect output.
 If bits are bits, uBuntu/MintLinux/Daphine/VortexBox/AP-Linux/Rune Audio should all sound the same as long as they're using bit-perfect playback software.
 If bits are bits, Windows/OS X/Linux should all sound the same as long as they're bit-perfect.
  
 I'm certain over 90% of audiophiles are at least aware that they can perceive the difference in one of them. I once made a clarification about "bits are bits" joke here.
  
 http://www.computeraudiophile.com/f11-software/truth-about-bit-perfect-and-how-some-audiophiles-misunderstand-it-23583/
  
 People who believes in "bits are bits" will find things like OS optimizations for audio such as MMCSS that Microsoft invented making no sense because they're believing in nonsense due to their lack of understanding why MMCSS was invented in the first place.
  
 It's alright if you don't believe in Fidelizer or can't hear the difference with Fidelizer software. I'm sure not everyone can because they don't own a few highend CD/SACD transports like me. I used to own a few Esoteric/Emm Labs highend CD/SACD transports and sound quality from computer audio was really sad comparing to those reference equipment. I wrote Fidelizer as a tool to correct some software implementation problems related to audio playback so I can enjoy the music better at quality that I can accept when playing neck to neck with those reference transports. And I'm happy to know that my software can also help some audiophile friends who have similar interests. That's enough for me. 
  
 Regards,
 Windows X


----------



## bfreedma

windowsx said:


> The reasons why you won't see much of Fidelizer explanations in front page because I'm focusing contents for people who's interested in improving sound quality to understand what Fidelizer does in simple terms. I'm not going to write a thesis to prove bits are bits scientists in my website's front page. You can read elaborated explanation about Fidelizer here and take it as you may whether you want to believe it or not.
> 
> http://www.fidelizer-audio.com/about-fidelizer/
> 
> ...


 
  
 I've intentionally stayed out of your product thread because I didn't think it was appropriate to call you out there.  Now that we're in Sound Science, the rules of engagement are somewhat different.
  
 You put out a lot of verbiage above.  Care to provide a shred of evidence that any of what you claim is true?  Not anecdotal evidence, not customer testimonials, not an Appeal to Authority, actual hard evidence?
  
 Have you set up a DBT that verifies any of those claims?  If not, why not?


----------



## WindowsX

First, let's be honest and tell me if you can or can't hear the difference from one of these.


> If bits are bits, foobar2000/J River/HQPlayer/Bughead Emperor should all sound the same using bit-perfect playback.
> If bits are bits, WASAPI/ASIO/Kernel streaming should all sound the same because they're all bit-perfect output.
> If bits are bits, Amarra/Pure Music/Audirvana should all sound the same because with bit-perfect playback (no DSP applied).
> If bits are bits, Integer and floating point mode should all sound the same because it should make no difference in Core Audio.
> ...


 
  
 The explanation of from what you can or can't hear the difference are different. So I hope you'll cooperate.
  
 Second, I did write technical explanation about Fidelizer in here.
  
 http://www.fidelizer-audio.com/about-fidelizer/
  
 and ask me out if you have any questions about my explanation. I wrote Fidelizer exactly does so I'm not really sure at what grounds I can convince you that my project will really improve audio performance in your sense. I already told you I raised the priority of audio task and provide better clock resolution, core affinity tweaks and stuff inside Windows' multimedia platform directly but you don't seem to believe me. Even foobar2000 got bombed hard as you can see here when touch subjects like this.
  
 https://hydrogenaud.io/index.php/topic,101368.0.html
  
 Third, thank you for your consideration to keep the air of Fidelizer thread. I'm not really sure what kind of concrete proof will satisfy you. The best I can think of right now is I found Fidelizer solves audio playback issues like stuttering/clicks/pops for some users so it really did improve audio performance. I hope you'll enjoy the links I have provided you.


----------



## bfreedma

windowsx said:


> First, let's be honest and tell me if you can or can't hear the difference from one of these.
> 
> The explanation of from what you can or can't hear the difference are different. So I hope you'll cooperate.
> 
> ...


 
  
  
 In order to make a valid comparison of that list, I would have to set up a proper DBT to have meaningful results.  I have not done so as there is no empirical evidence to suggest that they would sound different.  Those that I have listened to, purely subjectively, were identical.
  
 Raising task priority will have zero impact unless there is an overstressed component or components in the Windows PC, something highly unlikely to occur in a modern computer, particularly one dedicated to audio reproduction and not running other CPU/Disk/Memory intensive tasks.  Same statement for core affinity tweaks.  Although if one was interested in executing those tweaks, it can be done in approximately one minute via the existing Windows tools.  It's easy enough to validate the load placed on the system, visually and simply with Resource Monitor, or by using more advanced logging and analysis.  It won't take long to realize how little stress playback through, for example, Foobar2000, places on a recent vintage Windows computer.
  
 Looking at the Hydrogen Audio thread, I see no compelling evidence, just anecdotal.  In fact, many in the thread agree with my position that MMCSS only has value on an older system that is already under heavy load and does nothing on a modern PC where a tool like Foobar may be using 1%-3% of the total CPU capacity.  MMCSS "might" add value if someone was performing video editing or high resolution gaming at the same time as streaming music, but that doesn't appear to be a typical use case.
  
 I understand what Fidelizer does and how it works. I don't mean this as an insult, but it isn't very complicated.  What I don't see is any evidence that what it does results in audible improvement. 
  
 To be fair, it likely isn't degrading anything either.


----------



## watchnerd

mmerrill99 said:


> As I said, all these abstract discussions lead nowhere - just try galvanic isolation between PC & DAC to check it out for yourself in a practical way.


 
  
 Errr...what does that have to do with software processes?


----------



## watchnerd

windowsx said:


> I'm sure not everyone can because they don't own a few highend CD/SACD transports like me. I used to own a few Esoteric/Emm Labs highend CD/SACD transports and sound quality from computer audio was really sad comparing to those reference equipment. I wrote Fidelizer as a tool to correct some software implementation problems related to audio playback so I can enjoy the music better at quality that I can accept when playing neck to neck with those reference transports.


 
  
 I find the comparison to CD/SACD transports odd.  That's a real apples vs oranges comparison to a computer.
  
 A more logical comparison to me would be...
  
 Computer HW + (Windows / OSX / Linux) + DAC
  
 (you could do this on a Mac set up for multiboot)
  
 ...and then comparing how the sound changed with different OS and playback software, keeping the rest of the HW the same.


----------



## watchnerd

windowsx said:


> The best I can think of right now is I found Fidelizer solves audio playback issues like stuttering/clicks/pops for some users so it really did improve audio performance.


 
  
 Fixing dropouts makes sense if the machine is underpowered.  But that's very different from saying it makes a machine with enough horsepower sound better.


----------



## watchnerd

windowsx said:


> Second, I did write technical explanation about Fidelizer in here.
> 
> http://www.fidelizer-audio.com/about-fidelizer/
> 
> and ask me out if you have any questions about my explanation. I wrote Fidelizer exactly does so I'm not really sure at what grounds I can convince you that my project will really improve audio performance in your sense. I already told you I raised the priority of audio task and provide better clock resolution, core affinity tweaks and stuff inside Windows' multimedia platform directly but you don't seem to believe me. Even foobar2000 got bombed hard as you can see here when touch subjects like this.


 
  
 Okay, the 'Extremist' option doesn't make a lot of sense from a computer science point of view in the context of modern hardware.
  
 It doesn't take 90% of a modern, multi-core >1 GHz CPU's time to process audio.
  
 And, in fact, if you did assign 90% of resources to those processes, they're going to spend most of their time idling.
  
 The 'Extremist' option really only makes logical sense if the computer is woefully underpowered by modern specs.


----------



## WindowsX

I mentioned CD/SACD transports as a reference level of sound quality. Fidelizer helps me getting closer to that level. If you have real highend transports as refernce and find computer audio lacking a lot for acceptable performance, Fidelizer may help you for Windows platform.
  
 When I wrote bits are bits list, i keep the same machine requirements in mind so those who is curious and try and findout if "bits are bits" won't really affect perceivable audio performance. From my experience, I have yet to see any "bits are bits" believer owns a real highend cd/sacd transport. Well, that's given considering they believe upgrading cd/sacd transport won't change anything because bits are bits.
  
 As you can see that Fidelizer can fix dropouts and stuff, that's concrete proof for Fidelizer to be effective in improving audio performance. Perceivable or not, it' seems to do good more than harm as you can see.
  
 The word modern hardware sounds really boring to me personally. I've been developing system optimizer software since I was 14 and I'm turning 30 this year. I've been hearing this word as counter argument that optimizing software won't be needed for modern hardware for over a decade already. When will we get over this? Even i7 processor can get dropouts and stuff if implementation isn't done right.
  
 As for Extremist optimization level and stuff, I once removed it from Fidelizer to avoid the risks and problems but a few users requested me to bring them back again because they really needed it.
  
 Why don't you just give Fidelizer a try and see for yourself? If you find nothing, it'll be only few minutes of your life spent on this and I'm sure it'll be shorter than time you're going to spend in debating with me. It doesn't cause any permanent effect in free version so it's safe to try without worries.
  
 Regards,
 Windows X


----------



## watchnerd

windowsx said:


> The word modern hardware sounds really boring to me personally. I've been developing system optimizer software since I was 14 and I'm turning 30 this year. I've been hearing this word as counter argument that optimizing software won't be needed for modern hardware for over a decade already. When will we get over this?


 
  
 LOL..."boring?"
  
 I work in software.  When the hardware becomes powerful enough relative to the size of the workload you don't need to micro-manage processes to ensure they're completed on time unless the machine is overloaded.
  
 If you need to micro-manage processes to properly handle audio, it's really time for a HW upgrade.
  


windowsx said:


> As you can see that Fidelizer can fix dropouts and stuff, that's concrete proof for Fidelizer to be effective in improving audio performance.


 
  
 It's proof that it can fix a broken stream.  It's not proof that it can make an intact stream sound better.


windowsx said:


> Why don't you just give Fidelizer a try and see for yourself?


 
  
 I don't use Windows.


----------



## WindowsX

It's boring because software developer thinks upgrading hardware will solve all performance problems instead of improving the implementation and establishment of software implementation side. We all know Windows isn't configured to work best on multimedia alone by default. Well, they did try on Windows Vista such as 4ms latency for default USB Audio driver, guarantee 100ns time slice for multimedia resource scheduling and received a lot of complaints like battery drainage, freeze and hangs for some cases so they lowered audio standards in later updates to be more compromise.
  
 I don't see why you shouldn't optimize software for the better as long as it doesn't cause trouble and easy enough to use. If you don't believe in Fidelizer's principles, that's fine by me. People find different products with different principles in mind and that's the charm of this hobby after all.
  
 Regards,
 Windows X


----------



## mmerrill99

watchnerd said:


> mmerrill99 said:
> 
> 
> > As I said, all these abstract discussions lead nowhere - just try galvanic isolation between PC
> ...



As I said at the start - the mechanism of operation of Fidelizer may be that it changes the spectrum of noise within the ground plane of the computer & therefore could affect a connected audio device through this ground noise entering & affecting the sensitive circuitry in the D to A stage.

You could object to this with arguments:
- you don't believe there is any noise on the ground plane of computers
- yes there is ground noise but the changing processing in the computer does not cause any change in this, it is a constant
- this changing ground noise cannot be transmitted to an audio device connected via wired connection

Using galvanic isolation between computer & DAC will show if noise from a computer has any role in sound quality. Are you really asking what it has to do with the discussion?


----------



## watchnerd

mmerrill99 said:


> Using galvanic isolation between computer & DAC will show if noise from a computer has any role in sound quality. Are you really asking what it has to do with the discussion?


 
  
 Yes, I'm asking, because it's a roundabout way to assess RFI.
  
 If you really think RFI is a problem, you don't need Fidelizer or galvanic isolation DAC to test that.  You crank up the CPU to max with a simulated work load and use a RFI detector, which will give you a reading in dB.


----------



## watchnerd

windowsx said:


> If you don't believe in Fidelizer's principles, that's fine by me. People find different products with different principles in mind and that's the charm of this hobby after all.


 
  
 It's not a matter of principles, it's a matter of data.
  
 I haven't seen any data other than:
  
 1. It stopped drop-outs in some cases.  
  
 Sure, this seems reasonable, prima facie, because the explanation is obvious, logical, and the phenomenon is unambiguous.
  
 2. It makes audio sound better
  
 I haven't seen any data on this, other than anecdotal user testimony, nor measurements.


----------



## mmerrill99

watchnerd said:


> mmerrill99 said:
> 
> 
> > Using galvanic isolation between computer
> ...



Archimago has already measured the noise coming over USB cables & even using his mediocre measuring equipment, he measures a 5 to 10dB drop in all noise (it's not just RF)
http://archimago.blogspot.ie/2015/05/measurements-corning-usb-3-optical.html


----------



## bfreedma

mmerrill99 said:


> watchnerd said:
> 
> 
> > mmerrill99 said:
> ...




First you discredit Archimego, then you use his data.

You may have missed it, but the USB noise prior to reduction was already at or below -120db. That's way below the audible noise floor.

Not that any of that is relevant to the discussion of Fidilizer changing process priority and processor affinity.


----------



## watchnerd

mmerrill99 said:


> Archimago has already measured the noise coming over USB cables & even using his mediocre measuring equipment, he measures a 5 to 10dB drop in all noise (it's not just RF)
> http://archimago.blogspot.ie/2015/05/measurements-corning-usb-3-optical.html


 
  
 Okay, that all makes sense.
  
 But if you do have RFI issues, using Fidelizer (or any other software) to address it is very roundabout, expensive, and not universally applicable.  If I have an RFI issue, I should tackle it electrically (the optical USB is pretty clever) so the problem is reduced, regardless of what software I use.


----------



## watchnerd

bfreedma said:


> You may have missed it, but the USB noise prior to reduction was already at or below -120db. That's way below the audible noise floor.


 
  
 I was thinking the same thing, wondering "why does this guy care about stuff that is at -120 db".
  
 My assumption was that his graph scale must be miscalibrated, because he claimed to be able to hear 60 Hz hum when it was at -110 dB.
  
 If the graph isn't miscalibrated, why bother?


----------



## mmerrill99

bfreedma said:


> mmerrill99 said:
> 
> 
> > watchnerd said:
> ...


As I said if his amateur pseudo-measuremnts show a reduction in the noise floor of 5-10dB, who knows how much more a real measurement would show? 



> You may have missed it, but the USB noise prior to reduction was already at or below -120db. That's way below the audible noise floor.


Who said anything about hearing the noise floor directly? It's about the effect a fluctuation ground noise spectrum can have on the sensitive analogue circuits inside D to A converters - the clock & the voltage or current references - it's the secondary effect of noise fluctuation on these processes 



> Not that any of that is relevant to the discussion of Fidilizer changing process priority and processor affinity.


As I said, a possible mechanism for its effect is changing the noise spectrum of the computer


----------



## mmerrill99

watchnerd said:


> bfreedma said:
> 
> 
> > You may have missed it, but the USB noise prior to reduction was already at or below -120db. That's way below the audible noise floor.
> ...


Very simplistic thinking being demonstrated in these posts


----------



## watchnerd

windowsx said:


> If you don't believe in Fidelizer's principles, that's fine by me. People find different products with different principles in mind and that's the charm of this hobby after all.


 
  
 Believing in principles?  What principles are you referring to?


----------



## watchnerd

mmerrill99 said:


> Very simplistic thinking being demonstrated in these posts


 
  
 Care to elaborate?
  
 The graph shows hum at -110 dB.  Either the graph is wrong or he has superhuman hearing.


----------



## nick_charles

I see no meaningful difference...


----------



## mmerrill99

nick_charles said:


> I see no meaningful difference...




No meaningful difference is shown in the RMAA measurements for the optical cable, either


Yet an FFT shows a 5-10dB improvement in noise floor


----------



## bfreedma

mmerrill99 said:


> bfreedma said:
> 
> 
> > mmerrill99 said:
> ...




You assume his views on Fidilizer are incorrect based on his measurement setup, but then also assume that the measurement you quote from him is not only viable but probably presents a best case scenario? How did you logic your way into that conclusion?

You also really seem to like to throw theories against the wall without a shred of supporting evidence. I'd like to hear your specific theory on how setting process priority and processor affinity could possibly change the "noise spectrum" of a Windows PC. In fact, I'd like to see your evidence that changing those two elements actually results in any change in the processing , clock, and associated voltages presented in a system operating under the light load typical of a system executing audio playback. If there aren't enough CPU cycles being consumed, the process priority setting is meaningless. There is no CPU state slower and less impactful than idle.

IMO, the entire discussion of RFI is meaningless in the context of what Fidelizer actually does. Unless you can produce evidence otherwise and not just keep postulating about some "possible mechanism" that you can't quantify or even describe.


----------



## mmerrill99

Fidelizer doesn't just do the two things you mentioned & you would be aware of that if you listened out even bothered to read the page linked to by Windows X so you are building a starman argument.
I'm just suggesting a possible mechanism for its operation.


----------



## nick_charles

None of the measurable nose/distortion levels should be audible in either case (with or without the doodad) but without some DBTs at the very least there is no evidence that it actually makes an audible difference
  
 Has anyone done any DBTs with this software ?


----------



## bfreedma

mmerrill99 said:


> Fidelizer doesn't just do the two things you mentioned & you would be aware of that if you listened out even bothered to read the page linked to by Windows X so you are building a starman argument.
> I'm just suggesting a possible mechanism for its operation.




I've read the page in detail - numerous times. IMO, nothing in Fidelizer would support your "possible mechanism", whatever that might be. I'd be interested in your being specific in what you believe Fidelizer does that supports your claim. Are you just being contrarian or do you have specifics to post?

Frankly, it would be trivially easy to identify what Fidelizer does by utilizing a Windows install change tracker. I won't do it, because even though I don't agree with Windows X, it's his product and IP and it wouldn't be fair to him to publish the changes made to Windows components and registry. That said, after decades of tuning Windows systems, I have a very good idea of what Fidelizer changes based on the screens shown on the web site and the associated narrative.

At this point, I'm repeating myself and you're refusing to be specific in your claims, so unless you want to propose something specific that can actually be analyzed, I'm going to drop out of this played out discussion.


----------



## watchnerd

mmerrill99 said:


> Fidelizer doesn't just do the two things you mentioned & you would be aware of that if you listened out even bothered to read the page linked to by Windows X so you are building a starman argument.
> I'm just suggesting a possible mechanism for its operation.


 
  
 I read the page.  I didn't see anything resembling a reasonable technical explanation.


----------



## Guidostrunk

Regardless of measurements, or scientific babble. Hell, I still have no clue what it actually does. My ears hear a huge improvement in SQ, running pro. I even made an appreciation and impressions thread. Of course everyones MMV.
http://www.head-fi.org/t/794314/fidelizer-appreciation-and-impressions-thread


----------



## nick_charles

guidostrunk said:


> Regardless of measurements, or scientific babble. Hell, I still have no clue what it actually does. My ears hear a huge improvement in SQ, running pro. I even made an appreciation and impressions thread. Of course everyones MMV.
> http://www.head-fi.org/t/794314/fidelizer-appreciation-and-impressions-thread


 
  
  
 How did you do the comparison? Are you talking about a sighted evaluation, how can you be sure that what you perceived is reliable ? It is dead easy to be fooled in any number of ways with the best will in the world...


----------



## Guidostrunk

Bro..... Seriously, I really don't care about the "science" behind it , or testing or whatnot. Hey. If I'm fooled so be it.
I downloaded the free version first for schiits , and giggles. Never expecting anything. Bought pro 1 week later. There's my testing method. My ears said yes. Lol.


nick_charles said:


> How did you do the comparison? Are you talking about a sighted evaluation, how can you be sure that what you perceived is reliable ? It is dead easy to be fooled


----------



## watchnerd

guidostrunk said:


> Bro..... Seriously, I really don't care about the "science" behind it , or testing or whatnot. Hey. If I'm fooled so be it.
> I downloaded the free version first for schiits , and giggles. Never expecting anything. Bought pro 1 week later. There's my testing method. My ears said yes. Lol.


 
  
 Curious, what's your hardware?


----------



## Guidostrunk

I'm using an old Laptop> foobar for flac, Tidal, and spotify. Nothing really special. Lol


watchnerd said:


> Curious, what's your hardware?


----------



## watchnerd

guidostrunk said:


> I'm using an old Laptop> foobar for flac, Tidal, and spotify. Nothing really special. Lol


 
  
 Like how old?  Specs?
  
 Because if the hardware is old enough, yeah, I can see it making a difference.


----------



## nick_charles

guidostrunk said:


> Bro..... Seriously, I really don't care about the "science" behind it , or testing or whatnot. Hey. If I'm fooled so be it.
> I downloaded the free version first for schiits , and giggles. Never expecting anything. Bought pro 1 week later. There's my testing method. My ears said yes. Lol.


 
  
 As I said it is dead easy to be fooled or to fool yourself in many many ways, cognitive biases are legion. Since this is the science subforum we are allowed here , and only here, to ask for stronger evidence such as measurements or DBTs - sighted "I heard a difference" anecdotes are incredibly weak and really do not fit into the category of evidence in any meaningful way


----------



## Guidostrunk

HP CQ60 Compaq Presario. AMD Athlon Dual core QL-62 2.00GHz. 2gig ram, 250gigs storage. 32bit system , Windows Vista. That old. Lol.


watchnerd said:


> Like how old?  Specs?
> 
> Because if the hardware is old enough, yeah, I can see it making a difference.


----------



## watchnerd

guidostrunk said:


> HP CQ60 Compaq Presario. AMD Athlon Dual core QL-62 2.00GHz. 2gig ram, 250gigs storage. 32bit system , Windows Vista. That old. Lol.


 
  
 Okay...on an underpowered 7 year old machine like that, I'm not surprised thread management for audio processing matters.
  
 Your phone probably has more processing horsepower than your laptop.


----------



## Guidostrunk

Oh well bro. I have nothing more to offer you but my previous post. That's as scientific as it gets for me. I'd rather listen to music, fooled or unfooled, than spend all day testing it, or looking for empirical evidence for debate. $70 to me , is no big deal either way. Lol
Cheers



nick_charles said:


> As I said it is dead easy to be fooled or to fool yourself in many many ways, cognitive biases are legion. Since this is the science subforum we are allowed here , and only here, to ask for stronger evidence such as measurements or DBTs - sighted "I heard a difference" anecdotes are incredibly weak and really do not fit into the category of evidence in any meaningful way


----------



## Guidostrunk

It's possible. But I really don't know? 





watchnerd said:


> Okay...on an underpowered 7 year old machine like that, I'm not surprised thread management for audio processing matters.
> 
> Your phone probably has more processing horsepower than your laptop.


----------



## WindowsX

I already explained how Fidelizer utilizes MMCSS and stuff, gave audioasylum link to show how the experts in there classify archimingo tests being improper, provided hint about latency jitter and audiostream chunk problems, demonatrated examples of audio improvements approach in Windows Vista by Microsoft. I also have a few customers using Fidelizer Pro on very powerful computers like Intel i7/Xeon processors.

If none of this gets through your head, I recommend trying Fidelizer and follow its user guide for sound quality improvements in Windows first. I'm already busy with supporting customers and delivering software so I'd rather spend time supporting people who are actually interested in my products.

Regards,
Windows X


----------



## bfreedma

windowsx said:


> I already explained how Fidelizer utilizes MMCSS and stuff, gave audioasylum link to show how the experts in there classify archimingo tests being improper, provided hint about latency jitter and audiostream chunk problems, demonatrated examples of audio improvements approach in Windows Vista by Microsoft. I also have a few customers using Fidelizer Pro on very powerful computers like Intel i7/Xeon processors.
> 
> If none of this gets through your head, I recommend trying Fidelizer and follow its user guide for sound quality improvements in Windows first. I'm already busy with supporting customers and delivering software so I'd rather spend time supporting people who are actually interested in my products.
> 
> ...




As previously mentioned, MMCSS serves no purpose unless the system running it is highly stressed - not the scenario on most audio playback Windows systems being discussed here. The Audioasylum link has as many detractors as supporters and certainly doesn't reach any substantiated conclusion that Fidelizer is audibly improving audio.

I'm sure some users are running Fidelizer on I7 based systems. I'm equally as sure that those systems have sufficient processing power to play back an audio stream without any of the Fidelizer "enhancements" needed to do so without losing integrity.

Instead of asking if this is "getting through my head", why don't you validate the worth of your product by organizing some properly conducted and independently supervised DBT testing. That would hold far more value than anyone running it and providing sighted subjective testimonial. Or at the very least, provide some measurements of your own that indicate audible improvements driven by the Fidelizer implementation. If you had the product vetted by either or both of those options, you would sell orders of magnitude more licenses.

If you're not interested in DBT and/or measurements correlating to audibility, I think it's going to be quite hard to convince people posting in Sound Science that Fidelizer performs as you claim. You have far more subjective liberty in your other thread but this one requires objective evidence.


----------



## Guidostrunk

How important are these tests to you? Just curious. Lol


bfreedma said:


> As previously mentioned, MMCSS serves no purpose unless the system running it is highly stressed - not the scenario on most audio playback Windows systems being discussed here. The Audioasylum link has as many detractors as supporters and certainly doesn't reach any substantiated conclusion that Fidelizer is audibly improving audio.
> 
> I'm sure some users are running Fidelizer on I7 based systems. I'm equally as sure that those systems have sufficient processing power to play back an audio stream without any of the Fidelizer "enhancements" needed to do so without losing integrity.
> 
> ...


----------



## watchnerd

guidostrunk said:


> It's possible. But I really don't know?


 
  
 It's easy to figure out...what kind of phone do you have?


----------



## Guidostrunk

Note3 





watchnerd said:


> It's easy to figure out...what kind of phone do you have?


----------



## WindowsX

I'm referring to OP 'watchnerd' who don't listen, test, or even respect the diversity of opinion that I shouldn't waste my time with him anymore. I don't call it science in arguing with people who won't even test my product.

I didn't mean to disrespect people who disagree about Fidelizer but conducted with manners like bfreedma.

Unless there is reliable test methods we both approve, things like this won't end well. Archimingo and basic measurements from DAC aren't good enough. You'll get the same result from both $300 DVD player and $30k CD transport.

Regards,
Windows X


----------



## watchnerd

windowsx said:


> I'm referring to OP 'watchnerd' who don't listen, test, or even respect the diversity of opinion that I shouldn't waste my time with him anymore. I don't call it science in arguing with people who won't even test my product.


 
  
 Science is not subjective product reviews.
  
 I'm sorry you don't understand that.
  
 When you have some hard data, either measurements or DBT, on the effects of your product then we'll have a basis on which to have an informed discussion; this is the Sound Science forum, after all.


----------



## WindowsX

I recall science starts from observation of subjects. If you don't even test Fidelizer, what is there to discuss in scientific manner?

There's a poll in google asking if Fidelizer is snake oil or it really works. 7 of 8 people votd for really works. Maybe you can read discussion over there if that will entertain you. I'm not a fan of pseudoscience.

This is getting stupid. I'm out. PM me if you have any questions about Fidelizer because I won't come back to read anymore.

Regards,
Windows X


----------



## watchnerd

windowsx said:


> I recall science starts from observation of subjects. If you don't even test Fidelizer, what is there to discuss in scientific manner?
> 
> There's a poll in google asking if Fidelizer is snake oil or it really works. 7 of 8 people votd for really works. Maybe you can read discussion over there if that will entertain you. I'm not a fan of pseudoscience.
> 
> ...


 
  
 Even if I personally test Fidelizer, that's not even close to being experimentally valid if it's not a double-blind test.
  
 And even if I did do so, that's 1 data point.  That's not statistically significant.
  
 As for polls, that's not science, either. That's opinion.
  
 Again, I'm sorry if you don't understand scientific methods.


----------



## watchnerd

windowsx said:


> Unless there is reliable test methods we both approve, things like this won't end well. Archimingo and basic measurements from DAC aren't good enough. You'll get the same result from both $300 DVD player and $30k CD transport.


 
  
 Since you don't like measurements because "you'll get the same result", then a double-blind test is the other major test method.
  
 Or did you have a 3rd option in mind?


----------



## gregorio

windowsx said:


> I'm not a fan of pseudoscience.


 
  
 Now that's an interesting statement, especially in light of other statements you've made such as: "_provided hint about latency jitter and audiostream chunk problems_".
  
 If this quote is true, it leaves only two options: 1. You are just ignorant of the effects of latency or jitter being fed to a DAC or 2. Although you might not be a "fan" of pseudo-science, you're prepared to employ it anyway as a cynical marketing ploy.
  
 In response to the OP: If you're experiencing obvious audio dropouts, it's possible (under certain circumstances) that this product might provide a tangible benefit to you. If, like the vast majority of people/scenarios, you are not experiencing audio dropouts, then this product is snake oil.
  
 G


----------



## billerb1

Thanks Windows X, your snake oil sounds incredible on my mediocre equipment.


----------



## Zwree1

Well, also for me, it is the best sounding snake oil I ever heard (mind you, not that I was actively listening to snake oils ).
 I have Windows 10 Dell Precision i7 2015 workstation with FiiO DAC and high grade Sennheiser headphones.
 For example, I knew how some opera arias/voices (in good flac) should sound (I listen to them frequently on well tuned high end hifi equipment), but I almost couldn't recognize that music listening to it on my PC. After installing Fidelizer, it did sound different, much more true to the "real" sound. Ok, this is not scientific evidence, but many audiophiles experience differences - it is not rational to call us all deluded!


----------



## watchnerd

zwree1 said:


> Well, also for me, it is the best sounding snake oil I ever heard (mind you, not that I was actively listening to snake oils ).
> I have Windows 10 Dell Precision i7 2015 workstation with FiiO DAC and high grade Sennheiser headphones.
> For example, I knew how some opera arias/voices (in good flac) should sound (I listen to them frequently on well tuned high end hifi equipment), but I almost couldn't recognize that music listening to it on my PC. After installing Fidelizer, it did sound different, much more true to the "real" sound. Ok, this is not scientific evidence, but many audiophiles experience differences - it is not rational to call us all deluded!


 
  
 "Deluded" is not the correct word, but subject to placebo effects or cognitive bias, yes.


----------



## Zwree1




----------



## billerb1

watchnerd said:


> "Deluded" is not the correct word, but subject to placebo effects or cognitive bias, yes.



 


Yeah that of course is possible. It's also possible that Fidelizer improves sound quality if you're using a Windows system, depending of course on your gear.
I've clued 5 Head-Fi'ers on to it and each one has become seriously, not mildly, deluded.
You can theorize...or you can just try the damned thing. I would be very surprised if many of you would
not be very happy that you did. 

http://www.6moons.com/audioreviews2/fidelizer/1.html

http://www.tnt-audio.com/sorgenti/fidelizer_e.html


----------



## nick_charles

> http://www.6moons.com/audioreviews2/fidelizer/1.html
> 
> http://www.tnt-audio.com/sorgenti/fidelizer_e.html


 
  
 What I do not see in the above are any measurements of audio parameters such as noise/distortion/fr/jitter (just joking) to verify these wondrous changes such would be trivial to demonstrate yet silence...


----------



## watchnerd

billerb1 said:


> watchnerd said:
> 
> 
> > "Deluded" is not the correct word, but subject to placebo effects or cognitive bias, yes.
> ...


 
  
 No need to try, I use a Mac.


----------



## gregorio

billerb1 said:


> I've clued 5 Head-Fi'ers on to it and each one has become seriously, not mildly, deluded.


 
  
 Only 5? The most successful snake oil products manage to seriously delude thousands of audiophiles!
  


billerb1 said:


> It's also possible that Fidelizer improves sound quality if you're using a Windows system, depending of course on your gear.


 
  
 This is the science sub-forum, NOT one of the audiophile marketing forums! If it's possible Fidelizer improves sound quality then you must explain how/why it does. AND, an explanation which flies in the face of the known science is going to require some extraordinary evidence. Why don't you get this? Again, this is the science sub-forum NOT one of the forums where inexplicable magic is acceptable!
  
 G


----------



## billerb1

gregorio said:


> Only 5? The most successful snake oil products manage to seriously delude thousands of audiophiles!
> 
> 
> This is the science sub-forum, NOT one of the audiophile marketing forums! If it's possible Fidelizer improves sound quality then you must explain how/why it does. AND, an explanation which flies in the face of the known science is going to require some extraordinary evidence. Why don't you get this? Again, this is the science sub-forum NOT one of the forums where inexplicable magic is acceptable!
> ...


 
  
 Thank you, Mr. Science.


----------



## milosingh

I really hope the Governments collectively ban all sorts of snake oil crap like this.


----------



## sonitus mirus

milosingh said:


> I really hope the Governments collectively ban all sorts of snake oil crap like this.


 
  
 If only this stuff actually worked I'd be hung like a horse with 6-pack abs making millions working from home 2 hours a day to pay for my thousands of dollars of specialized audio equipment enhancements.


----------



## watchnerd

billerb1 said:


> watchnerd said:
> 
> 
> > "Deluded" is not the correct word, but subject to placebo effects or cognitive bias, yes.
> ...


 
  
 The TNT review is using a Windows 8 computer -- i.e. OS from 2012
  
 The 6 Moons review is using a Windows 8.1 computer -- i.e. OS from 2013
  
 Some other juicy bits:
  
 "Some years ago, I spent far too many hours messing around with *Windows XP* on a computer that I assigned exclusively to computer audio. Nearly all the hints and tips that I found on the Internet involved going further into the operating system than most users would like to, particularly so if the computer was also depended on for day-to-day use. What was needed was some way of achieving the same results by running a single application that did all the work for us. There have been several free offerings along those lines, and one that I tried from Computer Audio Design worked well using scripts. However, some of the scripts needed to be executed each time that you used the computer."
  
Windows XP -- from 2001....
  
These guys need to upgrade their computers and stop using stuff better suited to a charity donation.


----------



## milosingh

I don't understand. Where does he say he tested the software using a Win XP PC? He said he was using that several years ago.


----------



## watchnerd

milosingh said:


> I don't understand. Where does he say he tested the software using a Win XP PC? He said he was using that several years ago.


 
  
 He didn't say he tested Fidelizer on XP -- He did tested Fidelizer on Windows 8 (as I noted).
  
 But even using XP several years ago is mind boggling unless by "several years ago" he means "a decade ago".


----------



## milosingh

Windows XP was fine till say 8-10 years ago. Several years ago probably meant that.


----------



## watchnerd

milosingh said:


> Windows XP was fine till say 8-10 years ago. Several years ago probably meant that.


 
  
 Maybe.  The point being if these guys were running on recent model gear (Windows 8 is approaching 5 years old now) they shouldn't need OS-tweakery just to play music well.


----------



## bfreedma

watchnerd said:


> Maybe.  The point being if these guys were running on recent model gear (Windows 8 is approaching 5 years old now) they shouldn't need OS-tweakery just to play music well.




It isn't necessary in Win 7 or 8 either, unless you're using a dramatically underpowered PC.


----------



## cjl

Yep - I'd say XP was the last version of windows that had fairly significant audio flaws, and anything Vista or newer really shouldn't need any tweaking to get good sound quality.


----------



## sonitus mirus

cjl said:


> Yep - I'd say XP was the last version of windows that had fairly significant audio flaws, and anything Vista or newer really shouldn't need any tweaking to get good sound quality.


 
  
 Agreed, provided that any enhancements are disabled and the audio properties are using the same sample rate as the source, there should be no issues at all that could be heard.
  
 Someone posted the results of a test on the matter, and the differences were around 0.1 dB.
  
 https://www.reddit.com/r/audiophile/comments/2sb3ck/investigating_the_origin_of_the_bitperfect_myth/
  
 I think people seeking indefectibly bit-perfect audio through some additional software/hardware improvements are risking the chance of mucking something up and making things worse.  Just keep it simple and enjoy.


----------



## WindowsX

I wonder why there's no brave scientist trying to prove snake oil theory with Microsoft's Multimedia Class Scheduler Service. By the way, Apple products are one of the world's most snake oil products where competitors can make double spec at half price. I'll believe Apple makes hipster wannabe products unless someone can prove otherwise. This is a science room after all where we can push our EGO and PREJUDGE to each other in the name of SCIENCE. 
  
 I left this thread for a while and man.....Science room is filled with uneducated people trying to be smart without ever conducting any proper research more than past years.
  
 Regards,
 Windows X


----------



## watchnerd

windowsx said:


> I left this thread for a while and man.....Science room is filled with uneducated people trying to be smart without ever conducting any proper research more than past years.


 
  
 Will you be making a new recording for testing purposes soon?


----------



## WindowsX

watchnerd said:


> Will you be making a new recording for testing purposes soon?


 
  
 No. I'm too busy right now to conduct proper tests. Will you test Fidelizer anytime soon? You can use bootcamp or virtualization for that.
  
 Regards,
 Windows X


----------



## watchnerd

sonitus mirus said:


> Agreed, provided that any enhancements are disabled and the audio properties are using the same sample rate as the source, there should be no issues at all that could be heard.
> 
> Someone posted the results of a test on the matter, and the differences were around 0.1 dB.
> 
> ...


 
  
 Should be possible to run that same test with Fidelizer turned on and off, right?
  
 (I don't use Windows so can't run it myself)


----------



## WindowsX

watchnerd said:


> Should be possible to run that same test with Fidelizer turned on and off, right?
> 
> (I don't use Windows so can't run it myself)


 
  
 You can use Parallels Desktop to test from Virtualization or Bootcamp and to test from Windows OS.
  
 Regards,
 Windows X


----------



## watchnerd

windowsx said:


> No. I'm too busy right now to conduct proper tests. Will you test Fidelizer anytime soon? You can use bootcamp or virtualization for that.
> 
> Regards,
> Windows X


 
  
 Testing in a virtual machine introduces a whole lot other variables...


----------



## WindowsX

watchnerd said:


> Testing in a virtual machine introduces a whole lot other variables...


 
  
 If you're willing to make a test, you can install bootcamp and Windows on your Mac to reduce other variables. Or you can test on your friend's PC running Windows.


----------



## watchnerd

windowsx said:


> If you're willing to make a test, you can install bootcamp and Windows on your Mac to reduce other variables. Or you can test on your friend's PC running Windows.


 
  
 Bootcamp means reformatting my HD to make it dual-boot. I'm not going to reformat just for this.
  
 As for friends with Windows, nobody I know uses it...the ones who aren't using Macs use Linux.


----------



## gregorio

windowsx said:


> I'll believe Apple makes hipster wannabe products unless someone can prove otherwise.


 
  
  Pot, kettle, black.
  
 Quote:


windowsx said:


> This is a science room after all where we can push our EGO and PREJUDGE to each other in the name of SCIENCE.


 
  
  Pot, kettle, black!
  
 Quote:


> Originally Posted by *WindowsX* /img/forum/go_quote.gif
> 
> Science room is filled with uneducated people trying to be smart without ever conducting any proper research more than past years.


 
  
 Pot, kettle, black!!
  
 What does: hypocrisy + hypocrisy + hypocrisy = ?
  
 G


----------



## jdpark

If I understand the basic argument of the thread, it is a) that Fidelizer Pro has no hard data supporting an A/B test, and b) in theory the prioritization of audio processes that the software claims to do shouldn't be necessary if one is using a very good computer... 
  
 I have Fidelizer Pro, and I do notice a difference in the accuracy of spacial placement and the timing of music when played with an older Lenovo ThinkPad via Windows 10 and Jplay often in hibernate mode (which itself has been called snake-oil in the past). When I tested the free versions of these products I noticed a dramatic audible difference akin to getting a new DAC. So I purchased both.
  
 On my work computer, I have the regular free Fidelizer and Jplay. My office desktop is newer and significantly more powerful with a Core i7 processor, even though it only uses Windows 8.1. What I can say, is that subjectively, my HRT HD dac at home sounds almost as good as my Audio-gd DAC-19 10th anniversary with Amanero USB input at work. That means that presumably the $70 price of Fidelizer Pro goes a long way in bridging the gap between a $400 Dac and an $800 one, which is highly respected at that price. I have not purchased Fidelizer Pro for my work computer because it's not my computer, and I don't want to pay for software that cannot be transferred from it (or that will require a hassle to transfer)..
  
 However, recently the owner of the software, who is on this forum, has announced that he's coming out with an updated version that will have to be purchased, even for those who have already purchased the previous version. So Fidelizer Pro 6 owners will have to purchase, or pay around $30 to upgrade to Fidelizer Pro 7...  
  
 Since I'm adverse to paying for software in general, in all but extreme cases where I find a piece of software 'essential', I find this business strategy of basically telling customers they need to buy the software twice (and who knows how many times in the future) rather underhanded. (By the way, in case others don't know, you have to buy an entirely new license for each computer you want this software to work on, if you get the Pro version. Not even Microsoft Office is that stingy.)
  
 Did I mention that my Laptop is virtually unusable in extremist mode? I believe it makes an improvement in sound, but ideally, one would have to purchase a stand alone computer to get the full benefit of this software, I think. That is unlikely to win over many converts, unfortunately, meaning that as far as I'm concerned this product will likely go the way of the dinosaur. 
  
 In fact, I'm so skeptical of the 'audiophile software' game at this point, I will probably be looking into dedicated servers, or even getting something like a Pono/DAP for dedicated music playback in a couple of years.


----------



## milosingh

The reason you don't find much of a difference between your two DACs is that there isn't a big difference between them any way, if at all.


----------



## bfreedma

windowsx said:


> I wonder why there's no brave scientist trying to prove snake oil theory with Microsoft's Multimedia Class Scheduler Service. By the way, Apple products are one of the world's most snake oil products where competitors can make double spec at half price. I'll believe Apple makes hipster wannabe products unless someone can prove otherwise. This is a science room after all where we can push our EGO and PREJUDGE to each other in the name of SCIENCE.
> 
> I left this thread for a while and man.....Science room is filled with uneducated people trying to be smart without ever conducting any proper research more than past years.
> 
> ...




You provide a legitimate technical reason or measurement indicating there would be a need to test Fidelizer and I would be willing to test it. So far, I haven't seen anything even close and won't waste my time for the same reason I don't feel the need to test the theory of gravity. If you can produce something beyond subjective comments and user testimonials, there would be reason to test.

Your suggestion to use virtualization only reassures me that you don't have the understanding of the mechanics in play to vet your own software. As mentioned by Watchnerd, using a virtualized platform adds far too many variables to have proper controls for most environments, including my home office VMWare server. It's achievable, but would require some highly specialized and expensive software not likely to be available to a home user. As it is, it would take significant effort to test Fidelizer properly. To avoid too much elapsed time between comparisons, testing would need to be done on two identical PCs using control management software to ensure that both systems had matching setups, workloads, memory utilization, cached data, and a number of other variables to ensure the proper controls were in place.

As to MMCSS, there would be no value to it in the normal scenario of reproducing audio. The only time it would come into play is if the PC was running near CPU capacity - even MS's technical papers refer to it's benefits being seen on systems running games or 4K video (or heavy video editing of HD content) while also processing audio. None of those scenarios is likely to be evident on systems largely dedicated to audio streaming, so I don't see why you keep touting it. MMCSS isn't snake oil, it simply isn't relevant in the context of this discussion.

Name calling and suggesting everyone here is "uneducated" and "trying to be smart" isn't helping your case.


----------



## WindowsX

bfreedma said:


> You provide a legitimate technical reason or measurement indicating there would be a need to test Fidelizer and I would be willing to test it. So far, I haven't seen anything even close and won't waste my time for the same reason I don't feel the need to test the theory of gravity. If you can produce something beyond subjective comments and user testimonials, there would be reason to test.
> 
> Your suggestion to use virtualization only reassures me that you don't have the understanding of the mechanics in play to vet your own software. As mentioned by Watchnerd, using a virtualized platform adds far too many variables to have proper controls for most environments, including my home office VMWare server. It's achievable, but would require some highly specialized and expensive software not likely to be available to a home user. As it is, it would take significant effort to test Fidelizer properly. To avoid too much elapsed time between comparisons, testing would need to be done on two identical PCs using control management software to ensure that both systems had matching setups, workloads, memory utilization, cached data, and a number of other variables to ensure the proper controls were in place.
> 
> ...


 
  
 You provide a legitimate feedback from using Fidelizer and I would be willing to discuss about technical aspects with you. So far, I haven't seen anyone running Fidelizer software and tell me how it doesn't make any changes here. I only saw people who run it and notice the improvements yet got shot down by bit-perfect zealot without listening to their opinion. So I won't waste my time for the same reason I don't feel the need to explain people about digital audio software. If you can produce such work that can perform magic beyond high quality solutions in the market, there would be a reason to discuss.
  
 My suggestion about virtualization is from some Fidelizer users who tried to use Fidelizer on OS X platform through virtualization and can perceive the improvements inside parallel desktop so I offered that as an option for those who's willing to test but can't run real Windows because of the need to format and reinstall like audionerd said and I respect his opinion for that.
  
 As to MMCSS, it seems you don't show the sign of knowing about how DAW software manages MMCSS in audio production. Certain MMCSS operations can solve audio production problems but I won't waste my time dealing with it right now.
  
 I don't use offensive terms like 'uneducated' or 'trying to be smart' to people who respect and don't berate the difference in opinions. I tried to kept my mouth shut but treating people who believe differently like they use snake oil to get placebo effect deserves to be called 'uneducated'. I'm not directing this to you personally as my previous message was posted for general public view of recent event so I'll apologize in advance if you find this offensive.
  
 Regards,
 Windows X


----------



## sonitus mirus

windowsx said:


> You provide a legitimate feedback from using Fidelizer and I would be willing to discuss about technical aspects with you. So far, I haven't seen anyone running Fidelizer software and tell me how it doesn't make any changes here. I only saw people who run it and notice the improvements yet got shot down by bit-perfect zealot without listening to their opinion. So I won't waste my time for the same reason I don't feel the need to explain people about digital audio software. If you can produce such work that can perform magic beyond high quality solutions in the market, there would be a reason to discuss.
> 
> My suggestion about virtualization is from some Fidelizer users who tried to use Fidelizer on OS X platform through virtualization and can perceive the improvements inside parallel desktop so I offered that as an option for those who's willing to test but can't run real Windows because of the need to format and reinstall like audionerd said and I respect his opinion for that.
> 
> ...


 
  
 I don't believe anyone is being hostile.  There is genuine interest and curiosity with this product.  If there is a difference in sound, without any reference to measurements that are supposedly an improvement, I'd be concerned that something was unintentionally making this difference that has nothing to do with audio transparency.  What is claimed seems preposterous and testimonials and marketing blurbs are not going to be sufficient for me to become a believer.  If that is all that you can or are willing to provide, then I wish you luck with your endeavors, but I will remain skeptical and avoid your products.


----------



## watchnerd

I guess I don't understand why a simple loop-back test can't be constructed using a computer's internal soundcard and an inexpensive external interface (like $99 Focusrite Solo).
  
 Get an RCA->TRS cable, hook it up to the soundcard out and the inputs of the Solo, put it in ADC mode, attach the USB to the computer.  The make two digital files, one with Fidelizer in the loop and one without.


----------



## WindowsX

sonitus mirus said:


> I don't believe anyone is being hostile.  There is genuine interest and curiosity with this product.  If there is a difference in sound, without any reference to measurements that are supposedly an improvement, I'd be concerned that something was unintentionally making this difference that has nothing to do with audio transparency.  What is claimed seems preposterous and testimonials and marketing blurbs are not going to be sufficient for me to become a believer.  If that is all that you can or are willing to provide, then I wish you luck with your endeavors, but I will remain skeptical and avoid your products.


 
  
 Imagine you use something you think it's good and someone tell you it's your imagination and they asked you to prove it to them. It may not come out from hostility but I don't think normal people will like it. I used to be like that until I later learn to accept the difference in opinions and respect their point of views to live a fulfilling life that it won't be here.
  


watchnerd said:


> I guess I don't understand why a simple loop-back test can't be constructed using a computer's internal soundcard and an inexpensive external interface (like $99 Focusrite Solo).
> 
> Get an RCA->TRS cable, hook it up to the soundcard out and the inputs of the Solo, put it in ADC mode, attach the USB to the computer.  The make two digital files, one with Fidelizer in the loop and one without.


 
  
 Yeah. It's that simple. It's just I didn't have tool at my parents' place back then and I won't spend money to assemble cables just to run this test. Now I'm back to my own home without pro audio interface to test like that so I'll leave it for other audiophiles to take over.
  
 Regards,
 Windows X


----------



## watchnerd

windowsx said:


> Imagine you use something you think it's good and someone tell you it's your imagination and they asked you to prove it to them. It may not come out from hostility but I don't think normal people will like it. I used to be like that until I later learn to accept the difference in opinions and respect their point of views to live a fulfilling life that it won't be here.
> 
> 
> Yeah. It's that simple. It's just I didn't have tool at my parents' place back then and I won't spend money to assemble cables just to run this test. Now I'm back to my own home without pro audio interface to test like that so I'll leave it for other audiophiles to take over.
> ...


 
  
 You don't need to assemble cables.  You can buy pre-made RCA-TRS or mini-jack-to-TRS cables.  They're not expensive.
  
 As for the interface, didn't you have one at our parents' house that you can borrow to take to your place?


----------



## WindowsX

watchnerd said:


> You don't need to assemble cables.  You can buy pre-made RCA-TRS or mini-jack-to-TRS cables.  They're not expensive.
> 
> As for the interface, didn't you have one at our parents' house that you can borrow to take to your place?


 
  
 The point is I don't want to spend money just to test this. I'd do it if I have spare parts at my dad's place but I won't go that far, just like you don't want to reformat to install bootcamp to test it. If you're curious, reinstalling with bootcamp on your PC would be easier.
  
 Regards,
 Windows X


----------



## bfreedma

windowsx said:


> You provide a legitimate feedback from using Fidelizer and I would be willing to discuss about technical aspects with you. So far, I haven't seen anyone running Fidelizer software and tell me how it doesn't make any changes here. I only saw people who run it and notice the improvements yet got shot down by bit-perfect zealot without listening to their opinion. So I won't waste my time for the same reason I don't feel the need to explain people about digital audio software. If you can produce such work that can perform magic beyond high quality solutions in the market, there would be a reason to discuss.
> 
> My suggestion about virtualization is from some Fidelizer users who tried to use Fidelizer on OS X platform through virtualization and can perceive the improvements inside parallel desktop so I offered that as an option for those who's willing to test but can't run real Windows because of the need to format and reinstall like audionerd said and I respect his opinion for that.
> 
> ...




I believe you sincerely think Fidilizer improves audio, but in the Sound Science forums, subjective, sighted observation isn't going to change any minds. Nor is telling people "they don't understand" the technology you refer to then stating you won't waste our time explaining how you believe those technologies are employed and support your claims. Fidelizer is your product and the burden of proof is on you to provide a reasonable explanation of why it performs in a way that doesn't align with accepted PC performance parameters. So far, and sorry to be blunt, you've failed to provide anything reasonable - repeatedly shouting about MMCSS in the context of audio playback isn't viable. 



watchnerd said:


> I guess I don't understand why a simple loop-back test can't be constructed using a computer's internal soundcard and an inexpensive external interface (like $99 Focusrite Solo).
> 
> Get an RCA->TRS cable, hook it up to the soundcard out and the inputs of the Solo, put it in ADC mode, attach the USB to the computer.  The make two digital files, one with Fidelizer in the loop and one without.




Bah - too simple...
That would certainly be a good start. I was describing a procedure to enable ABX because I don't think WindowsX would accept measurements based on his constant references to subjective opinion.


----------



## watchnerd

windowsx said:


> The point is I don't want to spend money just to test this.


 
  
 Yeah, but you're making a profit on this product, I'm not.


----------



## watchnerd

bfreedma said:


> Bah - too simple...
> That would certainly be a good start. I was describing a procedure to enable ABX because I don't think WindowsX would accept measurements based on his constant references to subjective opinion.


 
  
 No reason you couldn't ABX test the files created from the loopback.


----------



## bfreedma

watchnerd said:


> No reason you couldn't ABX test the files created from the loopback.


 
  
  
 Good point.


----------



## sonitus mirus

windowsx said:


> Imagine you use something you think it's good and someone tell you it's your imagination and they asked you to prove it to them. It may not come out from hostility but I don't think normal people will like it. I used to be like that until I later learn to accept the difference in opinions and respect their point of views to live a fulfilling life that it won't be here.


 
  
 I don't know what normal people would mean in this context, but I too accept that there are differences in opinions.  It is also my opinion that human sensory perceptions can easily deceive us.   I don't hold firmly to the vanity of my own senses, as it seems to me that I can easily be fooled, so I would not be inclined to feel threatened if anyone suggested that what I was experiencing may not be accurate.


----------



## watchnerd

Am I the only one that finds it odd that a manufacturer would say they don't want to spend money to test their own product?
  
 In this case, it's a $5-10 cable and a $99 interface.  Only need to sell 1.5 copies of Fidelizer Pro to fund that.  
  
 Even less if the interface is sunk cost, which the previous recordings would seem to indicate.


----------



## bfreedma

watchnerd said:


> Am I the only one that finds it odd that a manufacturer would say they don't want to spend money to test their own product?
> 
> In this case, it's a $5-10 cable and a $99 interface.  Only need to sell 1.5 copies of Fidelizer Pro to fund that.


 
  
 It doesn't say much for the manufacturer's confidence in seeing results from that small investment and testing that would help sell the product.
  
 It's also odd that he expects others to do the testing....


----------



## WindowsX

The point is simple. I don't want to put anymore effort for people who don't even test my product. Fidelizer has free version and everyone can test it with small effort. Why should I go such length to do scientific experiments as you instructed? I'd rather spend my time on minding my own business and supporting Fidelizer users.
  
 I already tried to offer my help as much as I feel convenient with. All I saw are people who never try shouting it's snake oil and doesn't work and berate people who tried that they're under placebo effect. To be honest, I didn't plan to make anymore reply until I feel that crossed the line. I think I have put enough wasteful effort here and I don't feel like there will be anything worthwhile coming out from this.
  
 I'll continue to mind my own business now. I still have to work on Fidelizer 7 with a few features to research along with massive mails I cleared yesterday that keep piling up.
  
 Peace,
 Windows X


----------



## watchnerd

windowsx said:


> Why should I go such length to do scientific experiments as you instructed?


 
  
 Because that's how you prove that the product makes a measurable difference instead of relying upon the ability of the human mind to fool itself.


----------



## WindowsX

watchnerd said:


> Because that's how you prove that the product makes a measurable difference instead of *relying upon the ability of the human mind to fool itself.*


 
  
 That is very reason why I don't want to do this.
  
 Regards,
 Windows X


----------



## watchnerd

bfreedma said:


> It doesn't say much for the manufacturer's confidence in seeing results from that small investment and testing that would help sell the product.
> 
> It's also odd that he expects others to do the testing....


 
  
 Windows X response seems to confirm your statement:
  
_"Why should I go such length to do scientific experiments as you instructed? I'd rather spend my time on minding my own business and supporting Fidelizer users."_
  
 There is no sales upside in actually doing a scientific measurement to prove it's not snake oil.


----------



## watchnerd

windowsx said:


> That is very reason why I don't want to do this.
> 
> Regards,
> Windows X


 
  
 So just to clarify:
  
 Are you saying that you only believe in subjective assessments?
  
 That objective measurements don't matter?


----------



## gregorio

windowsx said:


> Why should I go such length to do scientific experiments as you instructed?


 
  
  Because this is the science sub-forum and those "scientific experiments" are the ONLY way you can provide valid evidence that your product is not snake oil!
  
 Quote:


windowsx said:


> That is very reason why I don't want to do this.


 
  
 Exactly, glad that you've finally admitted that your product is snake oil which relies entirely on bias/placebo effect for any positive results. Now that you've helpfully cleared this up, is there any reason to continue with this thread?
  
 G


----------



## WindowsX

watchnerd said:


> So just to clarify:
> 
> Are you saying that you only believe in subjective assessments?
> 
> That objective measurements don't matter?


 
  
 You already placed a label snake oil on Fidelizer and you won't test the software itself. What do you want me for? I don't like this kind of attitude so I decide to stop my cooperation in this experiment here. I'm too busy for this right now.
  
 Regards,
 Windows X


----------



## bfreedma

windowsx said:


> watchnerd said:
> 
> 
> > Because that's how you prove that the product makes a measurable difference instead of *relying upon the ability of the human mind to fool itself.*
> ...




Intentionally or unintentionally, that response is both hysterical and illustrative.


----------



## milosingh

Effectively he agrees his product is snake oil and measurements would just prove that.


----------



## gr8soundz

windowsx said:


> The point is simple. Fidelizer has free version and everyone can test it with small effort. Why should I go such length to do scientific experiments as you instructed?


 
  
 +1
  
 Even if measurements showed a difference, it doesn't mean everyone will be able to hear improvements on their particular setup. Conversely, if there is no measurable difference, that does not make it impossible for Fidelizer to have some audible improvements.
  
 How many products are advertised showing charts of supposed superiority over competitors only to fall short of expectations?
  
 I've tried the free version (on a dedicated i7 Windows 8 machine) and it definitely improves the sound (running in audiophile or extremist mode). Its also very easy to do before/after tests just by restarting the PC to undo the temporary optimizations.


----------



## milosingh

If the measurements don't show a difference then there is no audible difference. Period. 

If the measurements show a huge difference, then AB testing is required.


----------



## watchnerd

windowsx said:


> You already placed a label snake oil on Fidelizer and you won't test the software itself. What do you want me for? I don't like this kind of attitude so I decide to stop my cooperation in this experiment here. I'm too busy for this right now.
> 
> Regards,
> Windows X


 
  
 That doesn't answer the question:
  
 Are you saying that you only believe in subjective assessments?
  
 That objective measurements don't matter?


----------



## watchnerd

gr8soundz said:


> I've tried the free version (on a dedicated i7 Windows 8 machine) and it definitely improves the sound (running in audiophile or extremist mode). Its also very easy to do before/after tests just by restarting the PC to undo the temporary optimizations.


 
  
 So you conducted a fully-sighted, non-blind "test" with a reboot in between listen....and the reboot time will be longer than the auditory memory window...?
  
 Do you believe this meets the criteria for controlled subjective testing methodology?


----------



## watchnerd

milosingh said:


> Effectively he agrees his product is snake oil and measurements would just prove that.


 
  
 The absence of even a willingness to even try to make measurements (and that he apparently hasn't done so in the past) at a minimum indicates that he doesn't even know if it's snake oil or not.
  
 I don't know what 'features' one adds to new versions if one doesn't know if the software even does anything meaningful.


----------



## gr8soundz

watchnerd said:


> So you conducted a fully-sighted, non-blind "test" with a reboot in between listen....and the reboot time will be longer than the auditory memory window...?
> 
> Do you believe this meets the criteria for controlled subjective testing methodology?


 
  
 Except the "controlled" test you speak of is not possible.
  
 It would require 2 identical computers with the exact same hardware and software. However, due to variances in manufacturing, not every component would perform 100% identical (like another of the same i7 chip that runs 2 degrees cooler or overclocks by an additional 100Mhz). And, if we're talking about very small possible differences, every variable counts.
  
 Can't speak for anyone else, but I can reboot my PC and have Foobar running again in less than 30 seconds. Not sure how much quicker that can get but, if our auditory memory can't survive a minute or less of downtime, we really shouldn't be debating this subject.
  
 Either way, I have NEVER seen so much aversion to simply trying a *free* product. Some of us are already on record saying it works but others seem to require proof before even trying it themselves (which would only take 5-10min). If the program makes no difference on your setup then you could simply move on to the next thing.
  
 What if you guys actually tried Fidelizer and heard a difference? Would you then require documented proof to confirm what your ears just heard?


----------



## milosingh

Maybe he knows. After all he knows what changes he made to the output stream.


----------



## watchnerd

jdpark said:


> However, recently the owner of the software, who is on this forum, has announced that he's coming out with an updated version that will have to be purchased, even for those who have already purchased the previous version. So Fidelizer Pro 6 owners will have to purchase, or pay around $30 to upgrade to Fidelizer Pro 7...


 
  
 And what, exactly, is Fidelizer Pro 7 supposed to be adding to the feature mix to make it better?
  
 Sounds like it already does a good job of making a computer un-usable in 'extremist' mode...


----------



## watchnerd

gr8soundz said:


> Can't speak for anyone else, but I can reboot my PC and have Foobar running again in less than 30 seconds. Not sure how much quicker that can get but, if our auditory memory can't survive a minute or less of downtime, we really shouldn't be debating this subject.


 
  
 Your auditory memory is less than 30 seconds.  20 seconds is the outer limit.  Your tests were invalid for this reason.
  
 Also, even if it could reboot in 5 seconds, you wouldn't need 2 identical computers.  You would hide the computers behind a screen and have someone else do the switching for you.  That at least would get you to single blind.
  
 Lastly, you don't need to do any of that:
  
 You can create a loopback test using 1 computer and an external ADC, record the file with and without Fidelizer in the mix, then conduct ABX listening tests on the file.


----------



## watchnerd

milosingh said:


> Maybe he knows. After all he knows what changes he made to the output stream.


 
  
 Are you saying it sounds better because of EQ?


----------



## watchnerd

gr8soundz said:


> What if you guys actually tried Fidelizer and heard a difference? Would you then require documented proof to confirm what your ears just heard?


 
  
 Placebo effect + confirmation bias = you can think you hear things that aren't there.


----------



## milosingh

watchnerd said:


> Are you saying it sounds better because of EQ?




I'm saying it is possible that the software doesn't change the bitstream and he knows that. It may do stuff to prioritise audio for weak PCs, but regular PCs may not see any change.


----------



## gr8soundz

watchnerd said:


> Your auditory memory is less than 30 seconds.  20 seconds is the outer limit.  Your tests were invalid for this reason.
> 
> Also, even if it could reboot in 5 seconds, you wouldn't need 2 identical computers.  You would hide the computers behind a screen and have someone else do the switching for you.  That at least would get you to single blind.
> 
> ...


 


watchnerd said:


> Placebo effect + confirmation bias = you can think you hear things that aren't there.


 
  
 Wait, now you suggest putting the output through an additional conversion for a so-called blind test?
  
 And if blind testing is the only way to avoid what you describe, then the majority of head-fiers may as well get rid of our entire chains since we added pieces one a time and tweaked our setups accordingly without the benefit of multiple blind tests.


----------



## watchnerd

gr8soundz said:


> Wait, now you suggest putting the output through an additional conversion for a so-called blind test?
> 
> And if blind testing is the only way to avoid what you describe, then the majority of head-fiers may as well get rid of our entire chains since we added pieces one a time and tweaked our setups accordingly without the benefit of multiple blind tests.


 
  
 Well, yeah...that, too.  Lots of people waste money on stuff that wouldn't pass a blind test.  Now you're getting it.
  
 As far as an additional conversion is concerned:
  
 If the difference is real, it will show up in the analog wave form in some way.  Even if the ADC process has some minute effect, it would be the same for both samples and thus null.


----------



## watchnerd

milosingh said:


> I'm saying it is possible that the software doesn't change the bitstream and he knows that. It may do stuff to prioritise audio for weak PCs, but regular PCs may not see any change.


 
  
 That's the only sensible explanation I can come up with. It's logical it would make a difference on weak PCs.
  
 But allegedly people with new computers think they hear a difference, too.


----------



## billerb1

You know, somebody a few pages back in this thread suggested that this was a forum that didn't particularly suit me.  After reviewing the 'content' here I think he has a valid point.  I do though want to thank you all for the entertainment and a deeper appreciation for my own musical world.  You kids keep having fun.


----------



## gr8soundz

watchnerd said:


> Well, yeah...that, too.  Lots of people waste money on stuff that wouldn't pass a blind test.  Now you're getting it.
> 
> As far as an additional conversion is concerned:
> 
> If the difference is real, it will show up in the analog wave form in some way.  Even if *the ADC process has some minute effect*, it would be the same for both samples and thus null.


 
  
 Some of us don't even get to audition the stuff we buy much less do a blind test. Those purchases are often based on specs and reviews but, at some point, we have to trust our own ears.
  
 I still say extra conversions are risky when the differences may be so subtle. That's like buying a DSD album, converting it to PCM for listening, then saying I can't hear any difference between it and the standard version.


----------



## gr8soundz

All I can say for sure is that the Fidelizer software works for me. Thanks to @WindowsX for making this available to the audiophile community.
  
 I think asking demanding that the developer do more work to somehow verify what he already offers for free is in poor taste.
  
 If its that important, I don't see why one of the users requesting such information can't download the free version and do the measurements themselves. If it doesn't meet their expectations they lose nothing; no one is being forced to buy the paid version.


----------



## watchnerd

gr8soundz said:


> That's like buying a DSD album, converting it to PCM for listening, then saying I can't hear any difference between it and the standard version.


 
  
 You do know that hardly any DSD albums are direct-to-DSD, and most are mastered in PCM, right?  
  
 In other words, they've already gone through a DSD-PCM-DSD conversion as part of the production chain.


----------



## watchnerd

gr8soundz said:


> I still say extra conversions are risky when the differences may be so subtle.


 
  
 If the differences are so subtle, they could be below the threshold of audibility. Which is where blind testing comes in.


----------



## watchnerd

gr8soundz said:


> All I can say for sure is that the Fidelizer software works for me. Thanks to @WindowsX for making this available to the audiophile community.
> 
> I think asking demanding that the developer do more work to somehow verify what he already offers for free is in poor taste.
> 
> If its that important, I don't see why one of the users requesting such information can't download the free version and do the measurements themselves. If it doesn't meet their expectations they lose nothing; no one is being forced to buy the paid version.


 
  
 When the claimant offers no theoretical framework or logical explanation that is consistent with computer science as to why process optimization should make an audible difference on a system that isn't I/O- or CPU-constrained, the burden of proof is upon the claimant to provide evidence.
  
 If WindowsX said, "Process optimization makes a big difference on weak computers that are resource-constrained to the point of having a defective bitstream, but doesn't do anything useful on more powerful computers" I would find this completely logical and not needing extra proof because it is consistent with the rest of computer science and engineering.


----------



## WindowsX

It's been a few hrs already and you're still on this, watchnerd? Just count how many posts have you replied in this few hrs. Seriously, I think you need some help.
  
 Since you're so persistent about it, I'll say again for one last time about free version of Fidelizer
  
 1. Fidelizer utilizes MMCSS technology to optimize audio performance in Windows for core optimizations such as raising audio thread priority, improve clock utilization, manage system/network utilization and stuff.
 2. Fidelizer increases audio thread natively and kernel clock resolution through direct API call in coding. It's an impossible task for batch script.
 3. Fidelizer offers features to control non-audio processes like isolating them from audio thread so it won't share the core with audio task, lower priority.
 4. Fidelizer offers features to stop non-audio services to reduce chance of other processes interfering with audio task.
 5. There're a few reports about Fidelizer solving audio stuttering in some forums meaning Fidelizer did help system in managing audio stream.
  
 There's definite proof that Fidelizer DOES SOMETHING to improve audio performance whether being audible or not. I don't have the leisure to make MMCSS 101 for people who refuse to try my software with bizzare prejudge. Let me give you some last basic advice. Audiophiles trust their ears and you shouldn't invest on anything in this industry if you can't trust your own ears. Science is about study to understand the phenomenon not to prove or disprove like playing armchair detective. It's not a very healthy hobby for you to keep doing like this. You'd better enjoy the beauty of the world, people, and music more before it's too late.
  
 I'm going to continue my research about Fidelizer 7's core optimizations now. You can keep fantasizing about slow/fast PC theories since you don't seem to believe in words from Intel Core i7 users.
  
 Regards,
 Windows X


----------



## watchnerd

windowsx said:


> 1. Fidelizer utilizes MMCSS technology to optimize audio performance in Windows for core optimizations such as raising audio thread priority, improve clock utilization, manage system/network utilization and stuff.
> 2. Fidelizer increases audio thread natively and kernel clock resolution through direct API call in coding. It's an impossible task for batch script.
> 3. Fidelizer offers features to control non-audio processes like isolating them from audio thread so it won't share the core with audio task, lower priority.
> 4. Fidelizer offers features to stop non-audio services to reduce chance of other processes interfering with audio task.
> ...


 
  
 It sounds like you are admitting that sometimes it may not be audible.
  
 Do I have that correct?


----------



## WindowsX

watchnerd said:


> It sounds like you are admitting that sometimes it may not be audible.
> 
> Do I have that correct?


 
  
 Some people don't have very good perception with ears. I'm not going as far as to prove my work to people with deaf ears to believe. I already explained what I do so it's your job to do some research to either back me up or shoot me down with better explanation against my approach.
  
 I already explained that powerful CPU is irrelevant to audio optimizations. It's about design and implementation in software layer that work with all related hardware parts not just CPU. So, your counter argument about it doesn't work on fast CPU doesn't work here.
  
 I'm trying to adhere with your objective outlook so don't try to be such an ass who nit-pick for fallacy to make me admit about snake oil.
  
 Regards,
 Windows X


----------



## watchnerd

windowsx said:


> Some people don't have very good perception with ears. I'm not going as far as to prove my work to people with deaf ears to believe. I already explained what I do so it's your job to do some research to either back me up or push me down with better explanation against my approach.
> 
> Regards,
> Windows X


 
  
 The explanation against your approach:
  
 On a system that is already capable of audibly transparent DA conversion, further process optimization does nothing to make it "more better" [bad grammar intentional].
  
 QED.


----------



## WindowsX

watchnerd said:


> The explanation against your approach:
> 
> On a system that is already capable of audibly transparent DA conversion, further process optimization does nothing to make it "more better" [bad grammar intentional].
> 
> QED.


 
  
 Wrong, in already capable of audibly transparent DA conversion, all computer based transport sounds inferior to highend CD transport. I owned and played with most highend audio sources and pro audio gears to make such claim and build stuff for audiophiles. We're talking about a few hundred thousand of bucks here for really good gears here. If you expect 10-100 times cheaper product to work the same way, I guess your science isn't going to reach Mars.
  
 Your system may not be good enough to see that coming. Keep grinding more or go meet your doctor. Normal people won't spend all day arguing about pointless stuff they won't bother to try. I mean it.
  
 Regards,
 Windows X


----------



## watchnerd

windowsx said:


> Wrong, in already capable of audibly transparent DA conversion, all computer based transport sounds inferior to highend CD transport. I owned and played with most highend audio sources and pro audio gears to make such claim and build stuff for audiophiles. Your system may not be good enough to see that coming. Keep grinding more or go meet your doctor. Normal people won't spend all day arguing about pointless stuff they won't bother to try. I mean it.
> 
> Regards,
> Windows X


 
  
 You don't seem to understand what the word "audibly transparent" means, given you used in it in a way that means the exact opposite.


----------



## WindowsX

watchnerd said:


> You don't seem to understand what the word "audibly transparent" means, given you used in it in a way that means the exact opposite.


 
  
 Then define 'audibly transparent', Mr. rainbow pegasus.
  
 Regards,
 Windows X


----------



## watchnerd

windowsx said:


> Then define 'audibly transparent', *Mr. rainbow pegasus.*
> 
> Regards,
> Windows X


 
  
 "Mr. Rainbow Pegasus?"  
  
 Okay.....
  
 Back in the land where people don't call each other silly names....
  
 "Audibly transparent" means you cannot tell the difference between A & B in a blind test, or, if talking measurements, that a given measurement is below the threshold of human hearing.  The fact that you claim to be able to hear a big difference between your transport/DAC and your computer DA means they are not transparent to each other.


----------



## watchnerd

Is this a Rainbow Pegasus?


----------



## WindowsX

watchnerd said:


> "Mr. Rainbow Pegasus?"
> 
> Okay.....
> 
> ...


 
  
 Sounds like an occult to me. If you really can't tell the difference before D/A Conversion, something must be ragged in that system. It's not transparent at all. Transparent system is what it can demonstrate the changes of equipment. Do you really believe in bits are bits and bit-perfect is holy grail of digital audio? I guess my Santa won't give me Vinyl to spin in this Christmas if that's true.
  
 And seriously, go meet your doctor. People won't argue for hours making arguments on products they don't care for pages to the point of everyone else left you. Don't you have something else better to do? I've spent enough time for this entertainment now and I must excuse myself to continue my work.
  
 Regards,
 Windows X


----------



## watchnerd

windowsx said:


> Sounds like an occult to me. If you really can't tell the difference before D/A Conversion, something must be ragged in that system. It's not transparent at all. Transparent system is what it can demonstrate the changes of equipment. Do you really believe in bits are bits and bit-perfect is holy grail of digital audio? I guess Vinyl should bite the dust if that's true.


 
  
 That's not what "transparent" means in a testing context.  You're using "transparent" in the way an audiophile journalist uses it, as a subjective term.  That is not what it means in perceptual audio testing circles.
  
 You said that your computer doesn't sound as good as your transport/DAC, i.e. your computer isn't transparent vs your DAC, you can hear differences.
  
 I don't know why you're arguing against that....admitting your computer isn't transparent helps your case.


----------



## bfreedma

windowsx said:


> Wrong, in already capable of audibly transparent DA conversion, all computer based transport sounds inferior to highend CD transport. I owned and played with most highend audio sources and pro audio gears to make such claim and build stuff for audiophiles. We're talking about a few hundred thousand of bucks here for really good gears here. If you expect 10-100 times cheaper product to work the same way, I guess your science isn't going to reach Mars.
> 
> Your system may not be good enough to see that coming. Keep grinding more or go meet your doctor. Normal people won't spend all day arguing about pointless stuff they won't bother to try. I mean it.
> 
> ...




With every post, I'm becoming more convinced that you have very little understanding of how Windows computers operate, the difference between subjective observation and verified and tested facts, and how the term "audible difference" is important to this discussion. 

And now you're falling back to the old canards of "your system isn't good enough" and that price/cost is a technical specification that somehow directly correlates to performance. After insisting it's someone other than you who is responsible for vetting your own product.....

Do you often make purchases based on marketing material and consumer testimonials without question?


----------



## WindowsX

bfreedma said:


> With every post, I'm becoming more convinced that you have very little understanding of how Windows computers operate, the difference between subjective observation and verified and tested facts, and how the term "audible difference" is important to this discussion.
> 
> And now you're falling back to the old canards of "your system isn't good enough" and that price/cost is a technical specification that somehow directly correlates to performance. After insisting it's someone other than you who is responsible for vetting your own product.....
> 
> Do you often make purchases based on marketing material and consumer testimonials without question?


 
  
 Since no one bothers with my technical information, why should I care? Go back a few posts and try to shoot down each task I do with Fidelizer instead of arguing in the air. I already spilled everything I did in free version of Fidelizer so why won't you give it some thoughts and share your opinion for each task?
  
 To be honest, it frustrated me every time when I tried to write about my works thoroughly and you guys just ignore it without giving proper feedback about my writing like how each one shouldn't work according in your knowledge. That way, I can make counter explanation and see how we can share our views. But not like this silly foil to bash each other down like a fool.
  
 Regards,
 Windows X


----------



## watchnerd

In more detail:
  
 Quote:


windowsx said:


> It's been a few hrs already and you're still on this, watchnerd? Just count how many posts have you replied in this few hrs. Seriously, I think you need some help.
> 
> Since you're so persistent about it, I'll say again for one last time about free version of Fidelizer
> 
> ...


 
   
 If the system can process audio streams at "normal" thread priority without errors, or with all errors below the audible threshold, and with jitter below the audible threshold, making the audio priority higher isn't going to make it sound better.  
  
 If a system exhibits improvements from this process optimization, by definition it is either under-powered or over-taxed.
  
 Quote:


windowsx said:


> 5. There're a few reports about Fidelizer solving audio stuttering in some forums meaning Fidelizer did help system in managing audio stream.


 
  
 Such systems are resource constrained.  It is not surprising thread optimization works on weaker machines.


----------



## bfreedma

windowsx said:


> Since no one bothers with my technical information, why should I care? Go back a few posts and try to shoot down each task I do with Fidelizer instead of arguing in the air. I already spilled everything I did in free version of Fidelizer so why won't you give it some thoughts and state your opinion for each task?
> 
> Regards,
> Windows X




Nothing in your list is technical information which proves your software is making an audible difference in the absence of you providing supporting measurements. It's simply a list that you continue to tout without offering up any proof that those elements actually make a measurable impact on a computer that isn't CPU or I/O constrained. Prioritizing services and performing CPU association at the thread level makes no difference unless the system has a bottleneck.

I can prioritize the threads for Microsoft Word. It won't make me a faster typist, so the thread elevation will be irrelevant. While not a perfect analogy, that essentially equates to your claims.


----------



## WindowsX

I guess audible different in scientific way can't be proven right in my products then, same goes to computer audio transport against Esoteric CD transport that makes no audible different in your so called scientific way.
  
 Alright, I submit. I can't win against the power of science to beat the boundaries of "audible threshold". It's impossible. Even digital output from iPhone will sound absolutely perfect with bit-perfect verified in audibly transparent system. I shall dedicate my time on brimming my snake oil products for believers from now on. Please let believers like us be and don't burn us like witch hunt.
  
 Regards,
 Windows X


----------



## bfreedma

windowsx said:


> I guess audible different in scientific way can't be proven right in my products then, same goes to computer audio transport against Esoteric CD transport that makes no audible different in your so called scientific way.
> 
> Alright, I submit. I can't win against the power of science to beat the boundaries of "audible threshold". It's impossible. Even digital output from iPhone will sound absolutely perfect with bit-perfect verified in audibly transparent system. I shall dedicate my time on brimming my snake oil products for believers from now on. Please let believers like us be and don't burn us like witch hunt.
> 
> ...




Of course audible differences can be proven. Measurements and/or properly constructed ABX testing would constitute proof that your software is performing as claimed or if it is not.


----------



## WindowsX

bfreedma said:


> Of course audible differences can be proven. Measurements and/or properly constructed ABX testing would constitute proof that your software is performing as claimed or if it is not.


 
  
 Please provide the minimum requirements of passing level for measurements, in details. Have you done ABX testing on computer/iPhone transport against Esoteric CD transport?
  
 Regards,
 Windows X


----------



## sonitus mirus

Here is some testing that suggests no real audible difference is detectable.
  
 http://archimago.blogspot.com/2015/08/measurements-audiophile-sound-and.html


> Clearly the answer is that_ nothing of significance_ has changed.


 
  
 These are the results that I would expect.


----------



## bfreedma

windowsx said:


> bfreedma said:
> 
> 
> > Of course audible differences can be proven. Measurements and/or properly constructed ABX testing would constitute proof that your software is performing as claimed or if it is not.
> ...




Stop making claims then insisting other people perform tests to support them.

I'm curious as to how you've created so many versions of your software without knowing what constitutes audible difference in measurements. A good place to start would be generating frequency response, THD, IMD, Crosstalk, and Noise/SNR measurements on the analog output and jitter on the digital signal chain with and without your software. Once you can establish that Fidelizer is making any difference at all, we can discuss if those differences reach the threshold(s) for human audibility.


----------



## WindowsX

sonitus mirus said:


> Here is some testing that suggests no real audible difference is detectable.
> 
> http://archimago.blogspot.com/2015/08/measurements-audiophile-sound-and.html
> 
> These are the results that I would expect.


 
  
 Can't you make it more concrete like minimum numbers of the following parameters, in details? And I recall archimago's measurements got shot down badly in AudioAsylum. Don't tell me you want me to his his measurements as reference?
  
 Regards,
 Windows X


----------



## sonitus mirus

windowsx said:


> Can't you make it more concrete like minimum numbers of the following parameters, in details? And I recall archimago's measurements got shot down badly in AudioAsylum. Don't tell me you want me to his his measurements as reference?
> 
> Regards,
> Windows X


 
  
 I only know what I read, and it seems reasonable to me.  There is evidence that processes have been closed and that thread prioritization is occurring, but I would not expect this to result in any measurable differences that would be audible unless the computer is woefully underpowered for the tasks being performed.​


----------



## gregorio

windowsx said:


> Alright, I submit. I can't win against the power of science to beat the boundaries of "audible threshold". It's impossible. Even digital output from iPhone will sound absolutely perfect with bit-perfect verified in audibly transparent system.


 
  
 It's both surprising and refreshing that you're finally dropping the marketing BS and admitting the truth, well done! Thereby demonstrating that maybe you do have an understanding of digital audio (and science) beyond the level of complete ignorance which your marketing BS indicated. It does still raise one question though; why did you come here, a science forum, armed with only marketing BS and knowing your marketing claims couldn't stand up to the science? Was it just for the thrill of the additional challenge, of maybe snake oil'ing even those not as gullible as the average audiophile? Of course, the answer to this question isn't really important, it's just personal curiosity about what makes a snake oil salesman tick.
  


windowsx said:


> Please let believers like us be and don't burn us like witch hunt.


 
  
 Obviously we can't do that, it would be against our principles, the principles which form the basis of why the science forum exists.
  
 G


----------



## sonitus mirus

As a bit of a twist on things, I'm confident that a majority of computers out there are considerably gunked up with unnecessary processes and Fidelizer would surely help a majority of these computers provide more resources for audio playback.  Maybe it would even provide an audible benefit.


----------



## sonitus mirus

windowsx said:


> Can't you make it more concrete like minimum numbers of the following parameters, in details? And I recall archimago's measurements got shot down badly in AudioAsylum. Don't tell me you want me to his his measurements as reference?
> 
> Regards,
> Windows X


 
  
 I didn't see any measurements from Archimago's blog that came close to what is normally considered to be audible.
  
  
 This site provides several test files that can be used to test your abilities to define your own threshold.  
  
 http://www.audiocheck.net/blindtests_index.php


> Take up the challenge
> Find the smallest difference in sound levels you can detect.
> The Level Series:  6dB  3dB  1dB  0.5dB  0.2dB  0.1dB   ​
> Find the highest frequency you can reliably hear.
> ...


----------



## watchnerd

sonitus mirus said:


> I only know what I read, and it seems reasonable to me.  There is evidence that processes have been closed and that thread prioritization is occurring, but I would not expect this to result in any measurable differences that would be audible unless the computer is woefully underpowered for the tasks being performed.​


 
  
 This null test picture pretty much says it all:
  

  
 Fidelizer is showing nulls of ~ -80 dB on lossless on Win 10, with or without JPLAY.
  
 That's about the noise floor of making a pin drop while running a chainsaw in a quiet library.


----------



## watchnerd

gregorio said:


> It's both surprising and refreshing that you're finally dropping the marketing BS and admitting the truth, well done! Thereby demonstrating that maybe you do have an understanding of digital audio (and science) beyond the level of complete ignorance which your marketing BS indicated.


 
  
 Based on his comments about Audio Asylum above, he already knew Archimago had done this test.  And yet when asked about performing a loop-back test, he said he didn't want to spend the money on cables.  However, it might be that the real reason is that he knew the results would be similar to those of Archimago, and thus unhelpful to his claims.


----------



## WindowsX

1. Archimago's test is not accepted among audioasylum users. It has too many flaws. Even basic tests conducted in another experiment thread was done better than that.
 2. His kind of test can't measure digital transport quality. There's specific tests for these kinds of applications like Sony did for their micro SD card
 3. I asked for minimum numbers of the following parameters but no one can be specific about it.
  
 At what level of noise level, crosstalk, thd, imd, etc. are beyond audible threshold range? Before proving whether Fidelizer is snake oil or not, prove that you're knowledgeable enough about reading data first.
  
 Regards,
 Windows X


----------



## watchnerd

windowsx said:


> 1. Archimago's test is not accepted among audioasylum users. It has too many flaws. Even basic tests conducted in another experiment thread was done better than that.


 
  
 Instead of vaguely quoting Audio Asylum, please point to the flaws.
  
 Or, even better, provide your own alternative measurements.
  
 Quote:


windowsx said:


> 2. His kind of test can't measure digital transport quality. There's specific tests for these kinds of applications like Sony did for their micro SD card



  
 Digital transport measurements has nothing to do with this scenario. He's measuring files played back on a computer.
  
 If you understand the difference, why do you bring it up?
  


> Originally Posted by *WindowsX* /img/forum/go_quote.gif
> 
> 3. I asked for minimum numbers of the following parameters but no one can be specific about it.


 
  
 You were provided links on audibility.  If you want something else, you can't look it up yourself?


----------



## watchnerd

Also, what's the point of discussing audibility thresholds *when nothing significantly changed*?
  
  

  
 "_Dear Windows 10 user, please purchase Fidelizer so that your crosstalk will get worse by -.3 db_"
  
 ...isn't a great sales pitch.


----------



## milosingh

@watchnerd

I'm sure you realise he's playing with you. 

All of us, including Windows X are aware that the software doesn't do anything for most modern PCs out there. And this is a great demonstration of placebo in action. 

I wish I had as much patience as you bro.


----------



## nick_charles

watchnerd said:


> Also, what's the point of discussing audibility thresholds *when nothing significantly changed*?
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 
  
 As I understand it the differences may be even smaller as the results above are at the threshold of the capability of the AD stage and we may likely be seeing random recording variation not any actual difference, AM should technically have repeated the test 10 or so times to get an average - When I did my cable tests I used 10 repeats and it smoothed out a surprising amount of variability


----------



## watchnerd

milosingh said:


> @watchnerd
> 
> I'm sure you realise he's playing with you.
> 
> ...


 
  
 Yes, indeed, but it is not for him that the play continues, but for the audience that has been bedazzled by his claims.


----------



## WindowsX

Like I said, archimago made poor measurements that audioasylum users don't accept his tests. I already provided a link in this post so go read the thread yourself.
  
 http://www.head-fi.org/t/795259/fidelizer-pro-real-or-snake-oil#post_12265629
  
 As for why it's so bad, check MindsMirror's post here. Archimago may have better gears but it hardly tells anything comparing to this.
  
 http://www.head-fi.org/t/795483/audio-optimizations-on-bit-perfect-playback-demonstration/45#post_12279759
  
 And I'm not playing with watchnerd. He seriously needs some mental aid. Normal people would not spent all time of the day posting and arguing up to the point that all people who argued with him left except me who do it in spare time.
  
 Regards,
 Windows X


----------



## watchnerd

windowsx said:


> As for why it's so bad, check MindsMirror's post here. Archimago may have better gears but it hardly tells anything comparing to this.
> 
> http://www.head-fi.org/t/795483/audio-optimizations-on-bit-perfect-playback-demonstration/45#post_12279759


 
  
 LOL...did you even read what you posted?  Now I'm convinced you must be joking with us given the link you shared reiterates no difference:
  

  
_"The RMAA results showed no significant differences. I could hear no difference in any of the recorded music samples. I aligned the four recorded music samples and subtracted combinations of them to find the differences.....*My conclusion is that Fidelizer and the optimization settings did not make any audible or statistically significant measurable difference* to the sound of my ASUS G50V laptop."_


----------



## milosingh

watchnerd said:


> LOL...did you even read what you posted?  Now I'm convinced you must be joking with us given the link you shared reiterates no difference:
> 
> 
> 
> ...




Bravo!


----------



## WindowsX

I'm surprised at you guys' communication skills. Completely ignore archimago's post now...Keep arguing with others then.
  
 Regards,
 Windows X


----------



## watchnerd

windowsx said:


> I'm surprised at you guys' communication skills. Completely ignore archimago's post now...Keep arguing with others then.
> 
> Regards,
> Windows X


 
  
 There is no argument, really.  An argument has two sides.
  
 So far there are at least two sets of measurement data indicating that on a well-specced system that isn't overloaded, Fidelizer makes no significant or audible difference.
  
 From the other side...no measurements have been posted showing the opposite case.
  
 Not much of a debate, really.


----------



## WindowsX

watchnerd said:


> There is no argument, really.  An argument has two sides.
> 
> So far there are at least two sets of measurement data indicating that on a well-specced system that isn't overloaded, Fidelizer makes no significant or audible difference.
> 
> ...


 
  
 I can't accept those test results due to the following reasons:
  
 1. tests aren't done with optimal hardware (poor setup on archimago's case and using xonar combined with onboard laptop sound card for another)
 2. test data aren't measured from digital audio signal. It's measured from DAC output which runs past analog output stage and digital filters inside DAC.
  
 If you want to make a proper debate, propose methodology and scope measurements, condition to validate test result that we both agree first.
  
 Please be specific about test methods to use, minimum requirements of equipment, and validation method and acceptance level of test result.
  
 Regards,
 Windows X


----------



## bfreedma

windowsx said:


> I can't accept those test results due to the following reasons:
> 
> 1. tests aren't done with optimal hardware (poor setup on archimago's case and using xonar combined with onboard laptop sound card for another)
> 2. test data aren't measured from digital audio signal. It's measured from DAC output which runs past analog output stage and digital filters inside DAC.
> ...


 
  
 This is absurd - it's your product - you should know what the testing criteria should be and produce the tests.  Particularly if you won't consider others testing as valid.


----------



## watchnerd

windowsx said:


> I don't accept those tests due to the following reasons:
> 
> 1. tests aren't done with optimal hardware (poor setup on archimago's case and using xonar combined with onboard laptop sound card)
> 2. test methods aren't for measuring digital audio signal. It's measured from DAC output which runs past analog output stage and digital filters inside DAC.
> ...


 
  
 That's not how it works.
  
 If you want to refute the data (after all, you're the one with the business motivation to do so), you should provide your own tests that provide counter-evidence.
  
 Your inability or unwillingness to conduct your own tests would seem to indicate:
  
 A. You don't want to conduct your own tests because you believe it will undermine your business, preferring to focus instead on the "believers"
  
 and/or
  
 B. You don't want to conduct your own tests because you think the results will be the same, thus validating the other results, rather than disproving them
  
 and/or
  
 C. You lack the technical knowledge or minimal equipment necessary to conduct the tests
  
  
 Any of which in isolation should be troubling to a potential buyer.  The possibility that A, B, and C could simultaneously be true should be doubly-worrisome.


----------



## WindowsX

bfreedma said:


> This is absurd - it's your product - you should know what the testing criteria should be and produce the tests.  Particularly if you won't consider others testing as valid.


 
  
 How do I know which kind of tests and result will be acceptable for you? I need to know what criteria is needed to change your mind. We need an agreement for both to reach consensus first. If we both can agree on such methodology and validation, we both have to accept the outcome.
  
 I can make my own criteria and validation but it'd be useless if you don't accept it. This is common procedure if you want to take this for real. Unless you don't know what to tell me for, I don't see problems in stating your requirements to accept that Fidelizer improves sound quality.
  
 Regards,
 Windows X


----------



## bfreedma

windowsx said:


> How do I know which kind of tests and result will be acceptable for you? I need to know what criteria is needed to change your mind. We need an agreement for both to reach consensus first. If result fits into our agreement, we both have to accept it.
> 
> This is common procedure if you want to take this for real. Unless you don't know what to tell me for, I don't see problems in stating your requirements to accept that Fidelizer improves sound quality.
> 
> ...


 
  
 No, we don't need any of that.  You need to produce the tests that have already been recommended - you keep ignoring that and repeatedly asking for criteria that isn't going to change.  If your tests show legitimate audible differences between Fidelizer on and off, and your process vets out, then you can change some minds.
  
 We aren't breaking any new audio territory here and frankly, someone producing a product making the claims you do should not only know what the appropriate tests are and how to execute them, but should already have done so on each release.  Otherwise, how do you know what's actually being changed in the audio output?


----------



## watchnerd

windowsx said:


> How do I know which kind of tests and result will be acceptable for you? I need to know what criteria is needed to change your mind. We need an agreement for both to reach consensus first. If result fits into our agreement, we both have to accept it.


 
  
 No.....that's not how science works.
  
 You have a hypothesis.  You create an experiment to test that hypothesis.  You determine if the hypothesis is confirmed, denied, or inconclusive based on your own interpretation of the results.  You share the results with others for critique.
  
 If you have a hypothesis as to why the other two results are flawed, then you should design a test that proves your case and/or disproves theirs.


----------



## WindowsX

bfreedma said:


> No, we don't need any of that.  You need to produce the tests that have already been recommended - you keep ignoring that and repeatedly asking for criteria that isn't going to change.  If your tests show legitimate audible differences between Fidelizer on and off, and your process vets out, then you can change some minds.
> 
> We aren't breaking any new audio territory here and frankly, someone producing a product making the claims you do should not only know what the appropriate tests are and how to execute them, but should already have done so on each release.  Otherwise, how do you know what's actually being changed in the audio output?


 
  
 I already told you that I don't accept your recommended method. Testing from DAC's output has too many variables inside the DAC. It has digital filters, analog output stage that can make changes less and less subtle or even have flaws that can't detect the changes. Please propose other methods that can preserve digital audio stream without being affected by other chains after digital audio domain.
  
 I'm proposing to record from virtual sound card doing closed loop software recording. It may not be optimal methodology right now but still better than passing through DAC. What do you think about this method?
  
 Regards,
 Windows X


----------



## watchnerd

windowsx said:


> I already told you that I don't accept your recommended method. Testing from DAC's output has too many variables inside the DAC. It has digital filters, analog output stage that can make changes less and less subtle or even have flaws that can't detect the changes. Please propose other methods that can preserve digital audio stream without being affected by other chains after digital audio domain.
> 
> I'm proposing to record from virtual sound card doing closed loop software recording. It may not be optimal methodology right now but still better than passing through DAC. What do you think about this method?
> 
> ...


 
  
 By "record" do you mean using a microphone or using an ADC?


----------



## bfreedma

windowsx said:


> I already told you that I don't accept your recommended method. Testing from DAC's output has too many variables inside the DAC. It has digital filters, analog output stage that can make changes less and less subtle or even have flaws that can't detect the changes. Please propose other methods that can preserve digital audio stream without being affected by other chains after digital audio domain.
> 
> I'm proposing to record from virtual sound card doing closed loop software recording. It may not be optimal methodology right now but still better than passing through DAC. What do you think about this method?
> 
> ...


 
  
  
 I proposed no specific method, only what needs to be tested.  Please stop asking for advice on how to test your own product - test it and produce the results for review.
  
 We are going around in circles - time to either execute whatever tests you believe are appropriate to vet your hypothesis or move out of Sound Science and back to your appreciation thread where factual data is not required to support made claims.


----------



## WindowsX

watchnerd said:


> By "record" do you mean using a microphone or using an ADC?


 
  
 I'm thinking about using closed loop virtual sound card to emulate recording from audio output chain.
  
 Regards,
 Windows X


----------



## watchnerd

windowsx said:


> I'm thinking about using closed loop virtual sound card to emulate recording from audio output chain.
> 
> Regards,
> Windows X


 
  
  
 What does that input / output chain look like?  Can you list the steps?


----------



## WindowsX

watchnerd said:


> What does that input / output chain look like?  Can you list the steps?


 
  
 I'm checking VB-Audio ASIO Bridge and trying to setup a way to record audio stream from bit-perfect player. Not sure if it's possible because it's still in researching.
  
 Regards,
 Windows X


----------



## watchnerd

windowsx said:


> I'm checking VB-Audio ASIO Bridge and trying to setup a way to record audio stream from bit-perfect player. Not sure if it's possible because it's still in researching.
> 
> Regards,
> Windows X


 
  
 Even if it's possible, the stream will be digital.


----------



## WindowsX

watchnerd said:


> Even if it's possible, the stream will be digital.


 
  
 What should be a problem if stream is digital?


----------



## watchnerd

windowsx said:


> What should be a problem if stream is digital?


 
  
 How are you going to apply analog-domain metrics to digital?


----------



## WindowsX

watchnerd said:


> How are you going to apply analog-domain metrics to digital?


 
  
 And you've been using analog-domain metric to measure digital. Do you get my point now?
  
 Regards,
 Windows X


----------



## watchnerd

windowsx said:


> And you've been using analog metric to measure digital. Do you get my point now?
> 
> Regards,
> Windows X


 
  
 No, I don't get your point. They're both relevant, but they're apples vs oranges.
  
 What digital metrics do you plan to gather and what will they prove / disprove?


----------



## WindowsX

watchnerd said:


> No, I don't get your point. They're both relevant, but they're apples vs oranges.
> 
> What digital metrics do you plan to gather and what will they prove / disprove?


 
  
 That's why I need to ask you what digital metrics do you accept for measurements so I can conduct the tests accordingly.
  
 Regards,
 Windows X


----------



## watchnerd

windowsx said:


> That's why I need to ask you what digital metrics do you accept for measurements so I can conduct the tests accordingly.
> 
> Regards,
> Windows X


 
  
 LOL...what??
  
 You just asserted that:
  
 Quote:


windowsx said:


> And you've been using analog metric to measure digital. Do you get my point now?



  
 ...i.e. you're saying that looking for results in the analog domain is wrong...
  
 ...but you don't know what digital metrics to use?
  
 Astounding.
  
 Do you even know the difference between the two types of metrics?


----------



## nick_charles

watchnerd said:


> What digital metrics do you plan to gather and what will they prove / disprove?


 
  
  
 Whatever digital metrics are gathered are kinda moot - until the Digital stream has been decoded there is nothing (figuratively) to hear. So any potential effect is not humanly detectable until the analog stream is produced. Any A/Ding back the analog stream has been deemed unacceptable by Wx - so this could only be judged by two identical (to 20 decimal places) computers with verifiably identical exemplary audio cards and line-outs to an ABX box of unimpeachable character thence to an amp of infinitely low noise/distortion into state of the art headphones with a listener with verifiably excellent hearing and well trained to detect the smallest differences...blah drone etc..
  
  
 We'll see a new Supreme Court Judge before that.....


----------



## watchnerd

nick_charles said:


> Whatever digital metrics are gathered are kinda moot - until the Digital stream has been decoded there is nothing (figuratively) to hear. So any potential effect is not humanly detectable until the analog stream is produced. Any A/Ding back the analog stream has been deemed unacceptable by Wx - so this could only be judged by two identical (to 20 decimal places) computers with verifiably identical exemplary audio cards and line-outs to an ABX box of unimpeachable character thence to an amp of infinitely low noise/distortion into state of the art headphones with a listener with verifiably excellent hearing and well trained to detect the smallest differences...blah drone etc..
> 
> 
> We'll see a new Supreme Court Judge before that.....


 
  
 I agree with all of that. I'm just curious what WindowsX thought he could measure and prove in the digital domain.
  
 Apparently he doesn't even know....


----------



## bfreedma

windowsx said:


> Like I said, archimago made poor measurements that audioasylum users don't accept his tests. I already provided a link in this post so go read the thread yourself.
> 
> http://www.head-fi.org/t/795259/fidelizer-pro-real-or-snake-oil#post_12265629
> 
> ...


 
  
 Followed by this request to Watchnerd:
  


windowsx said:


> *That's why I need to ask you what digital metrics do you accept for measurements so I can conduct the tests accordingly.*
> 
> Regards,
> Windows X


 
  
  
 Bolded parts reposted just to highlight how ridiculous this discussion has become.


----------



## WindowsX

Yes. It's really ridiculous now. Are you done digging old posts? Since you don't agree about using analog domain metric on digitally  recorded files, I'll propose my approach now.
  
 1. I'll setup master file and audio playback/recording through digital domain. In this case, I'll use VB-Audio Virtual Cable, foobar2000, and Audacity on Windows 10.
 2. I'll use VB-Audio Virtual Cable to route master audio stream from Foobar2000's WASAPI output to Audacity's WASAPI input, export audio as normal.wav
 3. I'll use Fidelizer and record again without turning off software, export audio as fidelizer.wav
 4. I'll use record again one more time, export audio as fidelizer-again.wav
 5. I'll open Audio DiffMaker, align all recording to master track, then make difference tracks.
 6. I'll pass the test result to you guys for analysis.
  
 How does this sound?
  
 Regards,
 Windows X


----------



## watchnerd

windowsx said:


> Since you don't agree about using analog domain metric on digitally  recorded files


 
  
 ROFLMFAO!!!
  
*The reason I don't agree is because it's not possible!*
  
 You can't measure THD, IMD, channel-separation, etc in the digital domain.  They don't exist until you convert to analog!
  
 The fact that* you didn't know this* shows just how little you know about audio engineering.


----------



## WindowsX

watchnerd said:


> ROFLMFAO!!!
> 
> *The reason I don't agree is because it's not possible!*
> 
> ...


 
  
 I already told you that measuring THD, IMD requires DAC and it has analog output stage, digital filters and stuff that can affect changes in digital domain. I did know this and I want to propose such method and measurements without DA conversion. What do you think about DiffMaker?
  
 Regards,
 Windows X


----------



## watchnerd

windowsx said:


> I did know this and I want to propose such method and measurements without DA conversion.


 
  
 No, you're not getting it...you can't take those measurements without DA conversion.  It doesn't matter if it's a soundcard or an external DAC.
  
 They don't exist to be measured....


----------



## WindowsX

watchnerd said:


> No, you're not getting it...you can't take those measurements without DA conversion.  It doesn't matter if it's a soundcard or an external DAC.
> 
> They don't exist to be measured....


 
  
 You can bypass DA conversion by recording from virtual audio sound card. Just route from output to input virtually without real audio interface, DA conversion, pure software. You can see this study case for an example.
  
 http://vb-audio.pagesperso-orange.fr/Cable/VBCABLE_CaseStudy_XP.pdf
  
 Measuring between WAV files is possible whether you'll accept the data from digital recording or not.
  
 Regards,
 Windows X


----------



## watchnerd

windowsx said:


> You can bypass DA conversion by recording from virtual audio sound card. Just route from output to input virtually without real audio interface, DA conversion, pure software. You can see this study case for an example.
> 
> http://vb-audio.pagesperso-orange.fr/Cable/VBCABLE_CaseStudy_XP.pdf
> 
> ...


 
  
 Right...you're doing digital-to-digital.
  
 Which means you can't take any real-time measurements of THD, IMD, etc.  All you can test-real time is digital domain stuff:  jitter, sample rate, bit depth, etc.
  
 You can try to use DiffMaker afterwards, but the differences should be even less than what you see in the analog domain (the tests you didn't like).
  
 That being said, go for it. I'm curious to see what you get.


----------



## nick_charles

windowsx said:


> Yes. It's really ridiculous now. Are you done digging old posts? Since you don't agree about using analog domain metric on digitally  recorded files, I'll propose my approach now.
> 
> 1. I'll setup master file and audio playback/recording through digital domain. In this case, I'll use VB-Audio Virtual Cable, foobar2000, and Audacity.
> 2. I'll use VB-Audio Virtual Cable to route master audio stream from Foobar2000's WASAPI output to Audacity's WASAPI input, export audio as normal.wav
> ...


 
  
  
 Before doing step 5 make sure DiffMaker works on your system - I've had **several** versions in the past which could detect a difference between identical files!


----------



## watchnerd

nick_charles said:


> Before doing step 5 make sure DiffMaker works on your system - I've had **several** versions in the past which could detect a difference between identical files!


 
  
 how many dB down were those differences on identical files?


----------



## WindowsX

watchnerd said:


> Right...you're doing digital-to-digital.
> 
> Which means you can't take any real-time measurements of THD, IMD, etc.  All you can test-real time is digital domain stuff:  jitter, sample rate, bit depth, etc.
> 
> ...


 
  
 Real-time measurements might possible with closed loop virtual audio interface. I haven't tested it yet so I'll start with wav files comparison first. That way, you can check on test result files yourself instead of reading my data alone.
  


nick_charles said:


> Before doing step 5 make sure DiffMaker works on your system - I've had **several** versions in the past which could detect a difference between identical files!


 
  
 I see. I'll test this case with master file first. Thank you for informing me this.
  
 Regards,
 Windows X


----------



## WindowsX

watchnerd said:


> how many dB down were those differences on identical files?


 
  
 I tried comparing between the same file and got this result
  
 "parameters: 0sec, 0.000dB (L),  0.000dB (R)..Corr Depth: 300.0 dB (L), 300.0 dB (R)"
  
 However, I created master-test@master and master-test-master with smaller size (no id tag cover) but same number of samples. Is it safe?
  
 Regards,
 Windows X


----------



## nick_charles

watchnerd said:


> how many dB down were those differences on identical files?


 
  
 Cant remember but there was an audible difference file


----------



## WindowsX

nick_charles said:


> Cant remember but there was an audible difference file


 
  
 Maybe it was created regardless of being the same or not? It didn't detect any difference from result besides creating test files.


----------



## Don Hills

windowsx said:


> Maybe it was created regardless of being the same or not? It didn't detect any difference from result besides creating test files.


 

 It's probably working OK for you then.
 To avoid problems, you could simply make the captured WAV files available instead of the diffs.
  
 I predict you'll find a null result, provided you don't screw anything up. Your test method is equivalent to using a "perfect" DAC, with zero distortion and zero susceptibility to jitter and noise on the bitstream from the PC to the DAC. Perfect DACs don't need PC optimisers or USB isolators etc.


----------



## WindowsX

don hills said:


> It's probably working OK for you then.
> To avoid problems, you could simply make the captured WAV files available instead of the diffs.
> 
> I predict you'll find a null result, provided you don't screw anything up. Your test method is equivalent to using a "perfect" DAC, with zero distortion and zero susceptibility to jitter and noise on the bitstream from the PC to the DAC. Perfect DACs don't need PC optimisers or USB isolators etc.


 
  
 That's correct. And it also avoids problems with real audio hardware interfacing. It's pure software experiment. However, this doesn't cover problems related to interfacing with real audio hardware but we'll leave that for now.
  
 OK. I finished the experiment using the following setup
  
 OS: Windows 10 (No Fidelizer Pro installed)
 Sound Card: VB-Audio Virtual Cable (Max Latency: 1024smp)
 Playback: Foobar2000 with no ReplayGain, Kernel Streaming output, 50ms Buffer length, Playback optimized
 Record: Audacity with Windows WASAPI as Audio Host, 50ms Audio buffer
 Test track: Astrognosia: Aquarius – Vannmannen (CD-resolution) from 2L High Resolution Music .:. free TEST BENCH
  
*Procedures*
  
 1. Record before Fidelizer optimizations
 2. Use Fidelizer with Extremist optimization level (no services to keep), exit all programs
 3. Record after Fidelizer optimizations
 4. Use DiffMaker to compare each recording with reference file from test bench
 5. Compare between recordings (untouched with different samples)
 6. Compare between aligned recordings (same samples)
 7. Listen difference track for audible sound
  
*Test Results*
  
 1. I recorded before and after files without issues. No stuttering and I'll use before recording as main file so after will be slightly longer.
  
 2. I used DiffMaker to compare before file with master recording and got this result
  


> parameters: -1.596sec, 0.001dB (L),  0.002dB (R)..Corr Depth: 79.2 dB (L), 72.2 dB (R)


 
  
 0.00xdB is still in marginal error and inaudible. I consider this as null result. I tried my best to optimize software and driver before recording but still can't get 0.000dB. Moving on
  
 3. I used DiffMaker to compare after file with master recording and got this result
  


> parameters: -1.852sec, 0.002dB (L),  0.003dB (R)..Corr Depth: 73.8 dB (L), 69.5 dB (R)


 
  
 0.00xdB is still in marginal error and inaudible. I consider this as null result. I noticed 0.001dB increment but that is also marginal error from alignment. Moving on.
  
 4. I used DiffMaker to compare reference file before with after file and got this result
  


> parameters: -255.9msec, 0.136dB (L),  0.136dB (R)..Corr Depth: 36.0 dB (L), 36.0 dB (R)


 
  
 Exactly 0.136dB for both channel? This is beyond marginal error and should be audible. This can't be null result. Maybe changes between recording has long delay to cause something like this. Let's try aligned tracks
  
 5. I used DiffMaker to compare reference file before with after file using aligned source and got this result
  


> parameters: 0sec, 0.026dB (L),  0.012dB (R)..Corr Depth: 50.1 dB (L), 56.3 dB (R)


 
  
 Looks much better but it's still beyond marginal error. Some parts should be audible. This can't be null result. Maybe different recording has this level of marginal error?
  
 6. I used DiffMaker to compare reference file before with before_again file using aligned source and got this result
   


> parameters: 0sec, 0.027dB (L),  0.013dB (R)..Corr Depth: 49.3 dB (L), 55.6 dB (R)


 
  
 Looks like marginal error between recording. And Left is twice loader after alignment. I'm using bit-perfect in the chain for both playback (Kernel Streaming) and recording (WASAPI). How come there's still such big marginal error like this? It looks fine with master file as reference, though.

  
 7. I tried listening to difference tracks, I can't hear anything when use master file as reference but can hear faint sound from between recording files regardless of using Fidelizer optimizations or not.
  
*Conclusion*
  
 Bit-perfect playback/recording can produce marginal error at range 0.01-0.03dB. Still need to investigate to make null result between recording. If you have any good freeware or configuration to recommend as alternatives, please post below and I'll check again tomorrow.
  
 Regards,
 Windows X


----------



## jdpark

I'm afraid I don't understand how this shows that Fidelizer Pro works to improve sound quality? I'm not a programmer or engineer, but I can understand basic principles if someone can explain this to me. 
  
 Is this basically saying that bit perfect playing doesn't really exist on computers? Or is it saying that the test shows that a new test should be done using a DAC and some sort of analogue output? 
  
 Perhaps a test should be done that records what a recording sounds like when computer A is being used at 80-90% CPU capacity to see if there is some kind of audible 'jitter' or whatever versus when no other non-sound related processes are being used, and then thirdly, when Fidelizer Pro is being used to see if there is a difference between the three. Obviously, I can tell you one thing without being a computer guy: when the fan starts it makes noise and vibrations, which I suppose could have a minute effect on the sound. If you can cut down on CPU usage to the point that the fan rarely if ever starts, then you already have done something. 
  
 Lastly, I do understand the drop-out analogy, since I tend to type very fast and I've almost never had a computer that was able to keep up with me 100% of the time, ether when typing on the Internet or on Microsoft Word. If typing, which I consider (albeit without proof) less involving than playing, say a 24/192 WAV file, is so difficult for a computer to manage in real-time, then it is possible to speculate that yes, even fairly good computers may need a program that forces priority to audio. 
  
 I don't see how that goes against computer science, if it confirms what I basically experience in day-to-day computer usage. 
  
 So if basic intuition and practical experience tends to support the audio-prioritization/noise-reduction concept, why not just jump to blind listener A/B tests?


----------



## watchnerd

jdpark said:


> So if basic intuition and practical experience tends to support the audio-prioritization/noise-reduction concept, why not just jump to blind listener A/B tests?


 
  
 You certainly can.  But if you want to self-administer it, you'll need to record two files.


----------



## WindowsX

Alright. I found the culprit now. It's gain feature that caused it. Strange. It's software and bit-perfect so there should be no volume difference. I tested two identical files with null result but not in these tests.
  
 After removing gain feature and build difference track again, all files have 0dB on both channel now but Corr Depth was reduced but still at over 100dB level.
  
 before-master


> parameters: -1.596sec, 0.000dB (L),  0.000dB (R)..Corr Depth: 130.6 dB (L), 136.2 dB (R)


 
  
 before_again-master


> parameters: -1.32sec, 0.000dB (L),  0.000dB (R)..Corr Depth: 125.2 dB (L), 117.5 dB (R)


 
  
 after-master


> parameters: -1.852sec, 0.000dB (L),  0.000dB (R)..Corr Depth: 137.4 dB (L), 140.7 dB (R)


 
  
 after-before


> parameters: -255.9msec, 0.000dB (L),  0.000dB (R)..Corr Depth: 113.9 dB (L), 111.2 dB (R)


 
  
 I also tested bit comparator in foobar2000 with a few combinations and got this result.
  


> Differences found in compared tracks.
> Comparing:
> "C:\AMD\master.wav"
> "C:\AMD\new\before@master.wav"
> ...


 
  
 From these data, I shall conclude that bit-perfect playback/recording can't transport bit-perfect audio stream in such manner even with pure software environment, let alone dealing with real hardware. The reassuring part is Fidelizer doesn't affect audio stream enough to change leveling in DiffMaker test but this test doesn't prove anything about Fidelizer yet.
  
 I think it's much easier to run a test and decide if you want to keep using it or move on but I'll try to investigate more to find evidence in future if I have some spare time to do.
  
 Regards,
 Windows X


----------



## watchnerd

windowsx said:


> Alright. I found the culprit now. It's gain feature that caused it. Strange. It's software and bit-perfect so there should be no volume difference. I tested two identical files with null result but not in these tests.
> 
> After removing gain feature and build difference track again, all files have 0dB on both channel now but Corr Depth was reduced but still at over 100dB level.
> 
> ...


 
  
 Ummm...you have a correlation depth of ~113-137 dB.
  
 How much correlation depth are you expecting to indicate perfection, or close to it?


----------



## WindowsX

watchnerd said:


> Ummm...you have a correlation depth of ~113-137 dB.
> 
> How much correlation depth are you expecting to indicate perfection, or close to it?


 
  
 Ideally, I expect 300.0 dB for no error in digital data playback/recording in software domain. But I expect time alignment to affect correlation depth so I'm investigating further to find bit-perfect threshold.
  
 Regards,
 Windows X


----------



## WindowsX

Alright. I tested master file with added silence and got this.
  
 master_moved-master


> parameters: -500msec, 0.000dB (L),  0.000dB (R)..Corr Depth: 150.9 dB (L), 146.2 dB (R)


 
  
 So it's about 14x-15x range for original file with time alignment. If recording can get at least to 140 dB level, we can consider the case with possbility of null result. However, it runs at and 11x-13x dB for digital recording so we can't get null result here.
  
 What do you guys think?
  
 Regards,
 Windows X


----------



## milosingh

I am not sure if you're serious.
  
 Even if you're talking of 90 db, it is inaudible. The level you're talking about isn't even manageable using the analogue output of reference level dacs.
  
 Unless you can show that there is something that can be heard around 40 to 70 db or so, or less than 50 db or so, it is of no use.


----------



## watchnerd

windowsx said:


> Ideally, I expect 300.0 dB for no error in digital data playback/recording in software domain. But I expect time alignment to affect correlation depth so I'm investigating further to find bit-perfect threshold.
> 
> Regards,
> Windows X


 
  
 Where did you get the 300 dB number?
  
 There is no system that does that. That's below the noise floor of 24 bit files, that's below the noise floor of even 32 bit audio files.  That's getting into the realm of random cosmic background radiation effects.


----------



## Windows X

milosingh said:


> I am not sure if you're serious.
> 
> Even if you're talking of 90 db, it is inaudible. The level you're talking about isn't even manageable using the analogue output of reference level dacs.
> 
> Unless you can show that there is something that can be heard around 40 to 70 db or so, or less than 50 db or so, it is of no use.




To get audible different with bit-perfect digital recording is like you want to see some broken stuff. It's supposed to be the same with aligned master file not having 30dB depth reduced.

So bit perfect playback/recording doesn't do perfect job with pure software environment.

Regards,
Windows X


----------



## WindowsX

watchnerd said:


> Where did you get the 300 dB number?
> 
> There is no system that does that. That's below the noise floor of 24 bit files, that's below the noise floor of even 32 bit audio files.  That's getting into the realm of random cosmic background radiation effects.




300dB is from measuring two identical files as I posted in previous page here.

http://www.head-fi.org/t/795259/fidelizer-pro-real-or-snake-oil/210#post_12345412

For aligned original with added silence is 14x-15x. I expect bit-perfect to do perfect job at 14x at least for pure software environment. Now we get 11x-13x which make bits imperfect.

Regards,
Windows X


----------



## bfreedma

windows x said:


> To get audible different with bit-perfect digital recording is like you want to see some broken stuff. It's supposed to be the same with aligned master file not having 30dB depth reduced.
> 
> So bit perfect playback/recording doesn't do perfect job with pure software environment.
> 
> ...


 
  
 I don't think you understand the results and their meaning.  I'm also not sure how any of this relates to audible improvements made by Fidelizer.


----------



## limpidglitch

windowsx said:


> Alright. I tested master file with added silence and got this.
> 
> master_moved-master
> 
> ...


 
  
 I suspect all you're seeing here are the effects of the algorithms rounding errors.
 DiffMaker transforms the signal so alignment can be done in the frequency domain. Doing that followed by the inverse operation is lossless only if you have infinite precision, which you obviously don't.
  
 If I'm thinking correctly, this should give the null limit in 32bit float: 20*lg(2^25)≈150dB


----------



## WindowsX

bfreedma said:


> I don't think you understand the results and their meaning.  I'm also not sure how any of this relates to audible improvements made by Fidelizer.




As I said before, this test doesn't reflect Fidelizer performance but we can see something about bit-perfect at works.



limpidglitch said:


> I suspect all you're seeing here are the effects of the algorithms rounding errors.
> 
> DiffMaker transforms the signal so alignment can be done in the frequency domain. Doing that followed by the inverse operation is lossless only if you have infinite precision, which you obviously don't.
> 
> If I'm thinking correctly, this should give the null limit in 32bit float: 20*lg(2^25)≈150dB




I expected as much. I saw 14x range for aligned same data threshold but 11x-13x for bit-perfect playback/recording. There's some reduction loss in pure software environment.

Regards,
Windows X


----------



## KeithEmo

I can't resist the urge to comment here... but more on the discussion than on the product itself...
  
_NOTE_: I have read the claims for this product (and I understand them very well). However, since my current system is relatively immune to the problems it purports to fix, and so I wouldn't expect to experience an improvement with it on my system, I haven't actually tried it. Therefore, my statements about the product relate _TOTALLY_ to whether the claims made for it "technically make sense".
  
 The claim, as I understand it, is that, by reducing extraneous processes running in Windows, Fidelizer will allow at least some computers to put out "cleaner data" - which will result in an audible improvement. From coming to understand how the product is claimed to work, and a lot of background knowledge about how Windows processes audio data, and how DACs work, I have reached the following conclusions:
  
 1) The actual timing of the audio data delivered by Windows IS in fact affected by processor load; therefore, it makes sense that, on SOME computers, under SOME conditions, reducing the number of extra processes running probably will result in more consistent clocking of the data delivered by Windows to the DAC. Any user can do this manually, by uninstalling programs that aren't necessary, and by shutting off extraneous processes; and a program that does this effectively and conveniently could be useful.
  
 2) USB DACs with asynchronous USB inputs are relatively immune to timing variations on the data coming from the computer, so I wouldn't expect much of an improvement for them (although not all are totally immune). USB DACs with non-asynch USB inputs, especially older ones, may in fact be sensitive to the timing of data coming from the computer, so they MIGHT benefit from it.
  
 3) Toslink and Coax inputs are NOT inherently immune to timing errors and jitter on the data coming from the computer, and computers are notoriously bad in this regard, so this may in fact help users who have a DAC connected to their computer using a Coax or Toslink connection.
  
 4) Many DACs use an ASRC to remove jitter from incoming data. Even though an ASRC is not actually 100% effective at removing jitter, they are usually quite effective, and so do succeed in removing a significant percentage of any jitter that might be present. Therefore, I would expect a DAC that has any such jitter-removal mechanism to get little to no benefit.
  
 Therefore, my conclusion is that, while I wouldn't expect Fidelizer to make a significant difference on many systems (including my current one), I have to say that the claims it makes do in fact make sense. By reducing extraneous processes running in Windows, it MAY reduce the number and magnitude of timing errors and jitter on the data coming from Windows, which in fact MAY produce an audible improvement with SOME DACs.
  
 Since a free trial is available, I see no reason for anyone who thinks it MIGHT produce an audible improvement in their system not to try it. However, since I would only expect it to produce an improvement with certain systems, and certain DACs, and under certain conditions, I would surely advise doing some sort of double blind testing, and doing so with an open mind and thoroughly neutral expectations. (However, to be clear, the basic theory of reducing timing errors and jitter in the digital audio signal delivered by a Windows computer to the audio playback device is in fact valid.)


----------



## Don Hills

Keith, that's a good summary.
  
 X, thank you for your testing efforts. Your Diffmaker results are especially interesting, I think they shed light on how Diffmaker may work. They imply that it first compares the files bit-for-bit and, if they are identical, says so. If they are not identical, it then goes into alignment and nulling to quantify the differences. If you were using physical (but perfect) DAC and ADC chained, you would expect the output file to be different due to their clocks not being exactly aligned. Running the files through Diffmaker should result in a difference approximating to the calculated accuracy of the bit depth used, and your results appear to support that.
  
 So as I see it:
 - If input and output files are identical, Diffmaker says the difference is zero.
 - If the files are identical except for misalignment (say, one file is missing one sample at the beginning), Diffmaker aligns them and reports a difference equal to the precision of its internal math.
 - If the files are different due to, for example, clock skew (samples cannot be directly time aligned), they have to be SRCed to generate the "aligned" samples for difference measuring. Diffmaker reports a difference equal to the resolution of the file bit depth.
  
 I don't think I quite have it right yet. I'll have to do some experimenting with Diffmaker myself.


----------



## watchnerd

keithemo said:


> Therefore, my conclusion is that, while I wouldn't expect Fidelizer to make a significant difference on many systems (including my current one), I have to say that the claims it makes do in fact make sense. By reducing extraneous processes running in Windows, it MAY reduce the number and magnitude of timing errors and jitter on the data coming from Windows, which in fact MAY produce an audible improvement with SOME DACs.


 
  
 I think that's the general consensus of the "objectivist" posters (if I broadly stereotype and label).


----------



## billerb1

billerb1 said:


> Thanks Windows X, your snake oil sounds incredible on my mediocre equipment.




...as I said earlier.


----------



## WindowsX

I think I found some notable improvements with Fidelizer software now after today test.
  
 I made 3 tracks of added silence on master for alignment, before using Fidelizer, and after using Fidelizer and find the average of 2x3=6 data from each. Here's the result
  
 Align: 152.95 dB (146.0-165.1)
 Before: 131.2 dB (125.9-136.2)
 After: 136.3 dB (131.6-143.9)
  
 Without Fidelizer, correlation depth swings around 12x-13x dB
 With Fidelizer, correlation depth swings around 13x-14x dB
  
 So Fidelizer isn't snake oil and the improvements can be measured by with statistics data from DiffMaker. I have finished my part now to prove my part now that I'm not doing something worth being accused for selling snake oil.
  
 Regards,
 Windows X


----------



## cjl

But 100dB+ worth of null is inaudible anyways. I really don't see why you think this is proof of anything...


----------



## WindowsX

cjl said:


> But 100dB+ worth of null is inaudible anyways. I really don't see why you think this is proof of anything...




If you can measure something audible on bit-perfect, something must be broken. Why can't you just accept that I can finally measure some changes with Fidelizer? Be real objectivist for once, please. It maybe inaudible but there's a proof of measurable improvements data here.

Regards,
Windows X


----------



## bfreedma

windowsx said:


> cjl said:
> 
> 
> > But 100dB+ worth of null is inaudible anyways. I really don't see why you think this is proof of anything...
> ...




Questionable results at best and certainly inaudible. If this isn't simply algorithm rounding errors, it still isn't proof that Fidelizer is making an improvement that any human on the planet could actually hear.

You never mentioned the spec of the system you ran these test on nor, I believe the CPU loading during each phase of the test,


----------



## Harry Manback

bfreedma said:


> Questionable results at best and certainly inaudible. If this isn't simply algorithm rounding errors, it still isn't proof that Fidelizer is making an improvement that any human on the planet could actually hear.
> 
> You never mentioned the spec of the system you ran these test on nor, I believe the CPU loading during each phase of the test,





After reading this thread from start to this point, this is exactly what I thought would happen. X bends over backwards to justify his claims, just as you requested, and you say "Questionable reesults at best..."

You should take note that even on a beastly computer, instantaneous cpu usage spikes can occur. These can have high priority. If the product lessens the impact of spikes, then its useful. 

It is hard to devise tests for all possible cases. 

Also, just frequenting the Sound Science forum doesn't make you a scientist or entitle you to make demands on others.

This forum has some of the most arrogant and insulting members in all of head-fi.


----------



## watchnerd

harry manback said:


> After reading this thread from start to this point, this is exactly what I thought would happen. X bends over backwards to justify his claims, just as you requested, and you say "Questionable reesults at best..."
> 
> You should take note that even on a beastly computer, instantaneous cpu usage spikes can occur. These can have high priority. If the product lessens the impact of spikes, then its useful.
> 
> ...


 
  
 Are you sure you understood X's data?
  
 Yes, perhaps it did have an effect (although it may have also been quantization), but the results in this specific scenario are in the range of -130 dB, which is inaudible.


----------



## jdpark

watchnerd said:


> Are you sure you understood X's data?
> 
> Yes, perhaps it did have an effect (although it may have also been quantization), but the results in this specific scenario are in the range of -130 dB, which is inaudible.


 
 I also think X played along quite well given the demands, though I don't think the demands were too extreme. Also, I don't think one can judge head-fi by levels of 'arrogance'. This forum (though I don't visit it often), and this thread in particular, is intended to ask difficult questions, and demand answers that follow some minimum scientific methods. 
  
 I basically just consider myself a consumer of digital audio, with a pretty solid mid-fi system. I'm willing to take some of the hard-earned money from the family funds and invest in a product that can improve on the experience, because it's one of the important ways I relax and enjoy life, in general. 
  
 If someone asks hard questions that are considered impertinent to others, I always try to understand whether the question is a bad question, or whether it could have simply been worded more politely. If the second, I applaud. We don't need to be polite all the time, especially when essentially we are trying to solve problems that will benefit everyone in the future.
  
 That said, we still have more questions, particularly about load spikes, or even what happens when CPU usage is at, say 80-90% often while listening to music.
  
 I believe that Fidelizer Pro makes music more involving, rhythmically stable, and spatially accurate when I listen to a whole album. Does that mean that if I were given two 20 second clips, one with Fidelizer Pro, and one without, I would be able to tell the difference blindly? I doubt it. So honestly, while I applaud impertinent questions, and I applaud manufacturers/designers who strive to answer those questions with real science, I do have doubts about the limits of the tests we can do with conclusive (or even reasonably certain) answers.


----------



## gregorio

harry manback said:


> X bends over backwards to justify his claims ...


 
  
 WindowsX "claims" in big bold letters: "*Sound Quality Improvement Solutions for Everyone*". Sound quality or indeed the judgement of the quality of anything is relative, "quality" is a comparative term. One therefore has to be able to experience some amount of difference in the first place, in order to be able to make a comparative judgement about quality. A determination of whether one thing is an improvement, higher quality, than something else.
  
 WindowsX "bending over backwards" is only relevant if that bending over actually does "justify his claims". Unfortunately, his bending over backwards has done the exact opposite, as indeed he himself predicted it would a number of pages ago! Below -130dBFS we are in the realm of the levels of noise created by electrons colliding inside resistors. Regardless of whether some extremist audiophiles are deluded enough to believe they can hear the sound of sub-atomic particles colliding, no DAC in the world can resolve sound at that level and no speakers or headphones can reproduce sound anywhere even vaguely near that level. There is no difference to be experienced and therefore no judgement of quality is possible.
  


harry manback said:


> It is hard to devise tests for all possible cases.


 
  
 WindowsX is part of the group which contains "Everyone". Even if we accept that the difference he measured is due to Fidelizer, if he himself cannot attain any audible difference with Fidelizer this one test alone is enough to prove his claim of "everyone" is a lie!
  


harry manback said:


> If the product lessens the impact of spikes, then its useful.


 
  
 Only if that "impact of spikes" is audible AND that Fidelizer audibly improves the "impact of spikes". If it doesn't, as his test results indicate, then how is it useful?
  


harry manback said:


> Also, just frequenting the Sound Science forum doesn't make you a scientist or entitle you to make demands on others.


 
  
 1. One doesn't have to be a scientist to know that what happens below -130dB is utterly inaudible.
  
 2. If someone makes a claim about a product they are trying to sell, one doesn't have to be a scientist to be entitled to demand evidence of their claims. Are you really saying that no one except a scientist is entitled to demand answers or proof of, for example, the claims of say a car salesman?
  
 It seems abundantly clear that Fidelizer does NOT provide "Sound Quality Improvement Solutions for Everyone". A little basic knowledge and some simple deductive reasoning infers that far from sound quality improvements for "everyone", Fidelizer is actually snake oil for the majority and probably for the vast majority. WindowsX responded with some marketing BS to dispute this inference and refused to provide tests or other reliable evidence on the grounds that it would support rather than refute this inference! Eventually he did attempt an apparently valid test, which does indeed appear to support the inference!
  
 All the test evidence done/quoted in this thread so far, including that done by the developer himself, demonstrates no audible difference. WindowsX even stated that "it's impossible" for Fidelizer "to beat the boundaries of audible threshold". Yet bizarrely, you still seem to support the product's claim. What rationale/logic allows you to arrive at such a conclusion? If even the developer's statement and test is not enough for you, what would it take to convince you?
  
 G


----------



## WindowsX

@bfreedma Questionable indeed. We're talking about measuring changes in bit-perfect on pure software domain here. It's not something anyone can grasp like running software to read common specifications from DA conversion.
  
 I configure DiffMaker to make very detailed comparision with least rounding error as much as possible and made 3 reference samples of original data with added silence to measure the threshold of rounding error. It was around 152.95 dB (146.0-165.1). So we know the scope of changes for null result with rounding error calculated.
  
 My Computer running AMD FX8350 with 4.2GHz and 8MB cache for L2/L3. I use high quality motherboard with 16GB RAM and Platinum grade PSU so no need to worry about slow computer.
  
 @Harry Manback Thank you. It's indeed a hard test since bits are bits believers don't cooperate nor ever state clear demand. I used to give up at some points because they believe only in measurements of audible range and that's impossible task for Fidelizer. It's like asking to see gravitational wave with audible/visible result instead of very small number of data we have no clue about.
  
 @watchnerd If I make comparision with audible changes, or even supply diff files that you can hear the result, will you accept that parameters or shoot it down as invalid samples with errors?
  
 Do you understand that we're working with bit-perfect on pure software environment? You can't expect anyone to measure this difficult subject for you in the first place. And I did this for you, with result to prove it and you finally accepted that Fidelizer make some measurable changes. Being audible or not, it's measurable.
  
 If you aren't satisfied with my method and results, try arranging up method for me to test for measurable and audible data that you can accept.
  
 @jdpark Thank you. I think I finally made some progress to get measurable data out from bit-perfect on pure software environment. The reason I spent time and effort into this experiment is to know it myself too.
  
 Regards,
 Windows X


----------



## limpidglitch

gregorio said:


> WindowsX is part of the group which contains "Everyone". Even if we accept that the difference he measured is due to Fidelizer, if he himself cannot attain any audible difference with Fidelizer this one test alone is enough to prove his claim of "everyone" is a lie!


 
  
 Formal logic 101!
  
 It's been a while, but I think this is valid: ∀x (x∈D → P(x)) ≢ ∃x (x∈D → ¬P(x))


----------



## bfreedma

harry manback said:


> After reading this thread from start to this point, this is exactly what I thought would happen. X bends over backwards to justify his claims, just as you requested, and you say "Questionable reesults at best..."
> 
> You should take note that even on a beastly computer, instantaneous cpu usage spikes can occur. These can have high priority. If the product lessens the impact of spikes, then its useful.
> 
> ...


 
  
 Always good to see someone jumping into the middle of a discussion without grasping the context.  Are you actually suggesting that the data presented represents an audible change?
  
 As to alleged instantaneous CPU spikes, care to show any examples of this actually happening on a modern computer dedicated to audio reproduction?   No one here is arguing that in certain, very limited scenarios, thread prioritization and CPU affinity settings may add value, but the claims being made is that Fidelizer makes an audible improvement in all scenarios, not just when a CPU is oversubscribed.  And yes, claims made in Sound Science are going to challenged and proof requested.
  
 Without going overboard self credentializing, I'm very comfortable with my knowledge base as it pertains to the discussion of computer performance and tuning.  Real arrogance is jumping into this thread and accusing others of lack of domain knowledge while presenting no countering evidence, just insults.....


----------



## Joe Bloggs

Are the measurements currently predicated on the inability to get a truly bit-perfect loopback recording?

I don't pretend to fully understand the issue at the moment but it appears to be a complicated problem. There was however a particular audio interface mentioned in the thread that did produce a perfectly bit-perfect loopback recording.
https://www.gearslutz.com/board/so-much-gear-so-little-time/471239-getting-bit-perfect-recording.html

Both the output and input of the digital recording chain would be buffered. The inability to get a bit-perfect loopback would seem to be caused by a systematic software error rather than any jitter. After all, it's not like if a "1" on the sending end falls in the crack between two time slots on the receiving end it would be interpolated to two "0.5" samples--either the buffers eliminate the timing differences and produce the original stream, or you get a dropout.

In the limited testing I did I got the same slight volume decrease as Muriel Esteban got in 1a) of post 10 in the above thread. Amplifying to the same amplitude and then comparing the input and output, of course, didn't yield anywhere near a null signal. But the error is very systematic and not at all indicative of a random noise process.

Wouldn't it make more sense to directly compare jitter measurements of the S/PDIF output of a computer with and without Fidelizer?


----------



## bfreedma

windowsx said:


> @bfreedma Questionable indeed. We're talking about measuring changes in bit-perfect on pure software domain here. It's not something anyone can grasp like running software to read common specifications from DA conversion.
> 
> I configure DiffMaker to make very detailed comparision with least rounding error as much as possible and made 3 reference samples of original data with added silence to measure the threshold of rounding error. It was around 152.95 dB (146.0-165.1). So we know the scope of changes for null result with rounding error calculated.
> 
> ...


 
  
 Lots of hand waving and distraction for the fact that you still haven't come close to supporting your claim that Fidelizer makes an audible difference outside of the limited scenario where a CPU is oversubscribed, something that is unlikely to happen on a modern PC, particularly one dedicated to audio reproduction.
  
 If you believe :_"I used to give up at some points because they believe only in measurements of audible range and that's impossible task for Fidelizer.",  _then we should just end the conversation because that is a completely inaccurate statement.  Measuring the audible impact of Fidelizer is not particularly difficult, and the measurements have been described in this thread several times.  Instead, you chose to pursue some odd form of "bit perfect" analysis, which is both irrelevant to the discussion and actually produced no results in the audible range.


----------



## WindowsX

bfreedma said:


> Lots of hand waving and distraction for the fact that you still haven't come close to supporting your claim that Fidelizer makes an audible difference outside of the limited scenario where a CPU is oversubscribed, something that is unlikely to happen on a modern PC, particularly one dedicated to audio reproduction.
> 
> If you believe :_"I used to give up at some points because they believe only in measurements of audible range and that's impossible task for Fidelizer.",  _then we should just end the conversation because that is a completely inaccurate statement.  Measuring the audible impact of Fidelizer is not particularly difficult, and the measurements have been described in this thread several times.  Instead, you chose to pursue some odd form of "bit perfect" analysis, which is both irrelevant to the discussion and actually produced no results in the audible range.


 
  
 I did say before and I was about to leave because you guys are asking the impossible and you said this.
  


bfreedma said:


> Of course audible differences can be proven. Measurements and/or properly constructed ABX testing would constitute proof that your software is performing as claimed or if it is not.


  

 Now show me an example of audible different you can measure from digital domain. I already got measurable data from pure software environment. Let's see if you can come up with something better.
  
 Regards,
 Windows X


----------



## bfreedma

windowsx said:


> bfreedma said:
> 
> 
> > Lots of hand waving and distraction for the fact that you still haven't come close to supporting your claim that Fidelizer makes an audible difference outside of the limited scenario where a CPU is oversubscribed, something that is unlikely to happen on a modern PC, particularly one dedicated to audio reproduction.
> ...





That's exactly the issue. You're only looking at the digital domain. Why do you insist on avoiding analog measurements which would actually be of value if you want to support your position?

And again, your measurements in the digital domain fall far outside the realm of human audibility, so what value do they add to your claims around Fidelizer's performance?

My bottom line hasn't changed from the start of this thread. Unless your PC is oversubscribed in one of its subsystems, Fidelizer makes zero audible impact. And very, very few systems are oversubscribed. You've done nothing to change my opinion - if anything, your answers have made me more confident in it.


----------



## milosingh

joe bloggs said:


> Are the measurements currently predicated on the inability to get a truly bit-perfect loopback recording?
> 
> I don't pretend to fully understand the issue at the moment but it appears to be a complicated problem. There was however a particular audio interface mentioned in the thread that did produce a perfectly bit-perfect loopback recording.
> https://www.gearslutz.com/board/so-much-gear-so-little-time/471239-getting-bit-perfect-recording.html
> ...


 
  
 Jitter hasn't been an issue in the last 25 or so years. It may have been audible in the 1970s, but as of late 1990s, that is no longer the case. It is so far off the audible threshold that you probably won't even be able to reproduce it on purpose unless you do something really wrong.


----------



## limpidglitch

To be honest, talking about audibilty and the limits of human perception here is rather pointless, the differences X measured, are just so very very tiny.
 As bfreedma said, assuming they are real, the differences are on the scale of real-world resistor noise. In comparison, the Johnson noise produced by a 1kΩ resistor at room temperature will be at a level of -124.8 dBV.

 This sets a hard physical limit to what differences are meaningful.


----------



## WindowsX

bfreedma said:


> That's exactly the issue. You're only looking at the digital domain. Why do you insist on avoiding analog measurements which would actually be of value if you want to support your position?
> 
> And again, your measurements in the digital domain fall far outside the realm of human audibility, so what value do they add to your claims around Fidelizer's performance?
> 
> My bottom line hasn't changed from the start of this thread. Unless your PC is oversubscribed in one of its subsystems, Fidelizer makes zero audible impact. And very, very few systems are oversubscribed. You've done nothing to change my opinion - if anything, your answers have made me more confident in it.


 
  
 I already told you before. It's impossible to measure for audible changes with digital audio transport. Even iPhone digital I/O can do as good as others. Here's RMAA result for pure software evaluation. (Do you understand what pure software means btw?)
  

  
 I didn't insist. I already told you it's impossible and you don't believe me. So I tried to make possible ones to show you and you don't accept inaudible result.
  
 Instead of avoiding the issue,  try to show definite proof of audible measurements from digital audio transport right here. I already showed my research about detecting the flaws in pure software environment. I tried to play along with you so it's time for you to put some effort now.
  
 Regards,
 Windows X


----------



## nick_charles

milosingh said:


> Jitter hasn't been an issue in the last 25 or so years. It may have been audible in the 1970s, but as of late 1990s, that is no longer the case. It is so far off the audible threshold that you probably won't even be able to reproduce it on purpose unless you do something really wrong.


 
  
 Well, actually.....Bad Jitter can still be found if you look hard enough
  

 and you must be prepared to pay for the *privilege *
  
*Whether even this is audible is another question of course*


----------



## milosingh

nick_charles said:


> Well, actually.....Bad Jitter can still be found if you look hard enough
> 
> 
> and you must be prepared to pay for the *privilege *
> ...


 
 lol
  
 So you purposely go and find the worst piece of gear ever made?


----------



## watchnerd

windowsx said:


> @watchnerd If I make comparision with audible changes, or even supply diff files that you can hear the result, will you accept that parameters or shoot it down as invalid samples with errors?


 
  
 I don't understand what you mean.
  
 If the diff file says the difference is in the range of -130 dB, and I can hear the difference, then something isn't right.


----------



## KeithEmo

You're ignoring the fact that lots of modern gear _STILL_ makes serious compromises for various reasons....
  
 There are still plenty of USB DACs out there that don't use an asynchronous connection - both very cheap ones and niche products that have some "design reason" (whether sensible or not) for avoiding it. In fact, there are still a few very expensive DACs out there that use outmoded PLLs (because their maker insists "they sound better"). And, beyond that, even many modern DACs are at least somewhat affected by extreme amounts of jitter. (Note that a Coax connection from a PC can have what, by modern standards, is an amazingly high amount of jitter - high into the _PICO_seconds.)
  
 Therefore, while I would still agree that a DAC that is very sensitive to jitter is "flawed", plenty of modern ones have that flaw, and there are still plenty of older DACs that are in fact sensitive to jitter that are still in use as well.
  
 You should also be aware that J-Test, which is commonly used to measure the response of DACs to jitter, is in fact a very limited test; it actually tests a device for "susceptibility to certain stimuli which tend to cause jitter", but doesn't technically test their response to jitter generated externally. (In other words, the fact that a given DAC scores well on J-Test does _NOT_ rule out the possibility that feeding it from a source with lots of jitter may in fact cause problems for it - even audible ones. It _suggests_ that the device _probably_ isn't very sensitive to jitter, but that conclusion isn't justified as being absolute.)
  
  
 Quote:


milosingh said:


> lol
> 
> So you purposely go and find the worst piece of gear ever made?


----------



## milosingh

Please tell me which of the following DACs have audible jitter?

ODAC
Modi
Modi 2
Modi 2 Uber
Any Asus product, specially Asus STX
Schiit Fulla
Any audioengine product
Any apple product

These cover a wide market share. Are cheap and easily available. I don't think any of the above has audible jitter.


----------



## KeithEmo

First of all, in the context of this discussion, you aren't even asking the right question.
  
 While it's true that a DAC itself could have or generate jitter internally, and that jitter could then have an audible effect, that is _NOT_ the question here.
 We _KNOW_ that a PC will generate significant jitter on its Coax and Toslink outputs (it's been measured); and the same is true for USB - if it's NOT asynchronous.
 It is this jitter, generated by the computer, that Fidelizer claims to reduce.
 Since Fidelizer alters the computer's configuration in several ways that are widely accepted to minimize jitter, we can assume that it at least might actually do so.
  
 Offhand, I have no idea which of those DACs would or wouldn't be most likely to be affected.
 If I knew the specific architecture used by any one of them in detail, I could make an educated guess which ones would be sensitive to jitter - but that's all it would be.
 (For example, if you're using the USB input, and that USB input is asynchronous - and well designed, then the DAC should be largely insensitive to jitter from the source.)
 (Likewise, regardless of the type of input, if it uses a mechanism like an ASRC to filter out jitter - and that was implemented correctly - then it should also be largely immune to jitter.)
  
 I BELIEVE that the 0DAC, and the Schiit DACs, all use asynchronous USB as their input - and so should be MOSTLY immune to jitter.
 I have no idea about the Apple and AudioEngine products; but you can quite probably find out from the specs.
 (Most DACs with Coax or Toslink inputs mention it prominently in their specs if they have any sort of jitter reduction;
 if not, then I might suspect that they WOULD be at least somewhat sensitive to jitter.
 Most DACs that use the better asynchronous type of USB input also mention it in the specs.)
  
 I'm curious, however, as to why "you don't think any of them has audible jitter".....
 Have you tested them, or are you simply guessing?
 And, if the latter, than on what do you BASE your guesses?
  
 Quote:


milosingh said:


> Please tell me which of the following DACs have audible jitter?
> 
> ODAC
> Modi
> ...


----------



## milosingh

All of these except the Schiits have been measured by engineers on the Internet. All of them are known to have inaudible jitter. Nobody has measured the Schiits but I'm sure the can't be terrible either as far as just the basic stuff is concerned.


----------



## KeithEmo

Oh, well, if they said it on the Internet, then it must be true 
	

	
	
		
		

		
			




 (sorry, I just couldn't resist).
  
 However, it would be interesting to know what tests were used... and the exact test conditions... and the actual results.
  
 For example, the very popular AP J-Test, used by most magazines, does _NOT_ in fact measure the sensitivity of a DAC to jitter coming from the source.
 (What it actually does is use a "stress test signal" to provoke the DAC to produce jitter internally - then measure the results.)
 But the current AP testers, with the appropriate options installed, are actually capable of measuring the response of the DAC to externally generated jitter.
  
 However, I would consider even informal tests, showing that a given DAC exhibited no obvious jitter-related flaws with relatively
 poor quality source to be at least _somewhat_ indicative that it wasn't _especially_ sensitive to jitter.
  
 Quote:


milosingh said:


> All of these except the Schiits have been measured by engineers on the Internet. All of them are known to have inaudible jitter. Nobody has measured the Schiits but I'm sure the can't be terrible either as far as just the basic stuff is concerned.


----------



## Joe Bloggs

So here's your cue WindowsX--KeithEmo has pointed out that a PC will generate significant amounts of jitter on its S/PDIF coax or optical outputs, and these can be read directly (as opposed to USB audio)--why not directly measure jitter on these with Fidelizer on and off instead?


----------



## cjl

windowsx said:


> If you can measure something audible on bit-perfect, something must be broken.


 
 But you didn't measure anything audible, and besides which, as soon as it has to be time-aligned, it's no longer completely bit perfect.


----------



## WindowsX

joe bloggs said:


> So here's your cue @WindowsX--KeithEmo has pointed out that a PC will generate significant amounts of jitter on its S/PDIF coax or optical outputs, and these can be read directly (as opposed to USB audio)--why not directly measure jitter on these with Fidelizer on and off instead?


 
  
 It's possible with audio interface having digital input/output to perform closed loop recording. I'm not sure if that is possible, maybe we'll need two audio interfaces? I'm not sure.
  
 Anyway, it's not like I have such devices at hand to perform this nor any device will work. I used to have RME Fireface 400 but it's broken not so I can't test it myself anymore. Maybe someone can take it from here following my examples for real world data. But I doubt you'll find something audible with analog metrics.
  


cjl said:


> But you didn't measure anything audible, and besides which, as soon as it has to be time-aligned, it's no longer completely bit perfect.


 
  
 It'd be crazy if you can measure anything audible in pure software environment. It's all in virtual sound card. You should be surprised that I can even measure something out there to show you here.
  
 By the way, how can you measure different recording files without time alignment? Aligning doesn't break bit-perfect because audio stream aren't altered in anyway except choosing where of stream to compare. There might be some rounding error to consider like I said before but all measurements showed 0 dB so it's all good.
  
  
  
 Well, it seems to be only me who took actions to find out. I hope someone will run the similar experiments to share with us soon.
  
 Regards,
 Windows X


----------



## milosingh

It is your job to get your believers to measure and prove an audible difference. 

And if you yourself feel there'll be no audible difference in the analogue output, then I don't see why you claim what you do.


----------



## WindowsX

milosingh said:


> It is your job to get your believers to measure and prove an audible difference.
> 
> And if you yourself feel there'll be no audible difference in the analogue output, then I don't see why you claim what you do.


 
  
 Your audible threshold will make no different between any digital transport on DAC with (random)jitter immuned design.
  
 Regards,
 Windows X


----------



## watchnerd

keithemo said:


> It is this jitter, generated by the computer, that Fidelizer claims to reduce.


 
  
 Did Fidelizer actually claim to reduce jitter?
  
 I don't recall seeing that.


----------



## cjl

windowsx said:


> By the way, how can you measure different recording files without time alignment? Aligning doesn't break bit-perfect because audio stream aren't altered in anyway except choosing where of stream to compare. There might be some rounding error to consider like I said before but all measurements showed 0 dB so it's all good.


 
 You can't. If it's time-aligning by a non integer number of samples though, it's no longer bit perfect. There are several other possibilities too - honestly, I don't know for sure (nor do I really care) why you are only getting a diff down to -150 dB rather than -300, like you did with two copies of the same file. At the end of the day, -150dB is still fantastically good, and there's no way you could even come close to hearing errors at that level. Hell, some of the best analog equipment in the world can't get a broadband noise floor that low.


----------



## Harry Manback

watchnerd said:


> Are you sure you understood X's data?
> 
> Yes, perhaps it did have an effect (although it may have also been quantization), but the results in this specific scenario are in the range of -130 dB, which is inaudible.


 
  
 I'm not making any claims either way.  I do know that 1 test over a short time with nothing else really going on in the pc isn't representative of reality.
  
 I've been a software engineer for over 20 years, and I know a bit about how cpus work.  Windows could be introducing mutexes and semaphores across broad swathes of it's internal sound system for reasons we have no idea about.  Basically, the windows kernel is a black box and none of us can predict what can happen in all curcumstances.  Having a momentary spike in CPU usage may cause cache wipes, and require data to be retrieved from main memory which, compared to L1, L2, and L3 cache, take an eternity.  It's entirely feasible that altering settings in the audio engine in windows could mitigate these things to some degree.  Or not.  I won't pretend to know, I haven't tried the product.
  
 I do know that often network activity, especially wireless traffic, can introduce tics into the sound I hear.  I suspect this is because of system interrupts throwing timings off in other subsystems.
  
 More data would need to be collected over say, a week or two.  If the Fidalizer software could detect and log instances where it is actively helping, that would be a good thing to see.


----------



## WindowsX

cjl said:


> You can't. If it's time-aligning by a non integer number of samples though, it's no longer bit perfect. There are several other possibilities too - honestly, I don't know for sure (nor do I really care) why you are only getting a diff down to -150 dB rather than -300, like you did with two copies of the same file. At the end of the day, -150dB is still fantastically good, and there's no way you could even come close to hearing errors at that level. Hell, some of the best analog equipment in the world can't get a broadband noise floor that low.


 
  
 As I said before, 300dB for identical files and about 150dB for silence added files. Did you read my posts in few pages back? And the proof of concept in this experiment is to find measurable changes of bit-perfect application working in pure software environment whether Fidelizer is snake oil that does nothing to contribute audio for the better or not. And the result is it's not snake oil and I have concrete data to back this up. It's up to individuals to decide if inaudible data will signify anything.
  


harry manback said:


> I'm not making any claims either way.  I do know that 1 test over a short time with nothing else really going on in the pc isn't representative of reality.
> 
> I've been a software engineer for over 20 years, and I know a bit about how cpus work.  Windows could be introducing mutexes and semaphores across broad swathes of it's internal sound system for reasons we have no idea about.  Basically, the windows kernel is a black box and none of us can predict what can happen in all curcumstances.  Having a momentary spike in CPU usage may cause cache wipes, and require data to be retrieved from main memory which, compared to L1, L2, and L3 cache, take an eternity.  It's entirely feasible that altering settings in the audio engine in windows could mitigate these things to some degree.  Or not.  I won't pretend to know, I haven't tried the product.
> 
> ...


 
  
 I'm also software engineer, writing Fidelizer with understanding of how computer and OS works. You may read about what Fidelizer does in details from here. I wrote it years ago so please forgive my crude writing. 
  
 http://www.fidelizer-audio.com/about-fidelizer/
  
 I think it's possible to log processes to monitor interrupts and resource scheduling. However, it's still questionable to interpret that kind of data for audible changes. It seems most people won't take anything outside RMAA standards as proof. But I'm satisfied now with data I gathered.
  
 Regards,
 Windows X


----------



## Harry Manback

The .Net framework exposes a lot of the instrumentation that windows collects.  I'm sure you can also get to in using c++ as well.  
  
 Just don't let the closed minded "Open Minded Scientists" here get you down.  I live by the idea that we don't know what we don't know, and that future discoveries can change our entire understanding of fundamental things.  It's arrogant to assume that you know all that can be known about almost any subject.  I'm not sure many of the regulars here fell the same way.


----------



## KeithEmo

You could do that - sort of..... except.....
  
 1)
  
 It's really hard to measure jitter directly - since we're talking about variations in a clock frequency on the order of single-digit nanoseconds or less. This is something that requires specialized equipment to measure, and absolutely cannot be measured with a simple oscilloscope or meter. The normal way of detecting jitter is to look for the distortion sidebands that result from jitter being present when you send a digital audio signal through a DAC that is sensitive to it. (In other words, it's easy to measure how jitter affects a particular DAC, but quite difficult to measure jitter directly. The good news there is that the same measurements work for any type of input.)
  
 2)
  
 Assuming that Fidelizer functionally does what it claims, and turns off several unnecessary processes running in Windows, then it almost certainly will reduce jitter - on some computers - to some degree. However, confirming that won't tell you whether the improvement it makes is audible or not. (At best, it would tell you if there was no difference - which is actually pretty unlikely.)
  
 The real, problem, however, is that the amount of improvement that Fidelizer makes will depend largely on the computer you try it with. It will probably make at least some difference on most computers, but how much difference will depend on the specific computer you try it with. And then, once you determine that it reduces the jitter on the computer's output, how much difference THAT will make, and whether it will be audible or not, will depend to a major extent on the DAC you try it with. Some DACs are very sensitive to jitter, while others are almost totally immune to it.... This means that your test is very unlikely to be a simple "yes it works or no it doesn't" and much more likely to be "does it work, and, if so, how well, with this or that particular DAC, when connected to this or that particular computer".
  
 However, in the simplest case, measuring it on a "typical" computer, with a DAC that lacks any sort or ASRC or other jitter reduction mechanism, connected via a Coax connection, and playing a few simple test files and looking at the spectrum of the audio output, should be able to give you an idea of whether it actually does ANYTHING or not.
  
 Quote:


joe bloggs said:


> So here's your cue @WindowsX--KeithEmo has pointed out that a PC will generate significant amounts of jitter on its S/PDIF coax or optical outputs, and these can be read directly (as opposed to USB audio)--why not directly measure jitter on these with Fidelizer on and off instead?


----------



## KeithEmo

The author is a programmer, and so looks at things from a programming perspective..... whereas I am more inclined to look at them from a hardware engineering perspective.
  
 There are only two "components" of data; the data itself and the timing with which it is delivered. Since we all seem to agree that the numbers themselves aren't being altered, the only remaining area which can be affected is the timing... and it has been a widely accepted fact for along time that PCs don't deliver very consistent clock timing. (The author looks at it as eliminating or adjusting processes so as to deliver the data on a more accurate time schedule; I tend to look at it as the time schedule being important, and improving its accuracy being likely to produce some sort of improvement, even though I may not be especially interested in the details of which processes are eliminated and which ones are adjusted.)
  
 The term jitter can be to apply to timing errors in general, or to specific types of timing errors... and I'm using it in the general collective sense of "any errors in data timing". Likewise, whatever term you choose to apply, it can be easily demonstrated that at least some DACs produce significant and audible errors in their analog audio response when presented with data that has timing errors. (This is well understood; for a given known timing error, and a known signal, you can calculate the precise amount and type of distortion that will result with a given type of DAC. And, for a given "theoretically perfect" DAC, you can calculate the amount of timing error it was subjected to based on an analysis of the distortion spectra.)
  
 The author of Fidelizer seems to be claiming simply that his program optimizes several areas of Windows performance in ways that seem to be consonant with better audio performance. That it improves audio quality by reducing timing variations and errors (which I would term as jitter), and also that it can reduce or eliminate some dropouts that result from certain "non-optimal processing situations" (my phrase - not his) - both of which seem like sensible claims for a program that optimizes timing and eliminates unnecessary processes. To me, the jitter aspect should be relatively easy to measure and confirm; I would assume that a reduction in dropouts could be confirmed by statistical analysis...
  
 Quote:


watchnerd said:


> Did Fidelizer actually claim to reduce jitter?
> 
> I don't recall seeing that.


----------



## castleofargh

harry manback said:


> The .Net framework exposes a lot of the instrumentation that windows collects.  I'm sure you can also get to in using c++ as well.
> 
> Just don't let the closed minded "Open Minded Scientists" here get you down.  I live by the idea that we don't know what we don't know, and that future discoveries can change our entire understanding of fundamental things.  It's arrogant to assume that you know all that can be known about almost any subject.  I'm not sure many of the regulars here fell the same way.


 






  
 most guys here are not closed minded, they're just skeptical and tend to simply reject things that aren't properly demonstrated.
 and within those guys, a few don't express it with the kindest posts. I don't feel like the most passionate posts will ever represent the overall vision of any community.


----------



## sonitus mirus

Why even bother participating in the HF Sound Science forum?  I'd just provide a link to the 6moons review and laugh all the way to the bank.  Big spending audiophiles don't need anything more to make up their minds.
  
 http://www.6moons.com/audioreviews2/fidelizer/4.html


> While music sounded more transparent, tonally correct and dimensional than not using Fidelizer at all, the Pro version was _significantly_ superior in every way, particularly in overall transparency and in its rendering of space and layering. 
  
 I was simply curious to understand more about what is supposedly making this "significantly superior" audio quality that reviewers and customers believe they are hearing.  I couldn't hear anything different.  I still don't understand what is possibly making this kind of improvement, if at all, or my definition of _significant_ is lacking.


----------



## WindowsX

sonitus mirus said:


> Why even bother participating in the HF Sound Science forum?  I'd just provide a link to the 6moons review and laugh all the way to the bank.  Big spending audiophiles don't need anything more to make up their minds.
> 
> http://www.6moons.com/audioreviews2/fidelizer/4.html
> 
> I was simply curious to understand more about what is supposedly making this "significantly superior" audio quality that reviewers and customers believe they are hearing.  I couldn't hear anything different.  I still don't understand what is possibly making this kind of improvement, if at all, or my definition of _significant_ is lacking.


 
  
 After losing words to express for my data, you resorted to quote some audiophile reviews just to spout this nonsense? How stupid...
  
 I'm grateful to see some opened mind people who know about stuff they're discussing about but lately there's too many of ungrateful people who keep degenerating the advancement of audio measurements. I hope to find some better place to discuss about audio science without prejudge some days.
  
 Regards,
 Windows X


----------



## sonitus mirus

windowsx said:


> After losing words to express for my data, you resorted to quote some audiophile reviews just to spout this nonsense? How stupid...
> 
> I'm grateful to see some opened mind people who know about stuff they're discussing about but lately there's too many of ungrateful people who keep degenerating the advancement of audio measurements. I hope to find some better place to discuss about audio science without prejudge some days.
> 
> ...


 
  
 I posted the link to Achimago's blog that had some real audio measurements that made sense to me, and I have been reading the comments in this thread looking for any information to support or refute the data from the blog.  Other than some discomfort from a few individuals in an audio asylum discussion with the frequencies used for the IMD test, I really haven't seen anything to make me discount the testing of this product.  
  
 Am I "degenerating" (denigrating maybe?) the advancement of audio measurements?  I don't understand what you mean.
  
  I apologize to you for my preconceptions, but I see your product in the same way I see those banner ads in websites that claim their software can make your PC run faster.


----------



## WindowsX

sonitus mirus said:


> I posted the link to Achimago's blog that had some real audio measurements that made sense to me, and I have been reading the comments in this thread looking for any information to support or refute the data from the blog.  Other than some discomfort from a few individuals in an audio asylum discussion with the frequencies used for the IMD test, I really haven't seen anything to make me discount the testing of this product.
> 
> Am I "degenerating" (denigrating maybe?) the advancement of audio measurements?  I don't understand what you mean.
> 
> I apologize to you for my preconceptions, but I see your product in the same way I see those banner ads in websites that claim their software can make your PC run faster.


 
  
 I'm the first one who posted Archimago's link in first page. To begin with, archimago's measurements are for measuring AD/DA performance with analog metrics. That kind of method can't measure anything directly in digital domain.
  
 Your act to quote outside messages from reviewing website just to attack products is people are degenerating. It's unproductive and uncivilized. I never referenced reviewing website and tried to talk about measurements, method and data here.
  
 Since only basic audio measurements can make sense to you, I suggest you to take some pro audio course or some digital audio classes. Or you can just try Fidelizer and see for yourself if it works for you or not.
  
 Regards,
 Windows X


----------



## Guidostrunk

Who the hell has to prove anything to anybody? People need to get a life ***! DON'T BUY THE PRODUCT IF YOU THINK IT'S SNAKE OIL. DON'T TRY THE FREE VERSION IF YOU THINK IT'S SNAKE OIL. 
I mean seriously. What would waste hours upon hours of their day trolling a headphone forum like a twitter atheist. 
I've come to the conclusion that the same lame ass bunch, in every thread, ridiculing what people say they hear, demanding PROOF every waking moment, have absolutely no life whatsoever. You people wouldn't last an hour on 4chan, trolling like you do. You'd get rekt!
 ( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°)
This thread is the epitome of schiit posting. What an absolute waste. Do any of you even enjoy listening to music? Or is it all about busting someones balls? SMFH!


milosingh said:


> It is your job to get your believers to measure and prove an audible difference.
> 
> And if you yourself feel there'll be no audible difference in the analogue output, then I don't see why you claim what you do.


----------



## sonitus mirus

windowsx said:


> I'm the first one who posted Archimago's link in first page. To begin with, archimago's measurements are for measuring AD/DA performance with analog metrics. That kind of method can't measure anything directly in digital domain.
> 
> Your act to quote outside messages from reviewing website just to attack products is people are degenerating. It's unproductive and uncivilized. I never referenced reviewing website and tried to talk about measurements, method and data here.
> 
> ...


 
  
  
 I did try your product, it did not seem to make any difference.  That is why I was interested in this thread.  
  
 It is frustrating that nothing has been provided that would measurably show that an audible difference is being made, yet the comments from some seem to suggest a flabbergasted reaction that differences have not been made obvious from digital measurements with Audio DiffMaker.  Have we reached the professional audio level yet?  I honestly think we are still teetering around common sense, or possibly there is a significant breakdown in the language barrier, though, I'm still not sure if my grasp of the word "significant" is accurate.


----------



## limpidglitch

guidostrunk said:


> Who the hell has to prove anything to anybody? People need to get a life ***! DON'T BUY THE PRODUCT IF YOU THINK IT'S SNAKE OIL. DON'T TRY THE FREE VERSION IF YOU THINK IT'S SNAKE OIL.
> I mean seriously. What would waste hours upon hours of their day trolling a headphone forum like a twitter atheist.
> I've come to the conclusion that the same lame ass bunch, in every thread, ridiculing what people say they hear, demanding PROOF every waking moment, have absolutely no life whatsoever. You people wouldn't last an hour on 4chan, trolling like you do. You'd get rekt!
> ( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°)
> This thread is the epitome of schiit posting. What an absolute waste. Do any of you even enjoy listening to music? Or is it all about busting someones balls? SMFH!


 
  
 Easy there, kiddo, no need to cause a scene.
  
 This thread started as a quest to find out if and how Fidelizer works, as the website is woefully scant on anything concrete. So far we have learned that it does not affect the internal processing of audio in an appreciable manner, making us wonder if the effect (if any) takes place at the interface.

 Aren't you also just a tiny bit curious?


----------



## bfreedma

guidostrunk said:


> Who the hell has to prove anything to anybody? People need to get a life ***! DON'T BUY THE PRODUCT IF YOU THINK IT'S SNAKE OIL. DON'T TRY THE FREE VERSION IF YOU THINK IT'S SNAKE OIL.
> I mean seriously. What would waste hours upon hours of their day trolling a headphone forum like a twitter atheist.
> I've come to the conclusion that the same lame ass bunch, in every thread, ridiculing what people say they hear, demanding PROOF every waking moment, have absolutely no life whatsoever. You people wouldn't last an hour on 4chan, trolling like you do. You'd get rekt!
> ( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°)
> ...




No one is asking WindowsX for proof on the Fildelizer thread in the Computer Audio section of HF. Threads in Sound Science follow a different protocol - here, one is expected to support claims made with objective data acquired through measurements or controlled testing.

I'm sorry that my and others unwillingness to accept exceptional claims at face value appears to be trolling to you, as it clearly isn't. If the expectation that one needs to actually be able to vet statements made bothers you that much, then this forum section isn't for you. Particularly if your only contribution is going to be in the form of insults. The rest of HF is filled with wonderful tales of fuses, cables, and software that defy logic and accepted knowledge of sound science and audibility. That should be more than enough content to keep you entertained without having to deal with the "horrors" of this sub forum.


----------



## Guidostrunk

I let my ears make my decisions bro. But unfortunately, the herd comes out questioning mine and everyone elses ears. I actually bought the product, and am content with what I'm hearing. I don't have to prove nothing to anyone. And people who spend all day demanding proof to satisfy their egos , is wasteful to the forum in general. 
What are they going to do? Change the audio world on a headphone forum, calling everything snake oil , because there's no audible proof to satisfy their thurst? 
Who cares if it's placebo , nocebo, or whatever you want to call it. I mean seriously. That's the problem with everything. People can't just mind their own damn business, and worry about what they're doing,hearing or whatever the hell they do. 

All I'm saying is, why? What's the purpose? Is your life that boring that you have to start threads to bait people in a senseless "debate" over a damn computer program that you're never going to sample or buy. It's hilarious. 

It's threads like these , and the people who start them , that ruin forums. 
Am I the only one who joined this place because of the love of MUSIC? LOL. 

Read this thread from the beginning. And seriously tell me that there's a worth to it. It's a complete waste. 


limpidglitch said:


> Easy there, kiddo, no need to cause a scene.
> 
> This thread started as a quest to find out if and how Fidelizer works, as the website is woefully scant on anything concrete. So far we have learned that it does not affect the internal processing of audio in an appreciable manner, making us wonder if the effect (if any) takes place at the interface.
> 
> ...


----------



## Guidostrunk

My point is, why even bother? Is it that important to your life? Seriously, it's a $70 pc program. Why does anyone owe you or anybody else an explanation?
If I claim that I hear something. I don't have to justify anything to anyone. It's an individual hobby. People have their own opinions on everything in it.
 It goes to schiit , when people start telling someone else that they're wrong. Or they're suffering from some possible mental issue. Then demanding some type of evidence. Then it becomes personal. To me , wasting so much time on something that accomplishes absolutely nothing. Is just plain dumb.


bfreedma said:


> No one is asking WindowsX for proof on the Fildelizer thread in the Computer Audio section of HF. Threads in Sound Science follow a different protocol - here, one is expected to support claims made with objective data acquired through measurements or controlled testing.
> 
> I'm sorry that my and others unwillingness to accept exceptional claims at face value appears to be trolling to you, as it clearly isn't. If the expectation that one needs to actually be able to vet statements made bothers you that much, then this forum section isn't for you. Particularly if your only contribution is going to be in the form of insults. The rest of HF is filled with wonderful tales of fuses, cables, and software that defy logic and accepted knowledge of sound science and audibility. That should be more than enough content to keep you entertained without having to deal with the "horrors" of this sub forum.





bfreedma said:


> No one is asking WindowsX for proof on the Fildelizer thread in the Computer Audio section of HF. Threads in Sound Science follow a different protocol - here, one is expected to support claims made with objective data acquired through measurements or controlled testing.
> 
> I'm sorry that my and others unwillingness to accept exceptional claims at face value appears to be trolling to you, as it clearly isn't. If the expectation that one needs to actually be able to vet statements made bothers you that much, then this forum section isn't for you. Particularly if your only contribution is going to be in the form of insults. The rest of HF is filled with wonderful tales of fuses, cables, and software that defy logic and accepted knowledge of sound science and audibility. That should be more than enough content to keep you entertained without having to deal with the "horrors" of this sub forum.


----------



## sonitus mirus

guidostrunk said:


> I let my ears make my decisions bro. But unfortunately, the herd comes out questioning mine and everyone elses ears. I actually bought the product, and am content with what I'm hearing. I don't have to prove nothing to anyone. And people who spend all day demanding proof to satisfy their egos , is wasteful to the forum in general.
> What are they going to do? Change the audio world on a headphone forum, calling everything snake oil , because there's no audible proof to satisfy their thurst?
> Who cares if it's placebo , nocebo, or whatever you want to call it. I mean seriously. That's the problem with everything. People can't just mind their own damn business, and worry about what they're doing,hearing or whatever the hell they do.
> 
> ...


 
  
 Are you actually using your ears to make any decisions?  If you were honest with yourself, you might find that your opinions would be the same regardless if you actually heard anything at all.  Nobody should be questioning your hearing, but your brain could be easily fooled if you don't attempt to use you ears without any other obvious biases introduced into the equation.


----------



## Guidostrunk

*** , who cares? Are you trying to save me from my brain now? I thought this was "Sound Science"? Or did it change to therapy? Good god this is hilarious. What does it matter if someone is possibly being fooled by their brain? They're not spending your money on their hobby. LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL 


sonitus mirus said:


> Are you actually using your ears to make any decisions?  If you were honest with yourself, you might find that your opinions would be the same regardless if you actually heard anything at all.  Nobody should be questioning your hearing, but your brain could be easily fooled if you don't attempt to use you ears without any other obvious biases introduced into the equation.


----------



## sonitus mirus

guidostrunk said:


> *** , who cares? Are you trying to save me from my brain now? I thought this was "Sound Science"? Or did it change to therapy? Good god this is hilarious. What does it matter if someone is possibly being fooled by their brain? They're not spending your money on their hobby. LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL


 
  
 I'm simply participating in the thread titled "Fidelizer Pro - Real or Snake Oil?".  It only matters to anyone that cares for whatever reason.  Some people want to know if spending money on a product is worthwhile.  I enjoy reading the forums and occasionally providing my opinions.  Why do you seem to care so much?


----------



## Guidostrunk

Have you tried the free version by chance? You did say that you wanted to know if a product is worthwhile. 
So I say. Make your own conclusions. Give it a try. And report back. Lol.




sonitus mirus said:


> I'm simply participating in the thread titled "Fidelizer Pro - Real or Snake Oil?".  It only matters to anyone that cares for whatever reason.  Some people want to know if spending money on a product is worthwhile.  I enjoy reading the forums and occasionally providing my opinions.  Why do you seem to care so much?


----------



## headfry

+1
 the title of this thread is an invite for logical based arguments.
  
 - just like the "bits are bits" arguers who claim that all 
 reasonably constructed and engineered digital cables sound the same -
 (obviously many e.g. USB cables can sound VERY different in a given 
 good quality system, so "bits are bits" is false, as it doesn't jibe with experience),
 same here, and even a basic search online will
 reveal well respected audio reviewers praising Fidelizer products, esp.Pro
 but even the free version - 6 moons and AudioStream are both very esteemed review sites IMHO:
  
  
 http://www.fidelizer-audio.com/reviews-feedback/


----------



## Joe Bloggs

headfry said:


> +1
> 
> the title of this thread is an invite for logical based arguments.
> 
> ...




In many cases the stance of established science is that "your experience is wrong". Of course that's never going to fly with the majority of visitors to this site, so the regulars in this subforum, they are always fighting a losing a losing battle... ¯\_(ツ)_/¯


----------



## bfreedma

headfry said:


> +1
> the title of this thread is an invite for logical based arguments.
> 
> - just like the "bits are bits" arguers who claim that all
> ...




"Respected" reviews by 6loons and USB cables that sound different in the same post in this section of Head-Fi? Seriously?

Have you ever done an ABX with these "very different sounding" USB cables to prove you can tell the difference? If you did, you would likely find a very different result than your sighted subjective observation.


----------



## watchnerd

guidostrunk said:


> My point is, why even bother? Is it that important to your life? Seriously, it's a $70 pc program. Why does anyone owe you or anybody else an explanation?
> If I claim that I hear something. I don't have to justify anything to anyone. It's an individual hobby. People have their own opinions on everything in it.
> It goes to schiit , when people start telling someone else that they're wrong. Or they're suffering from some possible mental issue. Then demanding some type of evidence. Then it becomes personal. To me , wasting so much time on something that accomplishes absolutely nothing. Is just plain dumb.


 
  
 Okay...but if that's how you feel, why are you wasting your time and neurons in the Sound Science forum?


----------



## gregorio

guidostrunk said:


> Who the hell has to prove anything to anybody?


 
  
 No one has to prove anything to anyone. You're free to just accept the earth is flat, there is no climate change, mercury is an effective medical cure and there is no snake oil in the audio world.
  


guidostrunk said:


> I let my ears make my decisions bro.


 
  
 Well that's an obvious lie! Your (or anyone else's) ears are incapable of making decisions. Decisions are made by your brain, not your ears and your brain is very easily fooled. In fact, as you don't seem to need/want proof of anything, your brain is probably more easily fooled than most!
  


guidostrunk said:


> If I claim that I hear something. I don't have to justify anything to anyone. It's an individual hobby. People have their own opinions on everything in it.


 
  
 Correct, you don't have to justify anything to anyone, unless of course you are making public statements in order to influence other individuals' hobby, then you do!
  
 As you say, this is an individual's hobby. As an individual, I want to improve my listening experience by targeting my time and funds towards products which will actually affect the sound waves entering my ears, rather than on products which have no affect on sound waves but instead rely solely on affecting my biases to hopefully create some imagined improvement. I am not alone in how I approach my hobby, which is largely why this sub-forum exists. If you don't like this approach, no one is inviting you to stay, go and peddle your biased riddled opinions elsewhere. What you can't do though, is be a fascist about it! You CANNOT say: "I'm an individual and have the right to make decisions based largely on my personal subjective biases" and then in the same breath effectively say: "I don't respect your right as an individual to make decisions based on something other than just subjective biases". Regardless of whether that's pretty extreme fascism or not, deliberately coming to a sub-forum largely dedicated to avoiding your method of making decisions and still trying to peddle it, smacks of trolling!
  
 G


----------



## WindowsX

All I see here is people demanding for audible different in basic analog metrics using RMAA. If only they can understand better about DiffMaker, they'll realize how much inaudible range of correlation depth above 100 dB can affect analog signal that can't go above 100 dB after quantization.
  
 Regards,
 Windows X


----------



## limpidglitch

windowsx said:


> All I see here is people demanding for audible different in basic analog metrics using RMAA. If only they can understand better about DiffMaker, they'll realize how much inaudible range of correlation depth above 100 dB can affect analog signal that can't go above 100 dB after quantization.
> 
> Regards,
> Windows X


 
  
 Not necessarily analog, capturing an SPDIF stream would also be interesting.


----------



## headfry

while playing devil's advocate - contrarian/sceptic - role has its value, overplaying that hand
 can be destructive. All the reviews on this software that I've found are very positive. Unless
 you'd like to argue that the audio review industry is full of easily deceived types, liars or are
 all paid off - a ludicrous assertion, as this requires a vast conspiracy that doesn't exist...
 persistent attacks only serve to cast negative aspersions on the product, designer and company for no justifiable reason.
  
 Next, the crowd asserting that AQ Jitterbug is snake oil, and that no USB cable
 can possibly be worth buying over a Belkin Gold will post.


----------



## limpidglitch

> Originally Posted by *headfry* /img/forum/go_quote.gif
> 
> Unless you'd like to argue that the audio review industry is full of easily deceived types, liars or are
> all paid off - a ludicrous assertion, as this requires a vast conspiracy that doesn't exist...
> persistent attacks only serve to cast negative aspersions on the product, designer and company for no justifiable reason.


 
  
 It requires no conspiracy theory.
 All it require is one of two simple things:
  
 1. People wanting money, fame, credit, recognition, likes etc.
 2. People having cognitive biases
  
 Do you diisagree that either of those have an effect?


----------



## WindowsX

limpidglitch said:


> Not necessarily analog, capturing an SPDIF stream would also be interesting.


 
  
 What is there to measure except identical result and some 'inaudible' measurements that will later be rejected by bits are bits believer? Raising from 12x-13x to 13x-14x for correlation depth is a great to to preserve digital qualities where it's supposed to be the same as original file.
  


headfry said:


> while playing devil's advocate - contrarian/sceptic - role has its value, overplaying that hand
> can be destructive. All the reviews on this software that I've found are very positive. Unless
> you'd like to argue that the audio review industry is full of easily deceived types, liars or are
> all paid off - a ludicrous assertion, as this requires a vast conspiracy that doesn't exist...
> ...


 
  
 Well said. While I can appreciate some people playing villain to find the truth from different angles. However, lately I saw more posts filled with malice and pure destructive attempts to crush people who think differently.
  


limpidglitch said:


> It requires no conspiracy theory.
> All it requires are two simple things:
> 
> 1. People want money, fame, credit, recognition, likes etc.
> ...


 
  
 If you think rationally, Fidelizer was made by no name's individual from Thailand without marketing scheme. Placing such things on to indie developer like me is nothing but an honor. 
  
 Regards,
 Windows X


----------



## limpidglitch

windowsx said:


> What is there to measure except identical result and some 'inaudible' measurements that will later be rejected by bits are bits believer?


 
  
 I don't know. Maybe something, maybe nothing.
  


windowsx said:


> If you think rationally, Fidelizer was made by no name's individual from Thailand without marketing scheme. Placing such things on to indie developer like me is nothing but an honor.


 
  
 You are here, aren't you, getting exposure?


----------



## bfreedma

headfry said:


> while playing devil's advocate - contrarian/sceptic - role has its value, overplaying that hand
> can be destructive. All the reviews on this software that I've found are very positive. Unless
> you'd like to argue that the audio review industry is full of easily deceived types, liars or are
> all paid off - a ludicrous assertion, as this requires a vast conspiracy that doesn't exist...
> ...




I don't know enough about the Jitterbug to reach a specific conclusion, but with jitter rarely being audible, it does seem to be a solution in search of a problem.

No USB cable is worth buying over a Belkin Gold (or any other adequately built USB cable) in terms of performance. If you have evidence that another USB cable makes a positive audible difference, please post it.


----------



## headfry

condeming a product without trying it speaks volumes.


----------



## limpidglitch

headfry said:


> condeming a product without trying it speaks volumes.


 
  
 What is your view on horoscopes, should they also be tried before casting a judgement?


----------



## gregorio

> Originally Posted by *headfry* /img/forum/go_quote.gif
> 
> All the reviews on this software that I've found are very positive.


 
  
 Then you haven't looked very hard or even read this thread then. That speaks volumes!
  


> Originally Posted by *headfry* /img/forum/go_quote.gif
> 
> Unless you'd like to argue that the audio review industry is full of easily deceived types, liars or are
> all paid off - a ludicrous assertion.


 
  
 A "ludicrous assertion" which unfortunately for your argument, has been proven numerous times! That you think it's "ludicrous" when in fact it's been proven, speaks enormous volumes!!
  


> Originally Posted by *headfry* /img/forum/go_quote.gif
> 
> ...that no USB cable can possibly be worth buying over a Belkin Gold will post.


 
  
 You're joking right? What, is this your day for "ludicrous assertions"?
  
 G


----------



## WindowsX

i tried to make as error-free as possible for pure software environment yet I got told it's inaudible for over 100dB corr depth. OK. Let's do it again with default params where rounding error and stuff takes place on bit-perfect. I tried to run like Archimago measured but I don't have enough spare time for 15 runs each so I'll do 3x3 for now as basic measurements.
  
 Aligned master


> parameters: -713.7msec, 0.000dB (L),  0.000dB (R)..Corr Depth: 114.5 dB (L), 112.8 dB (R)
> parameters: -1.427sec, 0.000dB (L),  0.000dB (R)..Corr Depth: 92.2 dB (L), 91.5 dB (R)
> parameters: -2.141sec, 0.000dB (L),  0.000dB (R)..Corr Depth: 118.3 dB (L), 93.7 dB (R)


 
 Average: 0.000dB (0.000-0.000)..Corr Depth: 103.8 dB (91.50-118.3)
 Median: 0.000dB..Corr Depth: 93.7 dB
  
 Before Fidelizer


> parameters: -1.596sec, 0.001dB (L),  0.002dB (R)..Corr Depth: 79.2 dB (L), 72.2 dB (R)
> parameters: -1.32sec, 0.003dB (L),  0.004dB (R)..Corr Depth: 69.4 dB (L), 67.7 dB (R)
> parameters: -1.012sec, 0.003dB (L),  0.003dB (R)..Corr Depth: 69.1 dB (L), 69.6 dB (R)


 
 Average: 0.003dB (0.001-0.004)..Corr Depth: 71.2 dB (67.7-79.2)
 Median: 0.003dB..Corr Depth: 69.4 dB
  
 After Fidelizer


> parameters: -1.852sec, 0.002dB (L),  0.003dB (R)..Corr Depth: 73.8 dB (L), 69.5 dB (R)
> parameters: -953msec, 0.001dB (L),  0.003dB (R)..Corr Depth: 80.8 dB (L), 70.5 dB (R)
> parameters: -1.055sec, 0.001dB (L),  0.002dB (R)..Corr Depth: 79.9 dB (L), 73.0 dB (R)


 
 Average: 0.002dB (0.001-0.003)..Corr Depth: 74.6 dB (69.5-79.9)
 Median: 0.002dB..Corr Depth: 73.0 dB
  
 Except master file, they're all under 100dB so it should be audible. It would make a nice plot in DMAC graph, don't you think?
  
 By the way, this is a pure software experiment having no real interaction with hardware. Why do we get over 3db difference on software streaming the same file between recordings with/without Fidelizer?
  
 Regards,
 Windows X


----------



## bfreedma

headfry said:


> condeming a product without trying it speaks volumes.




I have a small necklace that enables a human to fly without any other mechanical assistance. It only works if you jump off an object at least 50 feet above ground level. I assume you would be willing to try it before condemning it....

Ludicrous, of course, but just pointing out the hypocrisy of your post.


----------



## limpidglitch

windowsx said:


> Before Fidelizer
> 
> 
> > parameters: -1.596sec, 0.001dB (L),  0.002dB (R)..Corr Depth: 79.2 dB (L), 72.2 dB (R)
> ...


 
  
 Running a quick one-sided t-test on that gives a p-value of 0.12. Not terrible, but not conclusive either. Given the low sample size it shouldn't be given too much weight.


----------



## watchnerd

headfry said:


> condeming a product without trying it speaks volumes.


 
  
 I have some X-ray glasses you should try n' buy.


----------



## watchnerd

headfry said:


> full of easily deceived types, liars or are
> all paid off - a ludicrous assertion


 
  
 Actually, it's not a ludicrous assertion and has turned out to be true multiple times.  The audio industry is full of charlatans and the press has been duped multiple times:
  
 Tice Audio Clock scandal: http://www.stereophile.com/artdudleylistening/listening_85/#PU31Ft58iflXJGrJ.97
  
 CD Stoplight / Green pen tweak: http://www.snopes.com/music/media/marker.asp
  
 Peter Belt Quantum Tweezers: http://www.pwbelectronics.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2015/05/q_clip.jpg
  
 Morphic Message Labels: http://www.machinadynamica.com/
  
 ...and there are many more.


----------



## nick_charles

headfry said:


> you'd like to argue that the audio review industry is full of easily deceived types


 
  
 The review pages of Stereophile have several reviews of conventional audio items (CDP/DAC/Amp...) where the listening reviewers heap praise on the item, since it is Stereophile some of these items are extremely expensive for mere mortals. Then John Atkinson takes the item and measures it and discovers that it is *seriously* flawed judged by one or more *important* measures. Then JA expresses his respect for the listening reviewer and a sense of puzzlement that they were so impressed by an item which is pretty bad and which he sometimes describes as "broken". I'm only singling out SP as they have the honesty to do objective measurements. With other magazines one has no idea how many reviewers are swayed by shiny expensive boxes while what is under the hood is naff
  
 Do you want chapter and verse I can easily find some, but a cursory review of SP will uncover enough examples


----------



## gregorio

guidostrunk said:


> Me personally, I usually test drive(free) a vehicle before I make any judgements, if it's for me or not.


 
  
 Me personally, I usually want to have at least a rudimentary understanding of how a vehicle works and have an experienced, qualified test pilot/driver exhaustively test a vehicle before I'll even consider getting in a newly developed aircraft/car, let alone driving/flying it myself.
  


guidostrunk said:


> You do know that there's a FREE(costs you NOTHING) version, to draw your own conclusions/tests right?


 
  
 Free is not the issue. The developer describes his software as altering the priority of many of my PC's processes, etc. My home PC contains business information and is required to fulfil various important tasks rather than just be a dedicated music server. Before I install any software which is likely to affect my PC's security and it's ability to fulfil it's other roles, I want to be as sure as I can be that: A. The software actually works. B. The developer actually has a decent idea what of he's doing and won't disable/de-prioritise processes which for my usage I consider critical and C. I need to be able to trust that the developer is a capable enough software engineer that any changes his software makes to my system will be fully undone, should I need/want to un-install his program.
  
 So far the developer has failed to convince me of any of these requirements and indeed all the evidence presented strongly indicates that it does not even fulfil point A, rendering points B and C moot anyway.
  
 You might feel perfectly happy installing any software from any developer on the sole basis that it's free. No one is stopping you. Likewise, you are not going to stop me from requiring more information before installing anything, especially in a sub-forum specifically dedicated to requiring more information than just marketing BS! Do you know what sub-forum you're posting in or are you just a troll or shill?
  
 G


----------



## jdpark

Yet, once A is established, I would like to have better assurances about B and C as mentioned above. If A cannot be established with more proof I'm willing to uninstall Fidelizer Pro, as well as the free version, since I am certain from experience that they cause harm to my ability to use my computer. That said, if A can be proven with certainty, it is worth considering that a new laptop with nothing on it but music files, Foobar and Fidelizer Pro would be a better investment than a dedicated CD Transport. 
  
 After all, if one looks into the claims of a company like C.E.C. with many positive reviews over the years and seemingly scientific claims, CD transports make a difference, and their top of the line transports cost around $15,000 or so. Whether there is a measurable difference between their top of the line and their bottom of the line ($1,500) transport is something I doubt. Nevertheless, it would be easier to test the two in blind tests since there are fewer mitigating factors involved, as opposed to computers, which are not discrete products, but a bundle of hardware and software components. http://www.cec-international.com/PAGES/s06.html 
  
 Still, when we are talking about a $100-200 piece of software that slows down your computer, versus a $1500 CD transport that requires everything to be on a physical CD but doesn't slow down your computer, designing tests that allow for real comparisons beyond the anecdotal review would be really worth it for me, because the cost of a new basic laptop with the latest Windows OS and a couple of audio software components is much less than what can be considered a "high-end" CD transport.


----------



## WindowsX

Fidelizer (Free) has proven itself to contribute positive effects with recorded digital audio stream. It's just 'bits are bits' people don't accept the result as being inaudible or not understandable. Also, you'll get the inaudible measurements from $1500 comparing to $15k CD Transport.
  
 The slowness in higher optimization levels is intentional and not recommended by default. You should raise optimization level only for dedicated audio machine. If you also work and do your business tasks, you should stick with default Workstation optimization level just like me. I'm using Workstation optimization level and has no trouble with sending emails/compiling software, running test on virtual machine, playing games at the same time.
  
 However, I leave Extremist optimization level on dedicated audio machine doing nothing but playing audio in my stereo system. And I can assure you that there's no damage report with Fidelizer from over 1000 clients so far. If anything, it's user error and all is reversible without trouble.
  
 Regards,
 Windows X


----------



## cjl

windowsx said:


> Fidelizer (Free) has proven itself to contribute positive effects with recorded digital audio stream. It's just 'bits are bits' people don't accept the result as being inaudible or not understandable. Also, you'll get the inaudible measurements from $1500 comparing to $15k CD Transport.


 
 Quite frankly, no it hasn't. If anything, I'd say all the evidence presented so far indicates that it has no significant effect. For what it's worth, I'd also expect a (non-broken) $1500 CD transport to sound identical to a $15k transport, and I'd expect both to sound identical to a $50 CD player as well. Redbook digital audio simply isn't that difficult to get right.


----------



## WindowsX

cjl said:


> Quite frankly, no it hasn't. If anything, I'd say all the evidence presented so far indicates that it has no significant effect. For what it's worth, I'd also expect a (non-broken) $1500 CD transport to sound identical to a $15k transport, and I'd expect both to sound identical to a $50 CD player as well. Redbook digital audio simply isn't that difficult to get right.


 
  
 It's like the world is flat because the horizon is horizontal. Your photograph of spherical earth is shopped from conspiracy. If you don't shop it, it must be flat. I also expect moon to be flat circle like a pizza too.
  
 Seriously, you don't have any proof to show that all digital transport are all the same in the market. So, rejected. At least I have data to show positive contributions. You don't.
  
 Regards,
 Windows X


----------



## bfreedma

windowsx said:


> cjl said:
> 
> 
> > Quite frankly, no it hasn't. If anything, I'd say all the evidence presented so far indicates that it has no significant effect. For what it's worth, I'd also expect a (non-broken) $1500 CD transport to sound identical to a $15k transport, and I'd expect both to sound identical to a $50 CD player as well. Redbook digital audio simply isn't that difficult to get right.
> ...




Your data doesn't show anything that would be audible, even if the differences aren't caused by rounding errors.

As for CD transports, many have been measured - can you point to one where the measurements indicate that a more expensive transport is producing somethings audibly different within the range of human hearing? I should clarify that the differences should be improvements. An example was provided earlier of a high end transport that was far, far worse than the typical commodity grade player.


----------



## WindowsX

bfreedma said:


> Your data doesn't show anything that would be audible, even if the differences aren't caused by rounding errors.
> 
> As for CD transports, many have been measured - can you point to one where the measurements indicate that a more expensive transport is producing somethings audibly different within the range of human hearing? I should clarify that the differences should be improvements. An example was provided earlier of a high end transport that was far, far worse than the typical commodity grade player.


 
  
 Again with audible. I'm getting sick with demand for audible data in analog metrics standards. Do you even know what you're asking for? Audible data? Don't kid me. Give me metrics and measurements that follow digital domain standards, please.
  
 And there's also many measurements that proved the improvements of digital domain before. I can point out one recent example for Sony's Premium Sound Micro SD card that reduce noise level in data transfer to a degree. But they didn't post audible data as you requested so maybe it's not for you.
  
 Regards,
 Windows X


----------



## bfreedma

windowsx said:


> Again with audible. I'm getting sick with demand for audible data in analog metrics standards. Do you even know what you're asking for? Audible data? Don't kid me. Give me metrics and measurements that follow digital domain standards, please.
> 
> And there's also many measurements that proved the improvements of digital domain before. I can point out one recent example for Sony's Premium Sound Micro SD card that reduce noise level in data transfer to a degree. But they didn't post audible data as you requested so maybe it's not for you.
> 
> ...


 
  
 Either you don't understand how the term "audible" is being used in this context or you're stating that Fidelizer doesn't make any changes a human could hear.  And yes, I know exactly what I'm asking for.  It's not as if other producers of software haven't been able to generate the measurements.
  
 You've repeatedly failed to show any evidence that Fidelizer is making improvements in the output stream that any human on the planet would be able to hear.  Ironically, last week you were asking how to take digital measurements - this week you're an "expert" and refuse to actually look at measurements that might support your case (or not).  Your referencing the both irrelevant and inaudible changes Sony touted only highlights your, um, confusion over this topic.
  
 Question for you - since you want to rely on digital measurements only now, how are you assessing the changes your software updates make to a listener and whether they improve or degrade the audio that listener actually hears?


----------



## WindowsX

bfreedma said:


> Either you don't understand how the term "audible" is being used in this context or you're stating that Fidelizer doesn't make any changes a human could hear.  And yes, I know exactly what I'm asking for.  It's not as if other producers of software haven't been able to generate the measurements.
> 
> You've repeatedly failed to show any evidence that Fidelizer is making improvements in the output stream that any human on the planet would be able to hear.  Ironically, last week you were asking how to take digital measurements - this week you're an "expert" and refuse to actually look at measurements that might support your case (or not).  Your referencing the both irrelevant and inaudible changes Sony touted only highlights your, um, confusion over this topic.
> 
> Question for you - since you want to rely on digital measurements only now, how are you assessing the changes your software updates make to a listener and whether they improve or degrade the audio that listener actually hears?


 
  
 Only audible measurement in digital domain we all know here is jitter and I don't have tools to do that right now. I already told you. I'm not gonna borrow or buy a new audio interfance just to test this out for you.
  
 So, I'm doing what I can here and you don't seem to get it. You keep asking for the impossible. Audible improvements beyond inaudible jitter range? Let me tell you this, jitter from $500 devices can be measured lower than $5k devices and yet some devices can do works much better at higher measured jitter. If it's not jitter, tell me what else to look at it.
  
 Your notion of audible range is heavy flawed from the beginning. It's common practice from decades ago and you have to realize there's much more beyond that. People keep turning to vinyl for quality because of degrading digital notion like this. At least, I'm happy to know that Fidelizer can save some from users' feedback telling me how glad they found Fidelizer before dropping out digital audio.
  
 Regards,
 Windows X


----------



## nick_charles

windowsx said:


> Only audible measurement in digital domain we all know here is jitter and I don't have tools to do that right now. I already told you. I'm not gonna borrow or buy a new audio interfance just to test this out for you.
> 
> So, I'm doing what I can here and you don't seem to get it. You keep asking for the impossible. Audible improvements beyond inaudible jitter range? Let me tell you this, jitter from $500 devices can be measured lower than $5k devices and yet some devices can do works much better at higher measured jitter. If it's not jitter, tell me what else to look at it.
> 
> ...


 
  
 You are still kinda missing a critical point, but since this thread has gone backwards and forwards umpteen times that is understandable, I have lost track. Whatever your product does in the digital domain and let's assume it does make measurable differences for the better. So far so good, but when the analog output is produced  will the analog output with your product in circuit be audibly different from the analog output sans product in circuit as it were. If the changes your product makes in its domain are rendered moot by reclocking or buffering or pixies with bleeding magic wands or simply that we do not have the capability to hear them then it sadly has no pragmatic value sadly.
  
 I do however take issue with your "degrading digital" notion. Are you seriously suggesting that jitter can in normal conditions be so egregious that it converts people back to vinyl where wow and flutter problems orders of magnitude worse than the scotch mist of Jitter are commonplace ?
  
 There is literally not one single piece of peer-reviewed published credible empirical research (stretching back to the 1970s) that suggests that any modern (non-HDMI) digital component that is not basically broken can produce reliably audible jitter - if you have access to any such non-anecdotal evidence I'd love to read it, seriously..


----------



## WindowsX

nick_charles said:


> You are still kinda missing a critical point, but since this thread has gone backwards and forwards umpteen times that is understandable, I have lost track. Whatever your product does in the digital domain and let's assume it does make measurable differences for the better. So far so good, but when the analog output is produced  will the analog output with your product in circuit be audibly different from the analog output sans product in circuit as it were. If the changes your product makes in its domain are rendered moot by reclocking or buffering or pixies with bleeding magic wands or simply that we do not have the capability to hear them then it sadly has no pragmatic value sadly.
> 
> I do however take issue with your "degrading digital" notion. Are you seriously suggesting that jitter can in normal conditions be so egregious that it converts people back to vinyl where wow and flutter problems orders of magnitude worse than the scotch mist of Jitter are commonplace ?
> 
> There is literally not one single piece of peer-reviewed published credible empirical research (stretching back to the 1970s) that suggests that any modern (non-HDMI) digital component that is not basically broken can produce reliably audible jitter - if you have access to any such non-anecdotal evidence I'd love to read it, seriously..


 
  
 I'm just demonstrating how ignorant people can be with jitter. Seriously, it's not like everything on digital audio is about reducing measured (random)jitter. There's a lot of jitter variations and effects outside getting lower measured (random)jitter.
  
 As for analog domain, I'll say for one last time, I don't have tools to perform right now nor I'll borrow or buy expensive audio gears just to test this out. I already showed promising data from digital domain so if you want to disprove me in analog domain, make better experiement from qualified gears and methods.
  
*The main discovery of this experiment is bit-perfect doesn't transport perfect digital signal. Since digital is proven to be imperfect and Fidelizer helps it, it's better than not using it, right?*
  
 Regards,
 Windows X


----------



## nick_charles

windowsx said:


> If you want to properly measure effects on analog signal, you need very good audio interface with D/A conversion for that. I recommend Lynx Hilo for starters. It should be one of promising product for $3k price range that might show audible result. If possible, I'd recommend going for Prismsound Orpheus for better products. There's still $20k and beyond audio interface but I don't think it's necessary to go that far.
> 
> Regards,
> Windows X


 
  
  
 That depends on the magnitude of the changes you are examining.
  
 I've captured the differences between two CD players with a $30 Behringer (0.6db) and between two *digital* transports with a $75 Edirol (that was a bit extreme admittedly) I'm pretty sure I'd trust either to capture differences of 0.1db a difference I am certain I could not hear - what magnitude of differences are you expecting?


----------



## WindowsX

nick_charles said:


> That depends on the magnitude of the changes you are examining.
> 
> I've captured the differences between two CD players with a $30 Behringer (0.6db) and between two *digital* transports with a $75 Edirol (that was a bit extreme admittedly) I'm pretty sure I'd trust either to capture differences of 0.1db a difference I am certain I could not hear - what magnitude of differences are you expecting?


 
  
 $30 CD Player and $75 audio interface? I think you need more experiment on larger scale. If you work with a few 5-digit gears, I believe you will eventually understand. Science is about experiencing phenomenon and try to understand it.
  
 Regards,
 Windows X


----------



## nick_charles

windowsx said:


> $30 CD Player and $75 audio interface? I think you need more experiment on larger scale. If you work with a few 5-digit gears, I believe you will eventually understand. Science is about experiencing phenomenon and try to understand it.
> 
> Regards,
> Windows X


 
  
 1. The Behringer is a  USB Soundcard & ADC not a CD player, how would I capture the differences between two CD players with a third CD player ?
  
 2. I have a PhD, part of my day job is to review scientific papers, please do not patronize me. I am sure said 5 digit gear has better specs but the principle is *exactly the same*, or can you not grasp that? If the magnitude of difference is within the capability of the device it can be captured, what magnitude of difference that requires a 5 digit device to capture are you anticipating.


----------



## Guidostrunk

*Facepalm..... Has a PhD, and is badgering someone over a $70 program. Can't make this stuff up. LOLOLOLOLOLOL


----------



## bfreedma

guidostrunk said:


> *Facepalm..... Has a PhD, and is badgering someone over a $70 program. Can't make this stuff up. LOLOLOLOLOLOL




Are you suggesting Nick should be charging WindowsX for providing information that, were he paying attention, could help him actually evaluate the efficacy of Fidelizer?

Or that there's a price level at which it's acceptable to make unsubstantiated and technically improbable claims about how a product performs?


----------



## Guidostrunk

I know logic , is a complex thing. Obvious, is obvious. Thanks for playing white night. LOL ^_^ 


bfreedma said:


> Are you suggesting Nick should be charging WindowsX for providing information that, were he paying attention, could help him actually evaluate the efficacy of Fidelizer?
> 
> Or that there's a price level at which it's acceptable to make unsubstantiated and technically improbable claims about how a product performs?


----------



## WindowsX

nick_charles said:


> 1. The Behringer is a  USB Soundcard & ADC not a CD player, how would I capture the differences between two CD players with a third CD player ?
> 
> 2. I have a PhD, part of my day job is to review scientific papers, please do not patronize me. I am sure said 5 digit gear has better specs but the principle is *exactly the same*, or can you not grasp that? If the magnitude of difference is within the capability of the device it can be captured, what magnitude of difference that requires a 5 digit device to capture are you anticipating.


 
  
 1. I misread it, my bad. For AD-DA comparison with cheap stuff, you'll get less resolving result thanks to massive noise and distortion during conversion.
  
 2. PhD has nothing to do with it. Since you love to read papers enough to be sure for *exactly the same* result without testing, keep reading.
  
 Is there any promising scientist who can actually do something except talk big? I'm the only one doing experiments lately.
  
 Regards,
 Windows X


----------



## bfreedma

guidostrunk said:


> I know logic , is a complex thing. Obvious, is obvious. Thanks for playing white night. LOL ^_^
> 
> 
> bfreedma said:
> ...




Just so you know for the future, and not that it represents my post, but the term is white knight, not white night.

Do you have anything to contribute to this discussion other than insults and incorrectly used metaphors?


----------



## bfreedma

windowsx said:


> nick_charles said:
> 
> 
> > 1. The Behringer is a  USB Soundcard & ADC not a CD player, how would I capture the differences between two CD players with a third CD player ?
> ...




This would be funny if it wasn't the first time, but you really can't say you misread someone's post about how he did actual testing then in the next sentence accuse him of reading papers and not testing.

This whole discussion has reached levels of absurdity rarely seen in this forum. It's painfully obvious that Fidelizer (other than perhaps on an ancient and oversubscribed PC) simply doesn't perform as you claim. And that you can't/won't perform the appropriate tests needed to validate those claims.

So to answer the question posed by the OP directly, the product is snake oil. Even worse, it actually has a mode that turns off essentially all security on the PC on which it's installed. The only thing Extreme about that configuration is the extreme level of risk you expose that PC and it's user to. Most snake oil products cost money but do no harm - this product actually creates a scenario where the user is exposed to malware and data theft.

I wouldn't install it under any circumstances given the lack of rational approach to both audio reproduction and system security. Anyone wanting to replicate it's "functionality" can do so by changing the priority and CPU affinity for processes involved in audio playback. It will only take a couple of minutes and you don't have to turn off your firewall and anti-malware solutions to do it. Not that it's going to make any audible difference.....


----------



## WindowsX

bfreedma said:


> This would be funny if it wasn't the first time, but you really can't say you misread someone's post about how he did actual testing then in the next sentence accuse him of reading papers and not testing.
> 
> This whole discussion has reached levels of absurdity rarely seen in this forum. It's painfully obvious that Fidelizer (other than perhaps on an ancient and oversubscribed PC) simply doesn't perform as you claim. And that you can't/won't perform the appropriate tests needed to validate those claims.
> 
> ...




Are you done with bs post? Just show me some scientific post already, ones with measurements and data to discuss about.

I tested accordingly to DiffMaker standards with properly controlled environment. Do you know DiffMaker?

Also, free version doesn't have turning off security and that stopping services feature is optional unless user desire to. Cut the crap.

Regards,
Windows X


----------



## WindowsX

For people who're interested in DiffMaker Measurements...

https://www.gearslutz.com/board/gear-shoot-outs-sound-file-comparisons-audio-tests/607481-evaluating-ad-da-loops-means-audio-diffmaker.html

Regards,
Windows X


----------



## Don Hills

windowsx said:


> Are you done with bs post? Just show me some scientific post already, ones with measurements and data to discuss about. ...


 
  
 You are making an extraordinary claim - that Fidelizer makes an *audible* improvement. You have yet to provide any evidence that this is so. You could, with Diffmaker and a good DAC and ADC.
  
 I'm not sure if I said so before, but I do want to thank you for the work you've done with Diffmaker in the digital domain. It has inspired me to try and repeat your results - not with Fidelizer, but to try and understand the differences you saw, where I would originally have thought there were none.


----------



## WindowsX

don hills said:


> You are making an extraordinary claim - that Fidelizer makes an *audible* improvement. You have yet to provide any evidence that this is so. You could, with Diffmaker and a good DAC and ADC.
> 
> I'm not sure if I said so before, but I do want to thank you for the work you've done with Diffmaker in the digital domain. It has inspired me to try and repeat your results - not with Fidelizer, but to try and understand the differences you saw, where I would originally have thought there were none.


 
  
 The concept of proving audible improvement is very simple. You try Fidelizer and decide if you want to keep using it. No harm in trying. Some people can't tell apart between Windows/OS X/Linux, let alone audio optimization toolkit. I tried with what I can and I think I did enough to see it's not all talk in digital domain.
  
 It's not like I want to prove it to convince anyone but I'm also interested in this myself and hope people will share their opinion. Audible measurements with analog domain is still out of possible reach but I finally found breakthrough discovery in digital domain.
  
 I hope to see more constructive posts like to help advancing audio measurements in Head-Fi like yours. I hope to see some interesting news from you soon.
  
 Regards.
 Windows X


----------



## Guidostrunk

Congratulations. An official grammar nazi. LOL.

I have a lot more to offer, but that usually leads people to serious ass rage, and rustled jimmies ^_^. 

So out of respect for this forum. I will exit this thread now. Just don't post anything towards me anymore 




bfreedma said:


> Just so you know for the future, and not that it represents my post, but the term is white knight, not white night.
> 
> Do you have anything to contribute to this discussion other than insults and incorrectly used metaphors?


----------



## jdpark

Seeing as we're getting no where fast, have you guys tried the NPR test of whether you can hear the difference between 128 bit MP3, 320 bit, and uncompressed WAV?
  
 http://www.npr.org/sections/therecord/2015/06/02/411473508/how-well-can-you-hear-audio-quality?utm_source=facebook.com&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=npr&utm_term=nprnews&utm_content=20160220
  
 I wasn't able to get higher than random probability, even though I did the trial three times and consider my system pretty good. Once I figured out what it was that sounded "better" with a wav file I could get the answer right, consistently. But that was only on one out of the six songs. Granted, four of them are probably "designed" for lossy compression, but on the two that were not, I actually had the hardest time figuring out which version was which.  
  
 There are probably some other flaws with the test, but one of them is that streaming tends to sound worse than having the file saved on the hard drive to me. I did several not blind tests with Tidal and files I had in WAV or Flac and once I listened carefully, I could usually tell the difference between my own files and those on Tidal, even though supposedly Tidal is also lossless. 
  
 I realize these are different questions, but how are we are supposed to test something like Fidelizer Pro (or any other "audiophile software"), which is based on a rather tenuous claim, when the fairly straightforward claim "lossless sounds better than lossy," is not actually that easy to prove in a blind test?


----------



## watchnerd

jdpark said:


> I realize these are different questions, but how are we are supposed to test something like Fidelizer Pro (or any other "audiophile software"), which is based on a rather tenuous claim, when the fairly straightforward claim "lossless sounds better than lossy," is not actually that easy to prove in a blind test?


 
  
 Yes, indeed. Now you're seeing the big picture.


----------



## WindowsX

Blind testing Fidelizer is easy. Even my mom can easily tell the difference between recorded tracks playing from mobile phone.
  
 Regards,
 Windows X


jdpark said:


> Seeing as we're getting no where fast, have you guys tried the NPR test of whether you can hear the difference between 128 bit MP3, 320 bit, and uncompressed WAV?
> 
> http://www.npr.org/sections/therecord/2015/06/02/411473508/how-well-can-you-hear-audio-quality?utm_source=facebook.com&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=npr&utm_term=nprnews&utm_content=20160220
> 
> ...


 
  


> You got 6 out of 6 correct!
> Do you spend a lot of time listening to high-quality audio files? Adding specialized equipment to your system can boost the audio quality, but if there are weak links in the chain (say, if you’ve got a digital-to-analog converter and cheap earbuds), you won’t hear as much. Bonus hint: Scroll back up and listen to the uncompressed WAV files again – even self-proclaimed audiophiles say that it takes time for your ears to adjust to the differences in files.


 
  
 I passed NPR and Tidal tests without trouble. It's really easy to tell apart between WAV and mp3. It took less than 5 seconds, sometimes clicking for WAV before listening to all three tracks.
  
 I hope the rest in this thread will pass too and share the result. Maybe using Fidelizer will make it easier? Who knows.


----------



## cjl

windowsx said:


> Blind testing Fidelizer is easy. Even my mom can easily tell the difference between recorded tracks playing from mobile phone.


 
 Then why do the analog measurements not reflect this?


----------



## WindowsX

cjl said:


> Then why do the analog measurements not reflect this?


 
  
 Which measurements? I haven't seen any 'good' analog measurements yet. Don Hills said it's possible to detect with good equipment but I haven't confirmed it myself nor I see anyone doing it with Fidelizer right now.
  
 If you mean my previous RMAA post, it's evaluation from pure software recording so of course analog metrics won't detect any of that. RMAA isn't capable of measuring digital signal. That's why I tested on DiffMaker which is capable of doing digital audio measurements in pure software environment.
  
 Regards,
 Windows X


----------



## nick_charles

windowsx said:


> Which measurements? I haven't seen any 'good' analog measurements yet. Don Hills said it's possible to detect with good equipment but I haven't confirmed it myself nor I see anyone doing it with Fidelizer right now.


 
  
 These are the specs on my current DAC and ADC (I upgraded from the Behringer) - would you consider this level of performance adequate to capture the effect of the software ?
  
 ADC
 SNR 110db
 THD+Noise 0.0001%
  
 DAC
 THD+N 0.0004%
 SNR 125db
  
 I have a couple of i7 based PCs I could run the output from the USB DAC at 24/96 into the ADC at the same bit rate and depth - I can run a 10 test run to establish the degradation from the chain before going any further ?


----------



## Harry Manback

I also have an audio interface capable of 192@24.

I will give an unbiased test as well. It has ASIO drivers. I will record output from my odac and o2 amp to compare to the original files.


----------



## WindowsX

If you're sure that AD/DA device you're going to perform the test is better than Lynx Hilo, I'd be interested to hear the result. Here's Lynx Hilo's Ad/DA tech specs.
  
*LINE IN A/D PERFORMANCE*
 THD+N -114dB @1kHz, -1dBFS, 20kHz filter
 Dynamic Range 121 dB, A-weighted, -60dBFS signal method
 Frequency Resp. ± 0.01 dB, 20 – 20kHz
 Crosstalk -140 dB maximum @ 1kHz, -1dBFS signal
*LINE OUT D/A PERFORMANCE*
 THD+N -109dB @1kHz, -1dBFS, 20kHz filter
 Dynamic Range 121 dB, A- weighted, -60dBFS signal method
 Frequency Resp. ± 0.02 dB, 20 – 20kHz
 Crosstalk -135 dB maximum @ 1kHz, -1dBFS signal
  
 It's not like doing with lower level of AD/DA won't matter. It's just my personal preference so feel free to test as you like. I'm not that conceited enough to judge or label people's work without giving it a try myself. Please be sure to optimize the playback/recording with lowest possible stable latency too.
  
 Regards,
 Windows X


----------



## Don Hills

windowsx said:


> ... Please be sure to optimize the playback/recording with lowest possible stable latency too.


 
  
 Why is this important?


----------



## WindowsX

don hills said:


> Why is this important?


 
  
 To reduce the range of latency jitter variations. As you can see from my experiment, even pure software environment can get worse correlation depth, let alone real hardware.
  
 Regards,
 Windows X


----------



## Don Hills

windowsx said:


> To reduce the range of latency jitter variations. ...


 
  
 How does reducing the latency reduce the range of latency jitter variations? I would have thought that increasing latency (larger buffers / queues) would reduce jitter / noise by reducing the rate of buffer refilling.


----------



## WindowsX

don hills said:


> How does reducing the latency reduce the range of latency jitter variations? I would have thought that increasing latency (larger buffers / queues) would reduce jitter / noise by reducing the rate of buffer refilling.




Actual tests may not reflect what you believe. Variations come in form of percentage.

Regards,
Windows X


----------



## BiggerHead

I haven't followed the whole thread but it seems to me there's some mis-representation about modern computers.  Many statements like "It's almost impossible to overlaoad modern computers" or "if your computer gets too loaded to handle audio you need a better computer", or whatever.
  
 If you ask a computer to work it will typically work.. as hard as it possibly can, 100%, at least with one CPU, until it gets the job done. Sure if the job takes 50 microseconds, then that doesn't bump up the apparent load average because that average is calculated over some longer time.  Of course the task scheduler may limit a job or at least allow other jobs some of the time, and some process are I/O limited instead of CPU limited, but all that said it's not even remotely difficult to get a modern CPU core to spin at 100% for 50 milliseconds doing even ordinary tasks, but especially if you're doing something like.. oh.. for instance... audio compression, or even more so AV compression which is an ENOURMOUS computational task and something quite reasonable to have your A/V computer doing!  
  
 What you do hope is that the audio itself is a very tiny load compared to everything else going on, and that your process scheduler is kind enough to give it the microsecond or so it needs before its buffer runs empty.  A bit of googling on windows scheduling reveals that windows workstations allow foreground processes to hold on to a CPU for 6 quanta, which seems to equate to somewhere in the ballpark of 90ms!  That's 90ms before anything else other than maybe an interrupt can do anything.  Multiple cores sounds good, but if one process on the same core as the audio does that, and you have a 50ms buffer, then it seems like a problem to me.
  
 I'm almost surprised it works at all and I'm not an expert on the windows scheduler so I'm probably missing something, but at least it's certain that scheduling matters, at least if done badly, and I'm not surprised if improvements are possible.  I think the rep said this targets clicks and pops, not dull highs, and muddy lows.  Sounds about right.
  
 Disclaimer, regarding audio, I have no idea how much of the work is offloaded to the soundcard itself using direct memory access.


----------



## bfreedma

biggerhead said:


> I haven't followed the whole thread but it seems to me there's some mis-representation about modern computers.  Many statements like "It's almost impossible to overlaoad modern computers" or "if your computer gets too loaded to handle audio you need a better computer", or whatever.
> 
> If you ask a computer to work it will typically work.. as hard as it possibly can, 100%, at least with one CPU, until it gets the job done. Sure if the job takes 50 microseconds, then that doesn't bump up the apparent load average because that average is calculated over some longer time.  Of course the task scheduler may limit a job or at least allow other jobs some of the time, and some process are I/O limited instead of CPU limited, but all that said it's not even remotely difficult to get a modern CPU core to spin at 100% for 50 milliseconds doing even ordinary tasks, but especially if you're doing something like.. oh.. for instance... audio compression, or even more so AV compression which is an ENOURMOUS computational task and something quite reasonable to have your A/V computer doing!
> 
> ...




While the scenario you describe is not impossible to see in the real world, it is highly unlikely to occur. Thread prioritization, core assignment based on load, and scheduler sequencing all work to prevent such a scenario. There are two ways it might happen. Running audio playback on a machine running a high workload application that uses multiple cores, primarily gaming and video processing, or intentionally setting thread priority for audio replay processes to "low". Neither seems to be common in a system dedicated to audio playback and both fall into the "oversubscribed system" category. That's without getting into the impact that buffering has on transient workload spikes.

Regardless, the claim is Fidelizer improves audio in all situations for all users. Nothing published to date by its author and proponents supports that claim.


----------



## WindowsX

bfreedma said:


> While the scenario you describe is not impossible to see in the real world, it is highly unlikely to occur. Thread prioritization, core assignment based on load, and scheduler sequencing all work to prevent such a scenario. There are two ways it might happen. Running audio playback on a machine running a high workload application that uses multiple cores, primarily gaming and video processing, or intentionally setting thread priority for audio replay processes to "low". Neither seems to be common in a system dedicated to audio playback and both fall into the "oversubscribed system" category. That's without getting into the impact that buffering has on transient workload spikes.
> 
> Regardless, the claim is Fidelizer improves audio in all situations for all users. Nothing published to date by its author and proponents supports that claim.




He already told you *there's some mis-representation about modern computers* so you should try to listen if you don't have any proof to show that you're software engineer or someone who examined Windows thoroughly.

Regards,
Windows X


----------



## BiggerHead

@bfreedma, I'm not taking sides here, but you're saying the computer knows in advance how to keep high load threads off the same core as the audio processes? I don't see that you necessarily need to load up multiple cores, just the wrong core. 

I might not understand all the tricks available to balance cores but I didn't think you can move a running thread to a different core because it's getting in the way of audio. Certainly in a one core scenario at least any video (or really even audio) compression is automatically "oversubscribed" regardless of CPU or I/O speed. It's effectively an infinite work load. Sure "sequencing" (scheduling) can help, and that was my point, and maybe it's always done well enough already. I don't know, but the premise seems reasonable. 

The best snake oil starts with reasonable premises, but some of the arguments here have seemed to imply that premise is unreasonable because you can't possibly even tax a computer hard enough now, and I just really don't think that's the right argumentation. The right argumentation might be that modern process schedulers can't possibly ignore the audio process for that long. I'm definitely not saying everyone needs this.


----------



## BiggerHead

I'll go one farther and say that I'm pretty sure if you do need it, or need it, or often enough to care, that you'd hear noticable pops, etc at least enough to annoy you.  If there are even more often a little less noticable problems, who knows, but what I think know of process schedulers is the algorithms seem too flexible to leave them right at the the threshold of almost working and never beyond.


----------



## bfreedma

windowsx said:


> He already told you *there's some mis-representation about modern computers* so you should try to listen if you don't have any proof to show that you're software engineer or someone who examined Windows thoroughly.
> 
> Regards,
> Windows X


 
  
 Yes, I've only spent 3 decades optimizing system performance from the individual server (Windows being one of the many platforms) level through full data center design and implementation in highly regulated industries where failure to meet operational goals results in massive fines and possible business closure.  What do I know....?
  
 I've also written mission critical software used by enterprises supporting 10000 simultaneous users, but again, what do I know....
  
 I find it interesting that instead of responding to questions or posting measurements to support your product, you resort to insults.  Frankly, it makes me wonder what beyond Fidelizer makes you think you have any idea about actual system and component performance testing and whether you've actually done the same in a customer environment.


----------



## WindowsX

bfreedma said:


> Yes, I've only spent 3 decades optimizing system performance from the individual server (Windows being one of the many platforms) level through full data center design and implementation in highly regulated industries where failure to meet operational goals results in massive fines and possible business closure.  What do I know....?
> 
> I've also written mission critical software used by enterprises supporting 10000 simultaneous users, but again, what do I know....
> 
> I find it interesting that instead of responding to questions or posting measurements to support your product, you resort to insults.  Frankly, it makes me wonder what beyond Fidelizer makes you think you have any idea about actual system and component performance testing and whether you've actually done the same in a customer environment.


 
  
 I only told you to listen to people has different ideas instead of shooting down everyone who disagree with you. There's no insult here. If anyone, it's you or your confidence in your field of work.
  
 You did manage enterprise server but not computer audio server. Don't mix the job please. They need completely different optimizations.
  
 I did my part to show significant improvement with correlation depth in pure software environment. This measurement data is used in gearslutz and a lot pro pros accept this kind of measurements. Since I can show significant improvement in pure digital domain, there's nothing more to prove within analog. I'm writing software to optimize Windows platform not the DAC itself.
  
 Regards,
 Windows X


----------



## BiggerHead

Quote, Winows X: 





> I only told you to listen to people has different ideas instead of shooting down everyone who disagree with you. There's no insult here. If anyone, it's you or your confidence in your field of work.


 
  
  
 No you called him an ignorant idiot... then you deleted it and said you didn't.  That's not really a smooth marketing strategy.


----------



## WindowsX

biggerhead said:


> No you called him an ignorant idiot... then you deleted it and said you didn't.  That's not really a smooth marketing strategy.


 
  
 I shortly changed it back few minutes later after realizing I went to far with my emotions. I'd have changed it back sooner if my battery didn't run out. His quoted text is from the updated data so I thought I made it in time.
  
 Regards,
 Windows X


----------



## bfreedma

windowsx said:


> I only told you to listen to people has different ideas instead of shooting down everyone who disagree with you. There's no insult here. If anyone, it's you or your confidence in your field of work.
> 
> You did manage enterprise server but not computer audio server. Don't mix the job please. They need completely different optimizations.
> 
> ...


 
  
 Windows process management is not specific to audio.  The general concepts remain consistent.
  
 I'm not shooting down everyone who disagrees with me, I'm explaining how the technology being discussed actually works.  The problem is, you immediately latch on to any alternate explanation that you believe supports your position without knowing the accuracy of those statement.  And again, we are talking about very rare scenarios unlikely to happen on the vast majority of systems reproducing digital audio.  It certainly doesn't support your product claims of universal improvement driven by Fidelizer.
  
 Good luck WindowsX - Until you produce some actual data supporting your claims, I'm out of this absurd discussion you're using to distract from your claims of universal improvement on all systems.


----------



## bfreedma

windowsx said:


> I only told you to listen to people has different ideas instead of shooting down everyone who disagree with you. T*here's no insult here. If anyone, it's you or your confidence in your field of work.*
> 
> You did manage enterprise server but not computer audio server. Don't mix the job please. They need completely different optimizations.
> 
> ...


 
  
  


biggerhead said:


> No you called him an ignorant idiot... then you deleted it and said you didn't.  That's not really a smooth marketing strategy.


 
  
  


windowsx said:


> I shortly changed it back few minutes later after realizing I went to far with my emotions. I'd have changed it back sooner if my battery didn't run out. His quoted text is from the updated data so I thought I made it in time.
> 
> Regards,
> Windows X


 
  
 Caught in another lie.  If you're being intellectually dishonest here, why would anyone believe your claims about Fidelizer?
  
 Hopefully, everyone takes note of that.
  
 Again, good luck and get back to us when you have actual validation.


----------



## WindowsX

bfreedma said:


> Windows process management is not specific to audio.  The general concepts remain consistent.
> 
> I'm not shooting down everyone who disagrees with me, I'm explaining how the technology being discussed actually works.  The problem is, you immediately latch on to any alternate explanation that you believe supports your position without knowing the accuracy of those statement.  And again, we are talking about very rare scenarios unlikely to happen on the vast majority of systems reproducing digital audio.  It certainly doesn't support your product claims of universal improvement driven by Fidelizer.
> 
> Good luck WindowsX - Until you produce some actual data supporting your claims, I'm out of this absurd discussion you're using to distract from your claims of universal improvement on all systems.


 
  
 Because your explanation don't reflect on how real thing works. For example, enterprise server requires low priority task to be more responsive with 100% system responsiveness but multimedia requires I/O operations which is registered as higher priority task to be responsive so it should be 10-20% system responsiveness. That alone affect audio performance and a most Fidelizer Pro users can perceive it from different Machine Configuration options.
  
 My claims for product is improving audio performance. By increasing audio  thread priority, clock rate, and kernel timer resolution, it did increase correlation depth from 12x-13x to 13x-14x which is significant enough to show improvements. Do you understand the importannce of correlation depth and how it can measure quality of digital signal? There's a lot of better ways to make snake oil products instead of selling 2-digit software that barely have customers.
  
 Regards,
 Windows X


----------



## WindowsX

bfreedma said:


> Caught in another lie.  If you're being intellectually dishonest here, why would anyone believe your claims about Fidelizer?
> 
> Hopefully, everyone takes note of that.
> 
> Again, good luck and get back to us when you have actual validation.


 
  
 If I changed the context after the discussion, it'd be a lie. I changed it back in few minutes after posting before you read it. I may post some offensive remarks but I took that back to correct it so I didn't lie to you. Your posts and your guts really got on my nerves sometimes. I posted some offensive words back then too but didn't change it back because they deserved it. And I have actual validation but that isn't common with Head-Fi standards, sadly.
  
 Regards,
 Windows X


----------



## bfreedma

windowsx said:


> Because your explanation don't reflect on how real thing works. For example, enterprise server requires low priority task to be more responsive with 100% system responsiveness but multimedia requires I/O operations which is registered as higher priority task to be responsive so it should be 10-20% system responsiveness. That alone affect audio performance and a most Fidelizer Pro users can perceive it from different Machine Configuration options.
> 
> My claims for product is improving audio performance. By increasing audio  thread priority, clock rate, and kernel timer resolution, it did increase correlation depth from 12x-13x to 13x-14x which is significant enough to show improvements. Do you understand the importannce of correlation depth and how it can measure quality of digital signal? There's a lot of better ways to make snake oil products instead of selling 2-digit software that barely have customers.
> 
> ...


 
  
 Your knowledge of how Windows tuning is implemented is sadly lacking - you can't simply generalize it into the simple statement as you did.  It seems like you just make up the "rules" as you go to suit your purpose. The subjective feedback from your users doesn't in any way support your claims.
  
 And despite your assertion, you insulted me then claimed you didn't.  Editing after the fact to deny it after being called out is intellectually dishonest.


----------



## WindowsX

bfreedma said:


> Your knowledge of how Windows tuning is implemented is sadly lacking - you can't simply generalize it into the simple statement as you did.  It seems like you just make up the "rules" as you go to suit your purpose. The subjective feedback from your users doesn't in any way support your claims.
> 
> And despite your assertion, you insulted me then claimed you didn't.  Editing after the fact to deny it after being called out is intellectually dishonest.


 
  
 Did you tell your friend that you insulted him in your mind? It's a slip of tongue and I didn't mean it. I edited after few minutes of posts without anyone posting anything so it's not dishonest. You didn't even get to read it. You've been insulting and framing me and my products all this time including this comment and I didn't seem to mind you. I'm still waiting to hear your opinion about correlation depth since you seems to know well about how audio works in digital.
  
 Also, it's you who seriously lack knowledge about machine optimizations for time sensitive applications. You may build some kinds of cars for decades but it doesn't mean you're good at building all kinds of cars.
  
 Regards,
 Windows X


----------



## Joe Bloggs

As I pointed out before, your problem with DiffMaker is in the very fact that your loopback process is not bit-perfect, not that your computer is introducing random errors into the result that can be mitigated with Fidelizer.

There are several possibilities for this happening, but the two main factors are:

1. The bits being played out are being mapped to a smaller range of bits on the recording side. This could be due to a desire to prevent clipping, or a simple programming error.
2. The bits are being dithered. This often happens due to assumptions about the nature of the recording made by the software that cannot be overriden.

As I point out, others have gotten a bit-perfect recording
https://www.gearslutz.com/board/so-much-gear-so-little-time/471239-getting-bit-perfect-recording.html

And now so have I.
https://www.dropbox.com/s/cxllwudpsqb64p2/input.wav?dl=0
https://www.dropbox.com/s/7lsijcomhzgaxnn/output.wav?dl=0

input.wav was played through foobar in WASAPI mode at 24-bit to a S/PDIF output on my computer and recorded at the corresponding S/PDIF input using VSTHost and the MRecorder VST plugin at 24-bits as output.wav
https://www.meldaproduction.com/plugins/product.php?id=MRecorder

You may check for yourself that input.wav and output.wav only differ in the amount of silence before and after the test signals.

Aligning the starts of the tracks and inverting one then adding to the other yields digital silence:


Cropping the silence before and after the tracks and running through DiffMaker yields -300dB correlation depth, which is the same result you get by feeding it the same file for reference and comparison:

https://www.dropbox.com/s/7c3noeub0vl8qji/input-crop.wav?dl=0
https://www.dropbox.com/s/1xbrjyb0nkcsd8z/output-crop.wav?dl=0

At no point was Fidelizer running on my computer, nor did I attempt to lessen the load on my computer in any way.

Moral of the story: if you aren't getting a bit-perfect recording, you fix it by fixing your recording chain.


----------



## cjl

biggerhead said:


> What you do hope is that the audio itself is a very tiny load compared to everything else going on, and that your process scheduler is kind enough to give it the microsecond or so it needs before its buffer runs empty.  A bit of googling on windows scheduling reveals that windows workstations allow foreground processes to hold on to a CPU for 6 quanta, which seems to equate to somewhere in the ballpark of 90ms!  That's 90ms before anything else other than maybe an interrupt can do anything.  Multiple cores sounds good, but if one process on the same core as the audio does that, and you have a 50ms buffer, then it seems like a problem to me.


 
 If you have a buffer underrun like this, I'd expect a pop, click, or gap in playback though, not a subtle improvement in soundstage or dynamics or something.


----------



## WindowsX

joe bloggs said:


> As I pointed out before, your problem with DiffMaker is in the very fact that your loopback process is not bit-perfect, not that your computer is introducing random errors into the result that can be mitigated with Fidelizer.
> 
> There are several possibilities for this happening, but the two main factors are:
> 
> ...


 
  
 Finally, someone really posts about DiffMaker in details. Let's see.....
  
 1. The bits being played out are being mapped to a smaller range of bits on the recording side. This could be due to a desire to prevent clipping, or a simple programming error.
 : Bits are played from foobar's bit-perfect playback (Kernel Streaming/WASAPI) to Audacity's WASAPI recording through virtual cable emulated sound card. There's no way it's not bit-perfect.

 2. The bits are being dithered. This often happens due to assumptions about the nature of the recording made by the software that cannot be overriden.
 : I made sure the sample rate and bit-depth of sample file, foobar and Audacity has the same configuration without dithering/resample.
  
 Your MRecorder is interesting but it looks like extracting pure audio stream from DSP chain in VST to external file. I haven't tried the actual software myself yet so correct me if I'm wrong.
  
 Please confirm me if you use real record button in Audacity to record audio stream from virtual sound card to complete bit-perfect playback/recording route. Otherwise, it could be just extracting audio stream in DSP chain before actually play/record.
  
 P.S. I'm still waiting for *bfreedma*'s post about DiffMaker.
  
 Regards,
 Windows X


----------



## Joe Bloggs

windowsx said:


> Finally, someone really posts about DiffMaker in details. Let's see.....
> 
> 1. The bits being played out are being mapped to a smaller range of bits on the recording side. This could be due to a desire to prevent clipping, or a simple programming error.
> : Bits are played from foobar's bit-perfect playback (Kernel Streaming/WASAPI) to Audacity's WASAPI recording through virtual cable emulated sound card. There's no way it's not bit-perfect.




I tried using Audacity to record using WASAPI. Only loopback devices appear (no real recording devices). In all cases I get a drop in digital signal level on the order of 0.0xdB, as mentioned in the gearslutz thread and consistent with the point I make here.




> 2. The bits are being dithered. This often happens due to assumptions about the nature of the recording made by the software that cannot be overriden.
> : I made sure the sample rate and bit-depth of sample file, foobar and Audacity has the same configuration without dithering/resample.



The dithering could be occuring within VB-cable. I never managed to get Virtual Audio Cable to produce an unmodified stream from input to output without volume changes (which also implies dithering). Not that I care about bit-perfect at all in actual music listening.



> Your MRecorder is interesting but it looks like extracting pure audio stream from DSP chain to external file. I haven't tried the actual software myself yet so correct me if I'm wrong. If you desire to do real bit-perfect recording, you need to do real recording from real mapped audio device. Hit the Record button in Audacity or something like that. Please confirm me if you use real record button in Audacity to record audio stream from virtual sound card to complete bit-perfect playback/recording route. Otherwise, it could be just extracting audio stream in DSP chain before actually play/record.
> 
> Regards,
> Windows X




As I said, I used actual S/PDIF output and input ports. Like this: 

The VST plugin was running in VSTHost which was entirely separate from foobar playing the input file, and foobar was set to play to the digital output while VSTHost was tapping the digital input on the other end of the *real* digital cable (unlike your test which used VB-Audio software cable). I did have to hit record on MRecorder just like you would in Audacity.


----------



## WindowsX

joe bloggs said:


> I tried using Audacity to record using WASAPI. Only loopback devices appear (no real recording devices). In all cases I get a drop in digital signal level on the order of 0.0xdB, as mentioned in the gearslutz thread and consistent with the point I make here.
> The dithering could be occuring within VB-cable. I never managed to get Virtual Audio Cable to produce an unmodified stream from input to output without volume changes (which also implies dithering). Not that I care about bit-perfect at all in actual music listening.
> As I said, I used actual S/PDIF output and input ports. Like this:
> 
> The VST plugin was running in VSTHost which was entirely separate from foobar playing the input file, and foobar was set to play to the digital output while VSTHost was tapping the digital input on the other end of the *real* digital cable (unlike your test which used VB-Audio software cable). I did have to hit record on MRecorder just like you would in Audacity.


 
  
 I see. So it works with real hardware. I thought SPDIF was MRecorder's emulated I/O. Is it possible to try recording from other virtual sound card with Audacity? Loopback thing maybe routing data from VST without actual playback/recording.
  
 Regards,
 Windows X


----------



## BiggerHead

cjl said:


> If you have a buffer underrun like this, I'd expect a pop, click, or gap in playback though, not a subtle improvement in soundstage or dynamics or something.


 
  
 That's what I said.  It's right there in the same post.


----------



## BiggerHead

Windows X you're being ridiculous.  You said you spoke too fast, you took it back, you hoped bfreedma hadn't heard you.  That's fine and should have been your first response, when bfreemdma clearly said he did you "hear" (he said you insulted him).  Your first response though was to say you didn't insult him.  No that's not denying you said a thought in your head.  It's something he "heard" you actually say, and you then you insisted he didn't.  You were calling him a liar when he described something that you knew did happen.  It's not just a lie, it's a slanderous lie, and now you're defending it.


----------



## WindowsX

biggerhead said:


> Windows X you're being ridiculous.  You said you spoke too fast, you took it back, you hoped bfreedma hadn't heard you.  That's fine and should have been your first response, when bfreemdma clearly said he did you "hear" (he said you insulted him).  Your first response though was to say you didn't insult him.  No that's not denying you said a thought in your head.  It's something he "heard" you actually say, and you then you insisted he didn't.  You were calling him a liar when he described something that you knew did happen.  It's not just a lie, it's a slanderous lie, and now you're defending it.


 
  
 My quoted message was updated so I thought he referred to that ones. I didn't meant to feign my ignorance but simply misunderstood for my edited message. Well, I apologize for slipping the word about ignorant and idiocy to him then. Honestly, I've been insulted and framed by him for almost half of this thread already. I long removed security services as he suggested yet he kept saying Fidelizer will endanger PC and such. Whenever I ask him something for technical information I'm interested in like DiffMaker, he just went silent and waited for another chance to bring me down with all silly posts about Fidelizer being snake oil explaining fast computer won't have this problem. I got a few customers running server CPU and did some DiffMaker tests on 8 core CPUs. Get real, please. You said that over dozen times already and it wasn't true.It could be true from enterprise server's perspective where you focus work on scaling and bandwidth but audio doesn't work that way. No matter how fast your CPU is, if implementation isn't optimized for good multimedia I/O applications, it won't work at its best.
  
 I've tried to keep my patience and focus about DiffMaker for different approach of audio measurements and yet people keep dragging to destructive comments and I finally snapped for a few minutes.  To be honest, I'm tired and sick with all this mess. Fidelizer was already proven to be effective with DiffMaker on completed route of bit-perfect playback/recording and yet no one made soundly disagreement until *Joe Bloggs* comes in.
  
 And I didn't call him a liar but indirectly told him that he's been insulting people too. Are you done with this? If no one else gonna care about DiffMaker, I'll find the truth about bit-perfect and DiffMaker elsewhere.
  
 Regards,
 Windows X


----------



## cjl

biggerhead said:


> That's what I said.  It's right there in the same post.


 

 Fair enough. I somehow managed to miss that (I clearly need more coffee).


----------



## MindsMirror

windowsx said:


> I tested accordingly to DiffMaker standards with properly controlled environment.


 
  
 Forgive me if I am wrong or if this has been mentioned already, I haven't followed this entire discussion. Am I correct that you used the computer running Fidelizer as both the test and measurement device in your DiffMaker tests? I mentioned this briefly in the other thread, you cannot create a properly controlled environment if Fidelizer is running on the measurement setup.


----------



## WindowsX

mindsmirror said:


> Forgive me if I am wrong or if this has been mentioned already, I haven't followed this entire discussion. Am I correct that you used the computer running Fidelizer as both the test and measurement device in your DiffMaker tests? I mentioned this briefly in the other thread, you cannot create a properly controlled environment if Fidelizer is running on the measurement setup.


 
  
 By properly, I mean bit-perfect is used in both playback/recording with the same bit-depth/sample rate and confirm there's no drop out found in recordings, both with or without Fidelizer. Please advise if you have recommendation about test environment setup for DiffMaker measurements.
  
 Regards,
 Windows X


----------



## discape

I',m running fidelizer, using Tidal, but do I need to "link" it to Tidal program, or is it ok to just run fidelizer alone?


----------



## watchnerd

discape said:


> I',m running fidelizer, using Tidal, but do I need to "link" it to Tidal program, or is it ok to just run fidelizer alone?


 
  
 Are you running the lossy or lossless version?


----------



## WindowsX

discape said:


> I',m running fidelizer, using Tidal, but do I need to "link" it to Tidal program, or is it ok to just run fidelizer alone?


 
  
 You can run Tidal after Fidelizer finish optimizations without linking. Linking Tidal with Fidelizer will give Tidal extra optimizations from running as administrator account and with high priority.
  
 Regards,
 Keetakawee


----------



## discape

watchnerd said:


> Are you running the lossy or lossless version?


 
 Lossless


windowsx said:


> You can run Tidal after Fidelizer finish optimizations without linking. Linking Tidal with Fidelizer will give Tidal extra optimizations from running as administrator account and with high priority.
> 
> Regards,
> Keetakawee


 
 OK thanks


----------



## ClintonL

Hey guys just wondering is there a general consensus if this actually works or not?


----------



## watchnerd

clintonl said:


> Hey guys just wondering is there a general consensus if this actually works or not?


 
  
 No significant measurable effect.


----------



## WindowsX

clintonl said:


> Hey guys just wondering is there a general consensus if this actually works or not?


 
  
 I believe there's a few people who can notice the improvement right away seeing how frequent feedback and orders I received. And there's a bit crude measurement with significant improvement here.
  
 http://www.fidelizer-audio.com/measuring-digital-audio-qualities-of-bit-perfect-playback-with-diffmakers-correlation-depth/
  
 The best way to confirm is to try Fidelizer yourself and see if it can improve your system or not. It's free and it does no harm in trying. 
  
 Regards,
 Keetakawee


----------



## sonitus mirus

windowsx said:


> I believe there's a few people who can notice the improvement right away seeing how frequent feedback and orders I received. And there's a bit crude measurement with significant improvement here.
> 
> http://www.fidelizer-audio.com/measuring-digital-audio-qualities-of-bit-perfect-playback-with-diffmakers-correlation-depth/
> 
> ...


 
  
 A caveat, it could potentially create problems (harm) with a person's PC, especially for someone with limited knowledge of how the operating system works, as it makes changes to the configuration.


----------



## watchnerd

clintonl said:


> Hey guys just wondering is there a general consensus if this actually works or not?


 
  
 What are your PC HW specs?


----------



## WindowsX

sonitus mirus said:


> A caveat, it could potentially create problems (harm) with a person's PC, especially for someone with limited knowledge of how the operating system works, as it makes changes to the configuration.


 
  
 Free version of Fidelizer makes no permanent change to system. There's no harm in trying so far.
  
 Regards,
 Keetakawee


----------



## HotIce

If you are having problems which that software is trying to solve (AFAICT just changes processes scheduling policies), these are pretty clear, as they manifest with audio skipping. Which is audible (and annoying) w/out any effort.
 But that's a big if, as with modern many-cores-and-even-more-many-hyperthreads systems, it takes quite a bit of system stress for the audio feeding app, to miss scheduling windows so big to let the audio device starving for data.
 I have personally not had audio skipping since I don't even remember, and I stress my system quite a bit with big/parallel software builds.
 IOW, I won't go as far as claiming snake oil, but you can be almost certain you can do without it.


----------



## WindowsX

hotice said:


> If you are having problems which that software is trying to solve (AFAICT just changes processes scheduling policies), these are pretty clear, as they manifest with audio skipping. Which is audible (and annoying) w/out any effort.
> But that's a big if, as with modern many-cores-and-even-more-many-hyperthreads systems, it takes quite a bit of system stress for the audio feeding app, to miss scheduling windows so big to let the audio device starving for data.
> I have personally not had audio skipping since I don't even remember, and I stress my system quite a bit with big/parallel software builds.
> IOW, I won't go as far as claiming snake oil, but you can be almost certain you can do without it.


 
  
 It's not about process scheduling policies in Fidelizer. It makes Windows to actually make use of NT6 multimedia platform. Since Windows Vista, there's multimedia class scheduler service, runtime service, and other related API features to handle resource scheduling between audio/video/network better for system and I/O performance.
  
 These features won't touch individual process. If you use Fidelizer with default consumer level, all processes will be left untouched and multimedia platform in Windows itself will be optimized. I recommend everyone to at least trying this software before passing judgement. Many claimed it'll make no difference without trying. They don't understand the nature of software and mistook some of additional features as core features instead.
  
 Regards,
 Keetakawee


----------



## watchnerd

windowsx said:


> It's not about process scheduling policies in Fidelizer. It makes Windows to actually make use of NT6 multimedia platform. Since Windows Vista, there's multimedia class scheduler service, runtime service, and other related API features to handle resource scheduling between audio/video/network better for system and I/O performance.
> 
> These features won't touch individual process. If you use Fidelizer with default consumer level, all processes will be left untouched and multimedia platform in Windows itself will be optimized. I recommend everyone to at least trying this software before passing judgement. Many claimed it'll make no difference without trying. They don't understand the nature of software and mistook some of additional features as core features instead.
> 
> ...


 
  
 None of this matters if you switch to using a stream-based system.
  
 These problems are from directly attaching DACs to PCs.
  
 So 5-10 years ago.


----------



## WindowsX

watchnerd said:


> None of this matters if you switch to using a stream-based system.
> 
> These problems are from directly attaching DACs to PCs.
> 
> So 5-10 years ago.


 
  
 That's not true. Streaming audio will also have issues with digital audio transport.Simply moving to networked audio won't solve any problem. It's like moving to a new unfamiliar field and marketing tells you how awesome it is. Here's another feedback I received from certain customer recently.
  
 "Hi,

First about Fidelizer. I've used the free version for several months. I always thought it made quite a difference. But I was unprepared for the incredible difference the full version brought to my system. Simply incredible. Better more defined bass, depth, and a blackness around the vocals and instruments which caused the speakers to disappear. And all clearly heard while using the microrendu over the network. *There are many microrendu users that insist programs like AudiophileOptimizer and Fidelizer cannot cause a difference in sound quality across the network.*"
  
For Fidelizer Plus/Pro, you can access audio profile option for specialized audio optimizations with the right audio profile. Using Streamer audio profile to stream music to microRendu is a pure bliss to many Fidelizer Pro users. 
  
Regards,
 Keetakawee


----------



## HotIce

windowsx said:


> It's not about process scheduling policies in Fidelizer. It makes Windows to actually make use of NT6 multimedia platform. Since Windows Vista, there's multimedia class scheduler service, runtime service, and other related API features to handle resource scheduling between audio/video/network better for system and I/O performance.
> 
> These features won't touch individual process. If you use Fidelizer with default consumer level, all processes will be left untouched and multimedia platform in Windows itself will be optimized. I recommend everyone to at least trying this software before passing judgement. Many claimed it'll make no difference without trying. They don't understand the nature of software and mistook some of additional features as core features instead.
> 
> ...


 
  
 These are your major claims, right in front of my browser:
  
Improve audio performance by giving audio task more priority, improve low latency stability, and increase accuracy of clock resolution.
  
Isolate non-audio processes and reduce its priority to minimize any possible interference to audio task and related processes.
 Launch music player application at high priority without interference from user permissions for solid performance.

From a downstream device (DAC, for example) POV, the PC is going to establish a connection saying it is going to feed audio data with a given format and bitrate.
 If the PC keeps feeding the device with enough data to cover the claimed bitrate, there is no need of the extra software.
 If the PC, due to high scheduling latencies, misses timely feeding to the device, the device "skips" (how it is generally referred to), and that's a pretty darn clear (annoyingly so) event, even if the skip window is pretty minor.
 So the "Do I need it?" question is pretty clear. There is no magic and subtle listening ritual you have to undergo to, in order to understand whether you might need it.

 Unless you claim that the software makes the sound better, even for a never-skip link, which might trigger more questions.


----------



## watchnerd

windowsx said:


> That's not true. Streaming audio will also have issues with digital audio transport.Simply moving to networked audio won't solve any problem.


 
  
 Yes, it is true and it solves many problems.
  
 1. Remove the DAC away from the PC to another room, solving EMI/RFI/acoustic issues related to noisy PC
  
 2. Using asynchronous transports that allow the DAC to control the flow
  
 3. Using protocols like RAAT that comply with asynchronous models
  
 4. Implement clock/relock in a way that has nothing do with the PC
  
 5. Endpoint buffering


----------



## WindowsX

hotice said:


> These are your major claims, right in front of my browser:
> 
> Improve audio performance by giving audio task more priority, improve low latency stability, and increase accuracy of clock resolution.
> 
> ...


 
  
 You don't need Fidelizer to get audio working properly. That's given. But if you want to improve sound quality, you can give Fidelizer a try. This is headline above information you read.
  
Sound quality improvement solutions for everyone​  
 I quoted your message just to clear your misunderstanding about Fidelizer as 'changing process scheduling policies' tool. Its fundamental is different and I hope you get my point. I'm not convincing you to believe that Fidelizer will improve sound quality in your system. You can try it and see for yourself if you're interested. You can also move on without trying Fidelizer too if you believe in 'bits are bits' and don't want anything else to confuse you.
  
 Regards,
 Keetakawee


----------



## watchnerd

windowsx said:


> *microrendu users*


 
  
 LOL...you shouldn't cite this.  Microrendu has been show to have zero positive measurable effects.  It does nothing positive, except possibly introducing noise from bad power supply isolation.


----------



## WindowsX

watchnerd said:


> Yes, it is true and it solves many problems.
> 
> 1. Remove the DAC away from the PC to another room, solving EMI/RFI/acoustic issues related to noisy PC
> 
> ...


 
  
 I wonder if you ever take any course in digital audio or data communication related classes. I used to believe like that until I was proven wrong and further studies showed me why it doesn't work. Your point aren't valid and I don't think I can change your belief in few sentences when I spent years in trials and research to reach my own conclusion.
  
 For your information, I also know some bros who's into audiophile and took network courses for his IT career. He hates networked audio to the bones, purchased cisco network hub switch, separated nano router and connect to ethernet port to minimize network interference problems. And he only used network for remote control, no audio streaming through network at all.
  


watchnerd said:


> LOL...you shouldn't cite this.  Microrendu has been show to have zero positive measurable effects.  It does nothing positive, except possibly introducing noise from bad power supply isolation.


 
  
 I only quoted customer's feedback. It's not my intention to give any reference to microRendu personally. My point is customer finding streaming audio sounding a lot better with Fidelizer.
  
 Regards,
 Keetakawee


----------



## watchnerd

windowsx said:


> I wonder if you ever take any course in digital audio or data communication related classes. ]


 
  
 Why yes...I have a degree in applied physics, specializing in digital signal processing, work in the software industry, and build my own music streaming servers from scratch using open source software.


----------



## WindowsX

watchnerd said:


> Why yes...I have a degree in applied physics, specializing in digital signal processing, work in the software industry, and build my own music streaming servers from scratch using open source software.


 
  
 In that case, I recommend you to bring your music server and compare to any Esoteric CD transport in hifi shop. See if you can make it sounding better. I did that and I'm still trying to make device sounding as close as Esoteric's performance as much as possible.
  
 Regards,
 Keetakawee


----------



## HotIce

windowsx said:


> You don't need Fidelizer to get audio working properly. That's given. But if you want to improve sound quality, you can give Fidelizer a try. This is headline above information you read.
> 
> Sound quality improvement solutions for everyone​
> I quoted your message just to clear your misunderstanding about Fidelizer as 'changing process scheduling policies' tool. Its fundamental is different and I hope you get my point. I'm not convincing you to believe that Fidelizer will improve sound quality in your system. You can try it and see for yourself if you're interested. You can also move on without trying Fidelizer too if you believe in 'bits are bits' and don't want anything else to confuse you.
> ...


 
  
 OK, it is not a process scheduler policy change tool, yet, 90% of the claims you list on your own main page, are around that.
 Hence the confusion.


----------



## watchnerd

windowsx said:


> For your information, I also know some bros who's into audiophile and took network courses for his IT career. He hates networked audio to the bones, purchased cisco network hub switch, separated nano router and connect to ethernet port to minimize network interference problems. And he only used network for remote control, no audio streaming through network at all.


 
  
 Your "bros" need to learn how to do it right.
  
 Audio over IP has been used in professional recording studios for years, using multiple different technology stacks, some of them proprietary (Dante, Rednet), more recently open sourced.


----------



## WindowsX

hotice said:


> OK, it is not a process scheduler policy change tool, yet, 90% of the claims you list on your own main page, are around that.
> Hence the confusion.


 
  
 People often mistook it for process tweaking. I used to write like optimizing multimedia runtime platform using API call to increase audio thread and stuff. Those contain a lot of jargons and confuse many end-user. So, I wrapped them up again to make things easier to follow and grasp the concept better. If you want to read about detailed features, please check Support > About Fidelizer here.
  
 http://www.fidelizer-audio.com/about-fidelizer/
  
 I wrote detailed explanation about its technology there and hope it'll help you understanding the product better. 
  
 Regards,
 Keetakawee


----------



## watchnerd

windowsx said:


> In that case, I recommend you to bring your music server and compare to any Esoteric CD transport in hifi shop. See if you can make it sounding better. I did that and I'm still trying to make device sounding as close as Esoteric's performance as much as possible.
> 
> Regards,
> Keetakawee


 
  
 Compare to a CD transport?
  
 If you had listed a high-end network transport / streamer from someone like Auralic I would get the comparison.
  
 You're comparing to old tech.


----------



## WindowsX

watchnerd said:


> Your "bros" need to learn how to do it right.
> 
> Audio over IP has been used in professional recording studios for years, using multiple different technology stacks, some of them proprietary (Dante, Rednet), more recently open sourced.


 
  
 Doing it right? He also work on PA audio, digital audio mastering, and highend audio equipment service industries. I and he played around with a few highend network players, built a few Windows/OSX/Linux models together. I also played around with Dante/Rednet and Merging NADAC too.
  
 I also have Nimitra customers who work on famous audio recording studios. He's also an audiophile using Playback Designs for DSD256 playback/recording and Nimitra makes his album sounding a lot better. I recommend you to have actual experience with highend sources. It'll widen up your experience a lot.
  
 Regards,
 Keetakawee


----------



## WindowsX

watchnerd said:


> Compare to a CD transport?
> 
> If you had listed a high-end network transport / streamer from someone like Auralic I would get the comparison.
> 
> You're comparing to old tech.


 
  
 My point is to try listening to something like $10-30k CD sources first. See if yours can sound better than that or make hifi shop vendors agree with you. If you haven't done that yet, you still lack highend audio experience.
  
 Regards,
 Keetakawee


----------



## HotIce

windowsx said:


> People often mistook it for process tweaking. I used to write like optimizing multimedia runtime platform using API call to increase audio thread and stuff. Those contain a lot of jargons and confuse many end-user. So, I wrapped them up again to make things easier to follow and grasp the concept better. If you want to read about detailed features, please check Support > About Fidelizer here.
> 
> http://www.fidelizer-audio.com/about-fidelizer/
> 
> ...


 
  
 Are you kidding me now?
 All that page talks, is about adjusting process priorities and scheduling policies.
 Let's move along, nothing to see here.


----------



## WindowsX

hotice said:


> Are you kidding me now?
> All that page talks, is about adjusting process priorities and scheduling policies.
> Let's move along, nothing to see here.


 
  
 Here's the list of features from Consumer level containing Fidelizer's core features:
  


> 1. Multimedia Class Scheduler Service (MMCSS) optimization: You may see some DAW software having MMCSS options and we have no clue what they do specifically, as if it’s the developers’ secrets. At least you can find an explanation in Fidelizer and here’s how it’s done.
> -Keep audio tasks working steadily without losing focus to other tasks.
> -Raise audio task priority, over all others, like I/O, etc.
> -Increase more frequent time slice for audio resource utilization.
> ...


 
  
 The only mention about process is
  
 "It will increase audio thread priority, real audio thread not increasing *process* priority in Task Manager so audio performance is improved from its core."
  
 I don't know how you reached that conclusion but feel free to move on if that's more convenient for you. I'm sure you haven't even tried Fidelizer though it's free and took few minutes to listen. I did all I could.
  
 Regards,
 Keetakawee


----------



## watchnerd

windowsx said:


> Doing it right? He also work on PA audio, digital audio mastering, and highend audio equipment service industries. I and he played around with a few highend network players, built a few Windows/OSX/Linux models together. I also played around with Dante/Rednet and Merging NADAC too.
> 
> I also have Nimitra customers who work on famous audio recording studios. He's also an audiophile using Playback Designs for DSD256 playback/recording and Nimitra makes his album sounding a lot better. I recommend you to have actual experience with highend sources. It'll widen up your experience a lot.
> 
> ...


 
  
 LOL...I have extensive experience recording and doing live sound real live symphonies.
  
 Your pattern is the same as the past: you lack data.
  
 So you have nothing to fall back on except personal attacks.


----------



## WindowsX

watchnerd said:


> LOL...I have extensive experience recording and doing live sound real live symphonies.
> 
> Your pattern is the same as the past: you lack data.
> 
> So you have nothing to fall back on except personal attacks.


 
  
 LOL...I have extensive experience with real highend audio sources in many highend systems up to nearly $1m system room.
  
 Your pattern is the same as the past: you lack experience with highend systems.
  
 So you have nothing to fall back on except pesudoscience theory attacks.
  
 Regards,
 Keetakawee
  
 P.S. Have you ever wondered why most audiophiles who use highend CD players won't move to network players?


----------



## watchnerd

windowsx said:


> P.S. Have you wondered why most audiophiles who use highend CD players won't move to network players?


 
  
 What are you talking about?
  
 Who do you think is buying the more expensive network players?
  
 Again -- show me data.  Do you have sales data for who is buying network players?
  
 But all of this is red herring.
  
 You can either realize that network streaming is the future and come up with a new product, or continue trying to sell your old stuff into a market that will shrink in the future.
  
 I know what I would do if I was trying to make money selling something similar.


----------



## WindowsX

watchnerd said:


> What are you talking about?
> 
> Who do you think is buying the more expensive network players?
> 
> ...


 
  
 I'd have used network players long a ago if it can sound as good as highend CD players. Recently I can see some Windows-based solutions performing pretty close to highend CD players. Some of my Nimitra customers are using with Esoteric CD Players and they're pretty pleased with result. They all said it's the closet thing to Esoteric since their journey.
  
 Again, show me the result of comparing to highend CD players. I don't have sales data but all people I know who's using highend CD players refused to switch to network players, globally.
  
 I agree that network streaming is future and I didn't say it was bad. My Nimitra product is also configured for network streaming by default. My products work with all solutions so there's nothing old to sell from me, honestly.
  
 The point of our debate is your suggestion about using network streaming will eliminate those problems with this and that is incorrect, both in theories and actual practices. For example, using asynchronous transfer will eliminate random jitter but add deterministic jitter instead. Random jitter is like natural noise in digital audio. Removing it will make audio sounds cleaner. But adding deterministic jitter will affect the sound itself and can make system sounding wrong. There's no way to remove all kinds of jitter effectively.
  
 So, network players won't be magically perfect and can outperform good CD transport anytime soon. Please, go listen to highend CD sources and you may share your result here in this forum if you'd like to.
  
 Regards,
 Keetakawee


----------



## watchnerd

windowsx said:


> Removing it will make audio sounds cleaner.


 
  
 Only up to a point.
  
 My cheapie Raspberry Pi based S/PDIF streamer has jitter specs at -140 dBFS.  That's both as good as many high end products and, more importantly, waaaay below audibility.


----------



## WindowsX

watchnerd said:


> Only up to a point.
> 
> My cheapie Raspberry Pi based S/PDIF streamer has jitter specs at -140 dBFS.  That's both as good as many high end products and, more importantly, waaaay below audibility.


 
  
 Have you actually compared your Rasberry PI with highend product yet? What model? Is it Esoteric? Maybe Emm Labs/dCS/Wadia/Weiss is also OK for reference.
  
 Regards,
 Keetakawee


----------



## HotIce

windowsx said:


> Here's the list of features from Consumer level containing Fidelizer's core features:
> 
> 
> The only mention about process is
> ...


 
  
 Yes, they all are scheduler tweaks. Let's outline them:
  
Keep audio tasks working steadily without losing focus to other tasks - Check (scheduler tweak)
  
Raise audio task priority, over all others, like I/O, etc. - Check (scheduler tweak)
  
Increase more frequent time slice for audio resource utilization. - Check (scheduler tweak)
  
Kernel timer resolution optimization: ... - Check (scheduler tweak)
  
Audio thread priority optimization: Here’s a real gem. ... - Check (scheduler tweak)
  
  
 Essentially, what you are doing, is trying to solve the audio skip issues that arise when audio data is not timely fed into the device, which cause the device to not have nothing to play for a certain time window (even a few ms are noticeable).
 And, as I said in my other emails, whether you need it or not, should be pretty obvious because so are the audio skip issues.


----------



## WindowsX

hotice said:


> Yes, they all are scheduler tweaks. Let's outline them:
> 
> Keep audio tasks working steadily without losing focus to other tasks - Check (scheduler tweak)
> 
> ...


 
  
 Yes. It's resource scheduling optimizations not process scheduling optimizations. It doesn't only solve audio skipping issues but also improve sound quality with reduced digital glare problems. If you're audiophile listening to music from decent CD transport and vinyls, you may find computer audio sounding harsh and doesn't sound close to real sound. Fidelizer will improve the situation making it closer to real sound performance.
  
 It looks like you're 'bits are bits' believer so you probably don't own any decent CD transport to compare with yet. It's not surprising if you find it hard to believe without actual experience to realize. I recommend you to try using free version and see if you can notice improvement first before passing any judgement.
  
 Regards,
 Keetakawee


----------



## gregorio

clintonl said:


> Hey guys just wondering is there a general consensus if this actually works or not?


 
  
 The general consensus is that it doesn't work.
  
 Computers are complicated and there's an almost endless number of variables involved which could theoretically impact playback performance, plus of course the variables of how any particular external DAC handles the data output by the computer. So there is a possibility that your particular set-up of equipment, drivers and settings etc., is is not optimal and a slimmer possibility that it's not optimal to the point of audibility. There's also the possibility that Fidelizer might just happen to be changing the particular settings/variables which are causing the problems in your particular set-up (if there are any problems) to a degree which could be audible. However, that's quite a few possibilities and slim possibilities multiplied together and the little actual data supplied by WindowsX in this thread demonstrates that Fidelizer's changes are below audibility.
  
 For these reasons, we cannot truthfully conclude that Fidelizer never works, only that it won't make any audible difference to the vast majority. Of course, the word "audible" is rather ambiguous because differences which are inaudible or which don't exist at all can be perceived, due to the various biases involved in the perception of sound. This fact is presumably why WindowsX is so keen to supply testimonials and get you to listen to Fidelizer, rather than supplying any convincing data or logical rationale for why it should work for Everyone as he claims.
  
 Of course there's nothing stopping you from trying it, especially if you''re one of those audiophiles who essentially don't believe or care that they're only hearing the results of a bias rather than an actual difference but I personally don't fall into that category and I also have concerns that Fidelizer is making some low level setting changes which may impact the other tasks I use my computer for and which may prove difficult to precisely reset, should I wish to uninstall it. I'm sure WindowsX will strongly dispute this concern and I have no evidence to refute him but I'm personally not willing to take the risk, especially as some/many of his responses in this thread have demonstrated (to me at least) that he has a very limited or even no understanding of some of the issues discussed.
  
 G


----------



## asymcon

When playing music on PC, all the user/audiophile should care about is getting all bits worth of audio data from analog inputs. Turns out, it's not that difficult to accomplish. And it's measurable. To decode 44.1/16bit 2ch stream, only very little processing is required. 100-133MHz Pentium I can do it with extra processing headroom. Modern ARM9E CPU can decode FLAC at measely 7-9MHz, bit accurate [1].
 Implying that modern Intel i-series based PCs running Windows can't do reliably what on-chip solutions did in 1986 somewhat lacks in credibility.
 Granted, PC can output audio distorted with all sorts of pops and clicks. But there fault lies either in software drivers, poor grounding management or faulty DAC. Assigning different priorities to Windows services can easily break more things than fix.
 As long as it's not about 100+ms dropouts which often results when CPU, FPU and Memory is fully loaded, the gain here might have been measured in amplitude and frequency of those already inaudible CPU noises when using dedicated audio interface.


----------



## WindowsX

Is there anyone in this forum having decent CD transport to share your experience with? So far everyone who's been arguing with me avoided this topic somehow. If Fidelizer doesn't work, I wouldn't have received orders and feedback like everyday with no complaint at all.
  
 Regards,
 Keetakawee


----------



## bfreedma

windowsx said:


> Is there anyone in this forum having decent CD transport to share your experience with? So far everyone who's been arguing with me avoided this topic somehow. If Fidelizer doesn't work, I wouldn't have received orders and feedback like everyday with no complaint at all.
> 
> Regards,
> Keetakawee


 
  
 It's your product and your claims.  Get yourself a high end transport and the appropriate measuring equipment to vet them.
  
 Relying on customer testimonials/subjective opinions in the absence of data isn't appropriate in the Sound Science forums.  This isn't the first time you've taken this approach - time to put up or move back to your product forum where everyone here has respectfully not challenged the validity of your Fidelizer claims.


----------



## asymcon

windowsx said:


> Is there anyone in this forum having decent CD transport to share your experience with? So far everyone who's been arguing with me avoided this topic somehow. If Fidelizer doesn't work, I wouldn't have received orders and feedback like everyday with no complaint at all.
> 
> Regards,
> Keetakawee


 

 Maybe because there's no need to. Relying on your ears, or anyone ears, to do the comparison isn't going to produce accurate results. In this case the claims are readily measurable, unlike say analog gear, where there are far too many variables to account for.
 Generate 1kHz sine at -110dB, save as 24bit wave and compare results before and after Fidelizer from audio output without changing anything in your system. When nothing is detected, try with IMD 60Hz and 7kHz, etc.
  
 To me it seems you're trying to fix a problem, which simply doesn't exist.


----------



## WindowsX

bfreedma said:


> It's your product and your claims.  Get yourself a high end transport and the appropriate measuring equipment to vet them.
> 
> Relying on customer testimonials/subjective opinions in the absence of data isn't appropriate in the Sound Science forums.  This isn't the first time you've taken this approach - time to put up or move back to your product forum where everyone here has respectfully not challenged the validity of your Fidelizer claims.


 
  
 I see. So science only cares about data so they can know everything without listening to any real highend equipment. Hmm....This sounds like a convenient plot for abusive data beggers. Keep in mind that I didn't make this topic to promote Fidelizer but someone accused my product with misleading information.
  
 Regards,
 Keetakawee


----------



## WindowsX

asymcon said:


> Maybe because there's no need to. Relying on your ears, or anyone ears, to do the comparison isn't going to produce accurate results. In this case the claims are readily measurable, unlike say analog gear, where there are far too many variables to account for.
> Generate 1kHz sine at -110dB, save as 24bit wave and compare results before and after Fidelizer from audio output without changing anything in your system. When nothing is detected, try with IMD 60Hz and 7kHz, etc.
> 
> To me it seems you're trying to fix a problem, which simply doesn't exist.


 
  
 1. Have you tried Fidelizer?
 2. Do you have any decent CD transport in your possession?
  
 It seems you're trying to draw a conclusion on things you have no experience about. What if you try using Fidelizer and notice the audio improvement?
  
 Regards,
 Keetakawee


----------



## bfreedma

windowsx said:


> I see. Science only data so I can know everything without listening to any real highend equipment. Hmm....This sounds like a convenient plot for abusive data beggers. Keep in mind that I didn't make this topic to promote Fidelizer but someone accused my product with misleading information.
> 
> Regards,
> Keetakawee


 
  
 Semi serious question:
  
 When you were taught about the Earth's gravitational field, did you feel the need to jump off a tall building to test it or was the data presented to you sufficient to accept given the amount of peer reviewed testing on the topic?
  
 And bluntly, the only misleading information on Fidelizer I've seen has come from you.  Lot's of hand waving, anecdotal data, misunderstanding of PC/Windows design and network functionality.  
  
 In the absence of your properly developed data validating audible improvements and with the existence of current peer reviewed data detailing audio reproduction performance via PC, the only possible conclusion is that Fidelizer is snake oil.  As others have stated, 10-15 years ago, there was a small percentage of PCs that might need optimization to be able to properly process audio.  You would have a very hard time finding one today.
  
 And why do you keep assuming people who refute your unsupported claims haven't also heard high end equipment?  Those topics are not mutually exclusive - there are also  more than enough measurements of "high end" equipment to know that it, particularly for CD transports, provides no audible improvement over a properly built reasonably priced unit (which covers virtually all current transports).


----------



## WindowsX

bfreedma said:


> Semi serious question:
> 
> When you were taught about the Earth's gravitational field, did you feel the need to jump off a tall building to test it or was the data presented to you sufficient to accept given the amount of peer reviewed testing on the topic?
> 
> ...


 
  
 All I asked is trying to throw apple up and see if it falls down with gravitational force as I suggest, not throwing yourself from top of skyscraper building. I studied a lot in digital audio, data communication classes, talk with dCS and Weiss specialists about digital audio. Many knowledge from real tests and from people who's involved with may make no sense but all came from real test result that can't be shared through few statements.
  
 I build products for many professional audio specialists to use, some even use Fidelizer as infrastructure product to ensure stability. If it makes no sense, you should have seen one complaint from my customers in communities. Yet you see none. Do you think it's possible to sell over 1800 license without having a single customer complaining about ineffective product if it really doesn't work?
  
 Regards.
 Keetakawee


----------



## bfreedma

windowsx said:


> bfreedma said:
> 
> 
> > Semi serious question:
> ...




I certainly believe you could sell licenses with no complaints given that anyone with a reasonable understanding of how modern Windows PCs and networks operate would never consider purchasing Fidelizer. Same business model as the "high end" cable manufacturers.

You keep referring to "real tests" and professional audio specialists who use your product. Yet you haven't produced the data from these tests or named any of the professionals you state utilize your product.

I'm (once again) off this merry go round. When you have something objective to post, I'd be happy to rejoin and discuss tangible data.


----------



## HotIce

windowsx said:


> Yes. It's resource scheduling optimizations not process scheduling optimizations. It doesn't only solve audio skipping issues but also improve sound quality with reduced digital glare problems. If you're audiophile listening to music from decent CD transport and vinyls, you may find computer audio sounding harsh and doesn't sound close to real sound. Fidelizer will improve the situation making it closer to real sound performance.
> 
> It looks like you're 'bits are bits' believer so you probably don't own any decent CD transport to compare with yet. It's not surprising if you find it hard to believe without actual experience to realize. I recommend you to try using free version and see if you can notice improvement first before passing any judgement.
> 
> ...


 
  
 "Digital glare"?!?
 The device downstream, given a format and bitrate, needs to receive a given amount of bytes per second, in order to continuously play.
 And if it does not get it, the effect are clearly audible with audio skipping. No guessing necessary.
 There's no "glare" if a device is left starving of data dowstream.
 Glare, is on of those intentionally vague term coined to trick a user in believing he needs something he really doesn't.
  
 As for me, I am 100% confident I have no audio skips, so I am 100% confident your software will do nothing.
 That, and the fact I am not using Windows 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	



 And for a modern Linux distro, if you ever had audio skip issues, there's a configuration which tells the priority to run the Pulse Audio server to.
 But again, you've got to have pretty old HW, or major load on your system, in order to make audio skip these days.


----------



## WindowsX

bfreedma said:


> I certainly believe you could sell licenses with no complaints given that anyone with a reasonable understanding of how modern Windows PCs and networks operate would never consider purchasing Fidelizer. Same business model as the "high end" cable manufacturers.
> 
> You keep referring to "real tests" and professional audio specialists who use your product. Yet you haven't produced the data from these tests or named any of the professionals you state utilize your product.
> 
> I'm (once again) off this merry go round. When you have something objective to post, I'd be happy to rejoin and discuss tangible data.


 
  
 What you're asking is like
  
 "Bring me the photo from the end of the world and I'll see if it has cliff falling off from earth or not."
  
 I did show others but it's like
  
 "Here's photo from outer space to see the world is quite round."
  
 And you tell me like
  
 "What is outer space? That's fantasy. Bring me something more tangible."
  
 I respect your opinion but sorry that I can't meet up to your expectation. 
  


hotice said:


> "Digital glare"?!?
> The device downstream, given a format and bitrate, needs to receive a given amount of bytes per second, in order to continuously play.
> And if it does not get it, the effect are clearly audible with audio skipping. No guessing necessary.
> There's no "glare" if a device is left starving of data dowstream.
> ...


 
  
 Digital glare is the problem with audiophiles who's familiar with better audio sources like analog vinyls or highend digital sources. Once you get the taste of better wine, some can't feel satisfied with lesser wine they used to enjoy anymore. Here's some testimonials with digital glare related comments.
  
 http://www.fidelizer-audio.com/added-testimonial-from-marios-petrou/
 http://www.fidelizer-audio.com/added-testimonial-from-radek-matusewicz/
 http://www.fidelizer-audio.com/added-testimonial-from-rick-ursberg/
  
 If you don't have issue listening to digital audio system you have now, you may not need to worry about such case and put Fidelizer off the table. It's pointless trying to draw conclusion about product without actual experience. I used to do that and now I feel ashamed about my foolish past self full of prejudge and biases.
  
 Regards,
 Keetakawee


----------



## HotIce

windowsx said:


> What you're asking is like
> 
> "Bring me the photo from the end of the world and I'll see if it has cliff falling off from earth or not."
> 
> ...


 
  
 Oh, I remember the Digital Glare thing, at the time, 20 years ago or so, when vinyl people were trying to keep users off digital.
 The same folks branding the Digital Glare were the ones which miserably failed to detect a A/D -> D/A step during a listening test 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	



 The latest traces of Digital Glare mentions, were found in a jurassic park near the Fiji islands 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	



  
 But whatever Digital Glare was, given the clear statements in your home page, your system is not going to address it.
 The only thing it tries to do, is to solve audio skip issues, and those are as clear as nighttime thunders to a user.
 No need to resort to SCAM prone terms like Digital Glare.


----------



## WindowsX

hotice said:


> Oh, I remember the Digital Glare thing, at the time, 20 years ago or so, when vinyl people were trying to keep users off digital.
> The same folks branding the Digital Glare were the ones which miserably failed to detect a A/D -> D/A step during a listening test
> 
> 
> ...


 
  
 At least I'm glad to hear some positive consensus from you. Fidelizer is trying to improve audio performance, getting stable lower latency audio, reduce stuttering chance and improve sound quality with less digital audio problems. If you have opportunity to use Windows audio in future, feel free to try Fidelizer. 
  
 Regards,
 Keetakawee


----------



## watchnerd




----------



## Joe Bloggs

windowsx said:


> Is there anyone in this forum having decent CD transport to share your experience with? So far everyone who's been arguing with me avoided this topic somehow. If Fidelizer doesn't work, I wouldn't have received orders and feedback like everyday with no complaint at all.
> 
> Regards,
> Keetakawee




http://www.head-fi.org/t/823184/why-are-all-objectivists/15#post_12943624


----------



## watchnerd

joe bloggs said:


> http://www.head-fi.org/t/823184/why-are-all-objectivists/15#post_12943624


 
  
 It's all deja vu.


----------



## ClintonL

Running a 3770k at 4.5ghz/16gb ddr3 2400mhz/gtx1080/ssd. Audiowise it's a cambridge dac magic plus to valhalla 2 to hd800's. I tried the free version but did not hear an audible difference. Although i did some researched and found someone on reddit who said it worked and when i asked him he said the paid version was a big upgrade and that it was more of a difference than from going from no fidelizer to free (which i saw no real difference).
 Would be good if there was a immediate on/off toggle which would make it easy to compare or a time trial for the pro version.
  
 I'm going to try the pro version however as i respect your work, offtopic and i've said it before but your windows vista transformation pack is what got me first tinkering around with computers when i was a kid giving me a hobby then a career. Then after getting into computers i got into audio and wound up finding your work again. Probably don't hear it too often but as a content creator you can definitely change someone's life.


----------



## WindowsX

clintonl said:


> Running a 3770k at 4.5ghz/16gb ddr3 2400mhz/gtx1080/ssd. Audiowise it's a cambridge dac magic plus to valhalla 2 to hd800's. I tried the free version but did not hear an audible difference. Although i did some researched and found someone on reddit who said it worked and when i asked him he said the paid version was a big upgrade and that it was more of a difference than from going from no fidelizer to free (which i saw no real difference).
> Would be good if there was a immediate on/off toggle which would make it easy to compare or a time trial for the pro version.
> 
> I'm going to try the pro version however as i respect your work, offtopic and i've said it before but your windows vista transformation pack is what got me first tinkering around with computers when i was a kid giving me a hobby then a career. Then after getting into computers i got into audio and wound up finding your work again. Probably don't hear it too often but as a content creator you can definitely change someone's life.


 
  
 Glad to see old fan since Vista Transformation Pack. What audio player are you using? You can try using foobar2000 with suggested optimizations in user guide here. It may help you notice the improvement better.
  
 http://www.fidelizer-audio.com/user-guide/
  
 Regards,
 Keetakawee


----------



## asymcon

windowsx said:


> 1. Have you tried Fidelizer?
> 2. Do you have any decent CD transport in your possession?


 
 1. No, I haven't. Firstly it took me quite some time to set-up my studio PC and don't want any 3rd party app to ruin its settings or introduce unwanted side effects. 
 As I'm primarily using WASAPI when sequencing, the Endpoint Builder must work 100%. 
 BTW, this guide works too: 
 https://support.focusrite.com/hc/en-gb/articles/207359245-Optimising-your-PC-for-audio-on-Windows-7
 https://support.focusrite.com/hc/en-gb/articles/207355205-Optimising-your-PC-for-Audio-on-Windows-10
  
 But even that is a bit over the top. For example turning on system caching (giving background services higher priority) doesn't improve low-latency audio by measurable margin. Some of those tips were repurposed from Windows XP, which had some serious limitations in its kmixer and I guess system caching was thought as a workaround. Not an issue with Win7+
  
 2. As a matter of fact I do. Panasonic SL-SX480. Its SNR far exceeds that of a CD, and also has pretty advanced noise shaping on oversampled PCM data. 
 Though lately don't get much use, as I'm fine with Clip+ which, surprise, sounds same to me, and is a lot smaller.


----------



## Morkai

> You can try using foobar2000 with suggested optimizations in user guide here. It may help you notice the improvement better.


 


 I tested it with foobar, followed the guidelines. I just can't hear any difference whatsoever. I'm not sure what you think i should hear there.


----------



## KeithEmo

I have no comments on Fidelizer....
  
 However, I am wondering why all the hookup pictures in the User Guide and About Fidelizer show Dirac (both the icon and the name).  Dirac Live is a commercial automatic room correction system, which is available as software, or as a hardware feature in certain surround sound processors, like the Emotiva XMC-1. It has nothing to do with Fidelizer, and isn't mentioned in the text.
  
 Quote:


morkai said:


> I tested it with foobar, followed the guidelines. I just can't hear any difference whatsoever. I'm not sure what you think i should hear there.


----------



## WindowsX

asymcon said:


> 1. No, I haven't. Firstly it took me quite some time to set-up my studio PC and don't want any 3rd party app to ruin its settings or introduce unwanted side effects.
> As I'm primarily using WASAPI when sequencing, the Endpoint Builder must work 100%.
> BTW, this guide works too:
> https://support.focusrite.com/hc/en-gb/articles/207359245-Optimising-your-PC-for-audio-on-Windows-7
> ...


 
  
 Fidelizer is safe without making any permanent change to system but I understand that you don't want to risk for any side effects. It's OK to stay with what you're comfortable with. As for digital sources, it's like a world apart between highend/ultra highend digtal sources and entry/premium ones. Right now I'm working hard to make Nimitra performing closer to $30k digital sources like Esoteric P-02/D-02 at the moment.
  


morkai said:


> I tested it with foobar, followed the guidelines. I just can't hear any difference whatsoever. I'm not sure what you think i should hear there.


 
  
 It's OK. If you don't hear any improvement with Fidelizer, maybe it's not something that works with you yet. You may also try to keep using it for few more days and see if you notice in any absent without using it later too.
  


keithemo said:


> I have no comments on Fidelizer....
> 
> However, I am wondering why all the hookup pictures in the User Guide and About Fidelizer show Dirac (both the icon and the name).  Dirac Live is a commercial automatic room correction system, which is available as software, or as a hardware feature in certain surround sound processors, like the Emotiva XMC-1. It has nothing to do with Fidelizer, and isn't mentioned in the text.


 
  
 Because some customers are using with Dirac live and they asked me how to set it up with Fidelizer. So I made example case with Dirac to demonstrate the situation.
  
 Regards,
 Keetakawee


----------



## teodorom

Sorry if I was unable to read all the 30 pages of discussion ...
 Since I'm unable to describe in "audiophile terms" the differences I hear with Fidelizer, I only remind you that there is a common agreement on the fact that there is no audible difference among what you can hear with Spotify @320CBR and TIDAL or Qobuz @16/44.1.
 If you (generic "you") are among those people I understand your dislike for Fidelizer.
 Me, I hear clearly the difference among MQA and no-MQA material ...
 More: I can say that Windows 10 sound is (a little ... significantly ?) better than the one of Windows 7.
 So, if you want to continue to shoot over Fidelizer, you can do it.
 Me, I'm happy to see that, with Fidelizer (free version), that the latency of my i7 (measured with DPC Latency Checker V1.4.0) stays consistently under 600us. Without Fidelizer ? 1100us (it's not a dedicated machine ...)


----------



## Joe Bloggs

teodorom said:


> Me, I'm happy to see that, with Fidelizer (free version), that the latency of my i7 (measured with DPC Latency Checker V1.4.0) stays consistently under 600us. Without Fidelizer ? 1100us (it's not a dedicated machine ...)




And with that, I believe you have done more to promote Fidelizer to me than WindowX himself ever did...


----------



## gregorio

joe bloggs said:


> And with that, I believe you have done more to promote Fidelizer to me than WindowX himself ever did...


 
  
 Very true, although still not compelling as far as I'm concerned. When I press play, as long as it actually starts playing within the blink of an eye (about 200,000us), that's good enough for me.
  
 G


----------



## WindowsX

@teodorom: Thank you for your positive comment. I'm sure it hurts no soul if Fidelizer can improve music enjoyment in some systems.
  
 @Joe Bloggs: LoL. You're right though I have no intention to promote Fidelizer product here in this thread. I've have done better if I had that intention from start.
  
 @gregorio: Good for you. 
  
 By the way, I noticed notification about this thread today and tried to read his comment as written below.
  


> I admit that i hear much difference, actually on well recorded files like 'Max richter - Luminous(FLAC 16bit/44KHz)'.
> Now the string's vibrating have more micro-dynamics, and imaging is more precise.
> 
> I felt it with even when i using iem like westone2 on foobar2000 fidelizer-guide settings being applied.
> ...


 
 
I don't understand why this comment should be removed. He only expressed his subjective opinions without bashing anyone or any idea. Does sound science forum ban subjective posts now?


----------



## sonitus mirus

windowsx said:


> I don't understand why this comment should be removed. He only expressed his subjective opinions without bashing anyone or any idea. Does sound science forum ban subjective posts now?


 
  
 I'm not certain who's comment was removed.  Perhaps it was simply edited by the original poster?  I found it rather amusing that you would ask if this forum bans subjective posts.  The answer, by the way, is absolutely not.


----------



## castleofargh

windowsx said:


> > I admit that i hear much difference, actually on well recorded files like 'Max richter - Luminous(FLAC 16bit/44KHz)'.
> > Now the string's vibrating have more micro-dynamics, and imaging is more precise.
> >
> > I felt it with even when i using iem like westone2 on foobar2000 fidelizer-guide settings being applied.
> ...


 
 he deleted this post and copied it in the fidelizer topic outside sound science where you can read it.
 I don't know that he was pressured to do it by the objectivist Illuminati
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




, most likely he just wished to express his opinion without being bothered by someone asking for proof, so he moved to a place where that wouldn't happen. smart move IMO.
  
 I just cleaned what was left:
   


> deleted : wrong thread
> 
> Edited by sarang-i - Yesterday at 12:50 pm


----------



## WindowsX

Oh I see. I thought it was handled by moderator. I apologize for jumping into misleading conclusion. Yeah, smart move I'd say.


----------



## sonitus mirus

Additional information to support the notion that this product is most likely not the right tool to use to fix a problem it might solve.
   
 http://archimago.blogspot.com/2017/04/retro-measure-2002-lynx-l22-pci-audio.html
  
 Quote:


> *Nope, CPU and GPU loads do not contribute to higher jitter.* Computing load certainly did _not _create any more jitter for a PCI internal sound card designed in 2002! I remain perplexed as to why some people think that having more CPU threads or background services somehow results in "bad" sound. Seriously folks, these days if you've got bit-perfect output (ASIO, WASAPI) to an asynchronous USB DAC, _there is no jitter to worry about unless there's something wrong with your DAC_! OS tweaks and "optimization" apps like _Fidelizer_ or _AudiophileOptimizer_ will achieve *nothing*. Likewise, player software makes no difference as long as it's set up properly. Yes, I know people have provided testimony about how great certain optimizing software works or feel that a certain bitperfect player is better than another. So what? People testify about all kinds of things all the time which we safely ignore in day to day life!


----------



## WindowsX

sonitus mirus said:


> Additional information to support the notion that this product is most likely not the right tool to use to fix a problem it might solve.


 
  
 He can use the same logic to apply on highend CD transport saying it's not better than Pioneer / ASUS drive. I don't know why many audiophiles believe in his claims based on incorrect methodology to test. I can recommend some people who can do proper tests who can measure effect from analog output stage from DAC to show how digital transport can affect it.
  
 By the way, Fidelizer DID improve audio performance. It solved many stuttering cases in audio playback and pro audio applications. Some even bought Pro licenses to use as infrastructure to prevent audio skipping in pro audio works. As for sound quality improvement, I have more than enough testimonials to post like every day right now. Maybe expectation bias is too strong with Fidelizer. 
  
 Regards,
 Keetakawee


----------



## spruce music

windowsx said:


> He can use the same logic to apply on highend CD transport saying it's not better than Pioneer / ASUS drive. I don't know why many audiophiles believe in his claims based on incorrect methodology to test. I can recommend some people who can do proper tests who can measure effect from analog output stage from DAC to show how digital transport can affect it.
> 
> By the way, Fidelizer DID improve audio performance. It solved many stuttering cases in audio playback and pro audio applications. Some even bought Pro licenses to use as infrastructure to prevent audio skipping in pro audio works. As for sound quality improvement, I have more than enough testimonials to post like every day right now. Maybe expectation bias is too strong with Fidelizer.
> 
> ...


 

 So since we are in the sound science subforum, why don't you post some of these measurements showing how Fidelizer improves the results at the analog output stage of the DAC.  That would be really, really nice.  Much more convincing than some testimonials.


----------



## WindowsX

I once tried with Diffmaker. Proper measurements on analog DAC is too much effort for 2-digit software. Maybe I'll do that after people being able to make sense with Diffmaker measurements.

By the way, do you guys know any other measurements to recommend besides basic RMAA metrics archimago did? Do I need to measure signal that solved stuttering too?

Regards,
Keetakawee


----------



## spruce music

windowsx said:


> I once tried with Diffmaker. Proper measurements on analog DAC is too much effort for 2-digit software. Maybe I'll do that after people being able to make sense with Diffmaker measurements.
> 
> By the way, do you guys know any other measurements to recommend besides basic RMAA metrics archimago did? Do I need to measure signal that solved stuttering too?
> 
> ...


 

 Let us back up here.   You wrote:
  
I can recommend some people who can do proper tests who can measure effect from analog output stage from DAC to show how digital transport can affect it.
  
So do you know people who have measured a difference?  It isn't our place to tell you how after you claimed to know people to recommend.  If it hasn't been measured yet those people might make the measures and find nothing.  So which is it?  Do you know people who have the measurements or not?


----------



## WindowsX

I can recommend people who did that. You can ask Mr. Frederic Vanden Poel from 432 Evo

http://432evo.be

Here's his post about measuremrnts.



https://m.facebook.com/groups/350786351670736?view=permalink&id=1359079614174733


----------



## Don Hills

windowsx said:


> ... Here's his post about measuremrnts. ...


 
  
 Less handwaving and more measurements of the actual effect on the audible output of the DAC, please.
 And if you do find a DAC that's audibly affected by EMI from the PC, tell us what it is so we can avoid it. Any DAC with pretensions to high fidelity that is audibly affected by upstream differences is badly engineered.


----------



## gregorio

windowsx said:


> By the way, Fidelizer DID improve audio performance. It solved many stuttering cases in audio playback and pro audio applications. Some even bought Pro licenses to use as infrastructure to prevent audio skipping in pro audio works.


 
  
 I don't know about anyone else but I'm more that fed up of this incessant marketing BS. Audio skipping in pro DAWs is virtually non-existent and when it does occur it's almost always due to too many CPU hungry processors. In which case, the typical solution (apart from removing processors) is to increase latency but you've stated that Fidelizer reduces latency, which will increase stuttering caused by CPU hungry plugins rather than eliminate it!!
  
 It's possible under very specific, very rare circumstances that Fidelizer might help but in the vast majority of cases it's more likely to make a pro DAW more unstable. So why the marketing BS, especially here in the science forum, what's the point? I can see the point in say a forum frequented by DAW noobs (though I still object to it) but why here, where there's little/no opportunity to con DAW noobs and all you're likely to attract is being called out on the BS. How do you benefit from that?
  
 G


----------



## bfreedma

windowsx said:


> He can use the same logic to apply on highend CD transport saying it's not better than Pioneer / ASUS drive. I don't know why many audiophiles believe in his claims based on incorrect methodology to test. I can recommend some people who can do proper tests who can measure effect from analog output stage from DAC to show how digital transport can affect it.
> 
> By the way, Fidelizer DID improve audio performance. It solved many stuttering cases in audio playback and pro audio applications. Some even bought Pro licenses to use as infrastructure to prevent audio skipping in pro audio works. As for sound quality improvement, I have more than enough testimonials to post like every day right now. Maybe expectation bias is too strong with Fidelizer.
> 
> ...


 
  
  


windowsx said:


> I once tried with Diffmaker. Proper measurements on analog DAC is too much effort for 2-digit software. Maybe I'll do that after people being able to make sense with Diffmaker measurements.
> 
> By the way, do you guys know any other measurements to recommend besides basic RMAA metrics archimago did? Do I need to measure signal that solved stuttering too?
> 
> ...


 
  
 As others have already said, in this forum,  you either have objective evidence to support your claims or you don't.
  
 Seem like you've never been able to develop any objective evidence and because of that, here we are again with you making claims about your product then asking others to vet them.  You keep hanging your hat on the notion that modern PCs aren't able to support audio playback without severely crippling the OS and non audio processes - can you point me to a PC currently available for sale that can't sustain audio playback with a typical Windows OS install?  Because I'm unaware of any.  Even an Atom processor based PC has worked fine for me - the audio playback load on the CPU is under 15% including Foobar and related Windows services on my Atom based system.
  
 So far, the folks in this forum have been decent enough to stay out of your product thread.  Why don't you return the favor until you have something tangible to support your claims in the Sound Science forums.


----------



## WindowsX

I said I can recommend people who did the test. You guys are the one who posted unreliable measurements and asked for technical measurements from me. I have no obligation to show why his measurements are unreliable or even usable. And I did make it clear that Fidelizer IMPROVE AUDIO PERFORMANCE not just sound quality. It's measurable and solved many audio problems so far since 6 years ago. 
  
 Also, I didn't dig this thread nor I recommend to use high power CPU. If you want to learn, go ask him out. I'm too busy for this.
  
 Regards,
 Keetakawee


----------



## canali (Jul 6, 2017)

one thing i'm unclear on, please: 
if one already has Roon, and especially a microrendu, what further good would your product do?
i mean doesn't the microrendu replace a laptop for the most part, making it an audiophile's version of a laptop? and Roon only
further enhances any signal....just trying to get clarity please.
http://www.fidelizer-audio.com/about-fidelizer/


----------



## bigshot

I don't really care about performance if it isn't audible.


----------



## asymcon

Considering the raw requirements to decode 44.1k/16bit FLAC stream are about 15MHz ARM-A7 CPU and 4MB of RAM, it's quite safe to say any computer, no matter how big or small, can do it effortlessly.
HW/SW conflicts are another matter, but those can rarely be solved with a software used for tuning up system services and processes.


----------



## ev13wt

31 pages to understand that a product is being sold and bought? Wow. The guys are saying: "It makes a difference and has helped people". Well, duh. It software. Of course it "does something".  People buy "better DACs" all the time and its a complete waste of time and money. Note I didn't even say "cables".

Damn. Triggered by myself.  Anyone need a magical cable that will make your IEMs sound different? Measurable and hearable?


Snake oil. Of the harmless variety.


----------



## ev13wt (Jul 24, 2017)

WindowsX said:


> My point is to try listening to something like $10-30k CD sources first. See if yours can sound better than that or make hifi shop vendors agree with you. If you haven't done that yet, you still lack highend audio experience.
> 
> Regards,
> Keetakawee




Trying to sell stuff to these guys is useless. You need to go to general headphones to get people to fall for unsubstantiated, worthless marketing claims. We over here, you know, like headfi used to be, we know that a 10K CD player doesn't sound a tiny bit better or worse than lets say a android flac to decent (100 USD is high) DAC.

Why don't you try to double blind test your 30K CD PLayer to a smartphone / DAC combination? If you can pass that, and you simply won't, come back and post proof. Until then, lol is what you get.


Other guys are basing everything on "it sounds different / fuller / better". Lots of software does this. People love dipole / OB speaker sound. Recreate that and your done. Easier to sell too. People love distortion. Sell that. It will sound "different". If "different" costs money, then different = better.

It has nothing to do with "better" for people that actually understand audio.


----------



## WindowsX

I'd stop my audiophile journey if I can't tell apart between smartphone and highend sources. But I admit I probably couldn't tell them apart before starting this journey. However, it's impossible to be like that now.


----------



## ev13wt (Jul 24, 2017)

WindowsX said:


> I'd stop my audiophile journey if I can't tell apart between smartphone and highend sources. But I admit I probably couldn't tell them apart before starting this journey. However, it's impossible to be like that now.



Wait until you are further down that road. Like more 10 years. Its very nice to actually accept and understand that it sounds the same. Only then you can sell snake oil moar betterer. Obviously you hit your limit of understanding right about now, as plainly obvious by your posting tirade - to the people who don't buy into high end audiophoolery. 

Do some DBTs. It will really help you. I am not trying to hate on you or your work - just trying to help you understand.


Again, wrong part of the forum. People here understand that the problem you are solving are not even problems to begin with. Might have been small problems 10 years ago, but only "maybe".  But as long as there are others out there, you will make sales. All is good. There are many people out there that will hear the difference!

Put your skillset to something like binaural, don't waste it coding a new mouse trap. - In my humble opinion.

You have all these high end guys "supporting you" - did you never wonder why? Its a game. You are doing well. But accept that some people don't need it / want it / dismiss it.


edit: Please understand I am writing this with the utmost respect to what you have created / built up!


----------



## ev13wt (Jul 24, 2017)

But if you want to, I will glady go through all discussion stages with you. To speed it up:

Please quantify the difference between a cell phone as a source (flac) and a 30K CD player. Is this "night and day"? Is this 20%? 3%? Will I hear this difference in a dbt test?

My system? No. Its not good enough.
Yes, but I worked in a studio for some years. I did everything from setting up mics to cleaning heads.
No. There is no difference unless you want to hear it.
Yes. Well you see - I worked in a high end audio store for several years. We ate pizza after hours and listened to music.
No. If operated within specs, you will not hear a difference in a dbt.

If you don't believe in dbt, then you probably also believe that digital cables make a sound difference.



Well now. Do high end digital cables sound different than cheap digital cables? Please quantify the sound difference. (Please give me something except signal or null here, please) 

Your turn. But we covered all the topics methinks.


----------



## WindowsX

I'd be deaf by then.


----------



## ev13wt (Jul 24, 2017)

WindowsX said:


> I'd be deaf by then.



Which doesn't matter, now does it?  (edit: please answer my digital cable sound question)


----------



## WindowsX

My ears are good enough for now. At least I can tell apart between digital filters in iBasso DX200 or Oppo UDP-205 clearly. I won't answer about digital cable as it's off-topic question. Please create a new thread and ask this again.

Regards,
Keetakawee


----------



## ev13wt

WindowsX said:


> My ears are good enough for now. At least I can tell apart between digital filters in iBasso DX200 or Oppo UDP-205 clearly. I won't answer about digital cable as it's off-topic question. Please create a new thread and ask this again.
> 
> Regards,
> Keetakawee




Its ok, we shall stop this silly conversation now. Have you done a gain matched A/B comparison between the two iBasso and Oppo? Blindfolded?


----------



## WindowsX

Yes, I did. I closed my eyes and ask my friend who can't tell apart between filters to choose  things for me to listen to. I never made a wrong guess. Digital filter is proven science and you should respect engineer in their effort to improve audio sound quality.

Regards,
Keetakawee


----------



## ev13wt

WindowsX said:


> Yes, I did. I closed my eyes and ask my friend who can't tell apart between filters to choose  things for me to listen to. I never made a wrong guess. Digital filter is proven science and you should respect engineer in their effort to improve audio sound quality.
> 
> Regards,
> Keetakawee




While that has pretty much nochting to do with an DBT, at least it is something.

I'd respect engineers that build filters that work correctly. If something sounds "different", lets say upsampling to 192 or downsampling to 44.1, its a problem of the engineer. It sounds different because it is incorrectly implemented. Like most sine sweeps on youtube. So much intermodulation distortion going on that it is plain obvious - and people use this to say "they can hear" 20Khz because they are hearing "something".


----------



## WindowsX

You're listening to 128kbps lossy audio compression format in YouTube and I don't want to go back to classic MP3 VS CD debate here so let's stop here.

Regards,
Keetakawee


----------



## ev13wt

WindowsX said:


> You're listening to 128kbps lossy audio compression format in YouTube and I don't want to go back to classic MP3 VS CD debate here so let's stop here.
> 
> Regards,
> Keetakawee




Sigh. No. Actually I wasn't. I was trying to show that people think they hear something, when in fact they are only hearing badly designed / implemented technology. Listen: 

When you get to the point where you can't hear the high frequencies (wherever that is for you), simply turn up the volume a bit and listen for a "second sweep" that is present and much quieter. I ran this test with friends, and they all turned up the volume towards the end and stated they can hear everythin up to 20KHz.

But I AM drifting aff the subject, that is true.


----------



## Glenn Adema

Would like to say 1 thing in this old discussion.. Listening to music is a hobby of mine. Tested so much configurations over the years and what I found is.. When using silver usb or spdif cables for me the audio sounds better. When using fidelizer pro the sound steps up again. Using jplay mini or its streamer its sounds better then jriver or foobar. Using designed for audio power cables and outlets it gets better again.  When using 3 usb jitterbugs in my config it gets better again. So what proof other then my (our) ears do I have? None I think. Then why do I hear the pleasant differences. Why does spotify sound better on a good configured setup then 24bit 192khz files on a normal setup? Why does pc1 config sound so much better then pc2. The same with cd players. Why. And why is higher pricing of a cd player or pc not always an improvement? Why does a good clock matter? Why does a good power supply increase fidelity? Bits are bits arent they? Yes they are and yes they are the same on pc1 and pc2. A faster pc doesnt matter as all current pcs are overpowered for music playing these days. I think its all about timing. Using silver instead of copper changes timing. On some for the better on other systems for the worse. And so does fidelizer (although for me and all others that tried the pro version its a definite and big improvement (or at least the same, if the system was crazy good to begin with)). Fidelizer changes for instance os timer resolution. It isolates cpu core for music only and other stuff. Windows X knows this well and spent numerous hours testing with this although there is no scientific proof bits things. My hope is that one day timing can be measured and tested in such a way that these discussions can be closed forever.. Although I must say I sometimes enjoy the reading of them a lot....Its like good vs evil..


----------



## gregorio

Glenn Adema said:


> [1] So what proof other then my (our) ears do I have? None I think.
> [2] I think its all about timing.



1. But you don't have any proof of your ears! All you've got is proof of your perception + all the biases which affect it.
2. Why do you think that? The only proof you have is "your perception + all the biases which affect it", you don't have any proof of timing. And, the same is true of all the other things you think/assert!

G


----------



## VNandor (Jan 17, 2018)

Glenn Adema said:


> So what proof other then my (our) ears do I have? None I think.


Electricity can be measured with great accuracy and resolution. The vibrations in the air can be measured. The signal that goes into your speakers can be measured, as well as the vibrations the speakers cause as the result.
What really hard to measure is one's perception of sound.


----------



## bigshot

Glenn Adema said:


> Would like to say 1 thing in this old discussion.. Listening to music is a hobby of mine. Tested so much configurations over the years and what I found is....



It sounds like expectation bias and placebo effect are working out very well for you. If you want to continue to allow your perception to be colored by things other than actual sound quality, you might not want to spend time in sound science. Sooner or later, you’ll understand what we’re talking about and your carefully cultivated perceptual illusion will dissolve like smoke.


----------



## Strangelove424

Glenn Adema said:


> Would like to say 1 thing in this old discussion.. Listening to music is a hobby of mine. Tested so much configurations over the years and what I found is.. When using silver usb or spdif cables for me the audio sounds better. When using fidelizer pro the sound steps up again. Using jplay mini or its streamer its sounds better then jriver or foobar. Using designed for audio power cables and outlets it gets better again.  When using 3 usb jitterbugs in my config it gets better again. So what proof other then my (our) ears do I have? None I think. Then why do I hear the pleasant differences. Why does spotify sound better on a good configured setup then 24bit 192khz files on a normal setup? Why does pc1 config sound so much better then pc2. The same with cd players. Why. And why is higher pricing of a cd player or pc not always an improvement? Why does a good clock matter? Why does a good power supply increase fidelity? Bits are bits arent they? Yes they are and yes they are the same on pc1 and pc2. A faster pc doesnt matter as all current pcs are overpowered for music playing these days. I think its all about timing. Using silver instead of copper changes timing. On some for the better on other systems for the worse. And so does fidelizer (although for me and all others that tried the pro version its a definite and big improvement (or at least the same, if the system was crazy good to begin with)). Fidelizer changes for instance os timer resolution. It isolates cpu core for music only and other stuff. Windows X knows this well and spent numerous hours testing with this although there is no scientific proof bits things. My hope is that one day timing can be measured and tested in such a way that these discussions can be closed forever.. Although I must say I sometimes enjoy the reading of them a lot....Its like good vs evil..



"Sounds better" is an indicator that the thing being described cannot be described with any exactness at all because it is not actual. You haven't even bothered with an adjective. That's very disappointing for me to go through that entire paragraph without an adjective. I was really expecting atleast one, and think I deserved it. Neglecting any AB testing to verify your perception, you are falling back on flawed subjective interpretation, but don't even have subjective observations either. "Better" is not an observation. It's a judgment, and one lacking the substance of inspection or description. And even if you did have an observation, which you don't, it would need to be verified with blind AB before anyone took your wild claims seriously, lest anyone can come here and say anything at all and we must absolutely and always believe them.

I would take seriously into consideration the McGurk effect on your perceptions.


----------



## amirm

Glenn Adema said:


> Fidelizer changes for instance os timer resolution. It isolates cpu core for music only and other stuff. Windows X knows this well and spent numerous hours testing with this although there is no scientific proof bits things. My hope is that one day timing can be measured and tested in such a way that these discussions can be closed forever.. Although I must say I sometimes enjoy the reading of them a lot....Its like good vs evil..


Please forgive me for reciting a bit of my resume before commenting on this .  Some two decades of my professional experience was in operating system ("kernel") development and I managed the digital media division at Microsoft for a decade where the entire audio/video/imaging subsystem was part of my group.

In a nutshell, what these tools do has little merit and may actually make things worse, not better!

Here is the reason: the moment you boot up a modern operating system, on a CPU this day and age, massive amount of activity is going on in your system.  No amount of "simplification" of what is running will do but a trickle to slow this down.  The moment you try to read the audio file, tons of activity may occur to free memory, prefetch the file, filling CPU caches, virtual memory faults, etc., etc.  No user optimization process can impact these activities because they run at the kernel privilege and are below any program/process running in the system.  To think you can clamp this down is like thinking you can tell quiet down the sound in a loud concert by asking the person next to you to not talk .

There is also confusion on what is a fidelity improvement and what is a performance improvement.  Let's look at what fidelizer says they do:






Everything they mention is aimed at one thing: to make sure your music plays without interrupts.  Is that what you are trying to fix?  If not, and that is the case for just about every situation, then you don't need any of this.

Your audio subsystem is designed to be robust in the face of chaotic operation of the system as it is.  As such, there is fair amount of "buffering" where audios amples are read ahead and placed in temporary places for the audio hardware to draw and play.  With the workload of playing music not even needing 1% of the CPU resources these days, even when the system falls behind, it can catch up at lightning speed.  This is why even on your everyday machine or even phone you can play music with no interruptions.

More goodness here is not more goodness.  Your system only needs to keep up with the audio being played.  It is a relay team and going any faster than the rest of the members (i.e playing music) makes no difference.





This is more of the same.  Much of the music playback process is already running at higher privilege than any normal program.   When your DAC needs an audio sample, it gets it with extreme priority already (from the buffer).  Yes the music player can fall behind but again, if it did, you would get an audio glitch.  The fidelity would not change at all.  It is just a pause and if there is no pause, you are good to go!





They are making a mixed claim here.  One of them is the same as above.  That is they stop any other process that may get in the way of playing music.  Again, if the music is not pausing, this is of zero value.

The second part is where they hat on for fidelity.  The idea is that by having less activity in the system, there is must be less noise, and hence better fidelity.  As I explained at the outset, this is a fantasy.  There is a reason this impact can't be measured in noise performance of the PC playing back with any half decent hardware.  The machine is extremely noise at all times whether this optimization is done or not.  

Yes, there is poorly designed hardware that I have measured that shows impact based on CPU activity.  The solution there is to simply avoid that hardware.  Vast majority of devices I have tested even at subh $60 price points don't have any issues here.

On timing, with an asynchronous DAC which you should be using, none of that comes from the operating system.  The DAC hardware has its own and nothing you can do in the OS will change that.  

I explain all of this so that you don't go into evaluating such a solution as "it must make things better."  Because if you do, you absolutely will think that it does!  Know that from someone who has worked on every line of such code and managed teams that built the same that what they think they have built is not what is built.  They are taking advantage of concepts that are way too advanced for just about anyone to understand to imply that there is improvement.  If there were any, we could trivially measure it.

Finally, I can make a fake program that says it does all of this but in reality doesn't, give it to you, have you run it and you will swear that it made audible improvements!  I can do that even you are skeptical that it can!!!  Our audio evaluation process is this broken.


----------



## castleofargh

Glenn Adema said:


> Would like to say 1 thing in this old discussion.. Listening to music is a hobby of mine. Tested so much configurations over the years and what I found is.. When using silver usb or spdif cables for me the audio sounds better. When using fidelizer pro the sound steps up again. Using jplay mini or its streamer its sounds better then jriver or foobar. Using designed for audio power cables and outlets it gets better again.  When using 3 usb jitterbugs in my config it gets better again. So what proof other then my (our) ears do I have? None I think. Then why do I hear the pleasant differences. Why does spotify sound better on a good configured setup then 24bit 192khz files on a normal setup? Why does pc1 config sound so much better then pc2. The same with cd players. Why. And why is higher pricing of a cd player or pc not always an improvement? Why does a good clock matter? Why does a good power supply increase fidelity? Bits are bits arent they? Yes they are and yes they are the same on pc1 and pc2. A faster pc doesnt matter as all current pcs are overpowered for music playing these days. I think its all about timing. Using silver instead of copper changes timing. On some for the better on other systems for the worse. And so does fidelizer (although for me and all others that tried the pro version its a definite and big improvement (or at least the same, if the system was crazy good to begin with)). Fidelizer changes for instance os timer resolution. It isolates cpu core for music only and other stuff. Windows X knows this well and spent numerous hours testing with this although there is no scientific proof bits things. My hope is that one day timing can be measured and tested in such a way that these discussions can be closed forever.. Although I must say I sometimes enjoy the reading of them a lot....Its like good vs evil..



welcome to the Gish Gallop 2018 convention.
with all those empty claims disguised as questions, you seem more interested in finding justification to your gut feelings, than in facts and their possible causes. you want to know why something happens, but don't care about simply making sure it happens. this is a waste of everybody's time.


----------



## Zapp_Fan

So, if I am understanding this right, Fidelizer claims to improve sound quality because audio latency from your HDD to your DAC is reduced, basically?  Or maybe the CPU usage would be less?  In the former case, I cannot even think of a possible mechanism that this might improve sound quality.  In the latter, I imagine someone will talk about EMI from the CPU and how it does something to imaging or whatever. 

But anyway, did anyone do any null tests or any measurements at all ITT?  I feel that these debates should be very easy to settle.


----------



## bigshot

What audio latency between the HDD and the DAC? A HDD can shuffle data from place to place a lot faster than a DAC can play it. The only time I hear of latency being an issue is when you are recording with a million real time plugins engaged. That is a CPU thing. Are there computers that have trouble keeping up with the CPU requirement of simple audio playback? I don't understand what the problem is. It would be a good idea to define the problem before coming up with a solution!


----------



## Zapp_Fan

bigshot said:


> What audio latency between the HDD and the DAC? A HDD can shuffle data from place to place a lot faster than a DAC can play it. The only time I hear of latency being an issue is when you are recording with a million real time plugins engaged. That is a CPU thing. Are there computers that have trouble keeping up with the CPU requirement of simple audio playback? I don't understand what the problem is. It would be a good idea to define the problem before coming up with a solution!



My point was more that it's a non-problem. I basically mean the buffer length the audio player / driver is working with is maybe reduced by this thing?  I am struggling to even understand the utility. Buffer length such a non-problem for playback I don't even know where to begin.  It's like saying the length of your driveway affects the torque curve of your car. 

Unless your computer is from 1991, this won't help with anything.


----------



## bigshot

My Apple II is lagging! It must be the cassette drive!


----------



## bfreedma

bigshot said:


> My Apple II is lagging! It must be the cassette drive!



The good old days.  Hoping that your program wouldn't fail 15 minutes into loading off cassette.

Not many people remember that the original IBM PC and PCjr also had ports for cassette drives, though by the time they made market inroads, the incredibly fast and storage dense 5.25" single sided floppy had taken over mass storage for personal computers....


----------



## castleofargh

Zapp_Fan said:


> So, if I am understanding this right, Fidelizer claims to improve sound quality because audio latency from your HDD to your DAC is reduced, basically?  Or maybe the CPU usage would be less?  In the former case, I cannot even think of a possible mechanism that this might improve sound quality.  In the latter, I imagine someone will talk about EMI from the CPU and how it does something to imaging or whatever.
> 
> But anyway, did anyone do any null tests or any measurements at all ITT?  I feel that these debates should be very easy to settle.



as anything changing plenty of settings, it 100% sure that the result if ever significant, won't be consistent over various machines. if only because various users won't have their audio system setup the same way, or might just be using different audio drivers and players doing their own things(like pre loading the song entirely or not and other funky stuff). or the users might have gone and tweaked several stuff they do not understand based on crappy internet advice. so showing that fidelizer does nothing relevant on a typical machine, wouldn't prove it cannot solve some specific issue some dude will have. and the opposite is true too. showing one machine with a significant improvement between before and after would most likely just suggest the before was a mess that was man made. 

I've always consider this app as an automated solution for people who messed up and hope this would by chance set up whatever they touched to a better setting. because obviously even with a PI there is no reason to have degraded audio due to latency or whatever. any modern computer, has everything to deal with so much bigger than an audio files both to process and to stream somewhere. and modern usb DACs have pretty solid handling of buffering, reclocking, custom drivers, and anything used very much to make the computer as irrelevant as possible.


aside from that, our buddy @WindowsX has a very unique vision of what a proper test is. and that has been a very real problem when discussing this or several other topics. your approach wouldn't settle anything for him, I can tell you that much right now.


----------



## amirm

Zapp_Fan said:


> So, if I am understanding this right, Fidelizer claims to improve sound quality because audio latency from your HDD to your DAC is reduced, basically?  Or maybe the CPU usage would be less?  In the former case, I cannot even think of a possible mechanism that this might improve sound quality.  In the latter, I imagine someone will talk about EMI from the CPU and how it does something to imaging or whatever.


You are basically correct.  The argument for better fidelity is that of intuition: the less activity in the system (outside of playing audio), then less "noise" that can bleed out of the computer.  And once you include the definition of "noise that is not audible without music," their marketing argument is made.  And subjective impressions of betterness pour in.

I have always asked them and myriad of other player apps to create any configuration as even the best case scenario to show any audible difference.  They have not done so.  But as it turns out, I stumbled on two using Schiit DACs.  See: https://audiosciencereview.com/foru...puter-activity-can-impact-dac-performance.22/

And from https://audiosciencereview.com/forum/index.php?threads/budget-dac-review-schiit-modi-2-99.1649/:







There is about a 10 db difference in noise performance depending on what the computer is doing.

But here is the challenge: it is not clear doing less in a computer even if it results in less "noise" is audibly better!  See all those distortion spikes?  If I took away the broadband noise ("skirt") around them they would actually stick out better and be more audible!!!

In other words, chaotic response is your friend when it comes to distortion.  Change that to deterministic tones and come and go in absence of any other noise to mask them and the results can be negative, not positive.

This is counterintuitive so not even thought about by these companies.



> But anyway, did anyone do any null tests or any measurements at all ITT?  I feel that these debates should be very easy to settle.


Null results are hard because timing of audio playback drifts over time.  You can use audiodiffmaker to compensate but for me it crashes 99% of the time.

I vaguely remember people trying to capture the timing of audio samples and show a difference a few years ago but don't remember the details.

Outside of that, a simple test of two exactly configured system driving the Schiit Modi 2 DAC per above would be revealing of any such differences.  I am open to doing the testing if someone loans me the two configured PCs.  It is not worth it to me enough to spend my own money to buy that gear and put in the time to configure them.


----------



## Zapp_Fan (Jan 18, 2018)

amirm said:


> You are basically correct.  The argument for better fidelity is that of intuition: the less activity in the system (outside of playing audio), then less "noise" that can bleed out of the computer.  And once you include the definition of "noise that is not audible without music," their marketing argument is made.  And subjective impressions of betterness pour in.
> 
> I have always asked them and myriad of other player apps to create any configuration as even the best case scenario to show any audible difference.  They have not done so.  But as it turns out, I stumbled on two using Schiit DACs.  See: https://audiosciencereview.com/foru...puter-activity-can-impact-dac-performance.22/
> 
> ...



Hmm, that's pretty interesting.  I guess there really is some effect, although I won't open the "Do you really expect me to believe you can hear the difference between -90 and -100dBFS noise" can of worms right now.   I was always a bit skeptical of that "CPU causes audible noise" claim, so it's good to see an actual test of the phenomenon, thank you.

On the other hand, the noise within a sweep seems almost as large as the difference between the sweeps on that Schiit chart... unless they are averaged across several runs?

And we are still left with the fact that even if you optimize the performance of audio playback as much as Windows and the greatest minds in computer science can, that is still the difference between... maybe... 5% and 1% CPU load in the most extreme case.  (on my work laptop Foobar2000 registers as 0-0.5% CPU usage during playback with a 50ms buffer) Audio playback is not demanding on modern systems as many have noted.  The problem will arise when you do something else that's CPU/RAM-intensive while listening to music, which the Fidelizer can't save you from.

On the other hand, if jitter / EMI noise from your CPU is the quality bottleneck in your system, you probably have enough cash to throw at this regardless...


----------



## WindowsX

It's totally cool and all if you find no audible changes or from hearing or measurements with Fidelizer. It's not DSP sound enhancer app and focus on curing digital glare effects in computer audio effectively for real sound performance.

I works on my experience with quality digital sources to satisfy my music enjoyment since I can't find server to meet up my expectations with Esoteric transport as a reference. If Fidelizer works great with your system, I'm glad to hear that. If not, happy listening also. 

Regards,
Keetakawee

P.S. I still hope to see some highend computer audiophiles jumping into this thread sharing his insights from computer audio with ultra highend DACs. But since they can afford those, they probably have better ways to use their free time on something else.


----------



## bigshot (Jan 18, 2018)

Just get a mac and don't sweat computer noise. I use a Mac Mini to drive my media server. It's nearly 7 years old and it does everything perfectly for human ears. It drives the systems across my whole house, including my HD projection system.


----------



## amirm

Zapp_Fan said:


> On the other hand, the noise within a sweep seems almost as large as the difference between the sweeps on that Schiit chart... unless they are averaged across several runs?


Usually I average them for single shot measurements but I am not sure if I did or did not do that in this continuous run.


----------



## amirm

WindowsX said:


> P.S. I still hope to see some highend computer audiophiles jumping into this thread sharing his insights from computer audio with ultra highend DACs.


A high-end DAC is not a high-end DAC if it is sensitive to what the computer is doing!  What on earth am I paying for if it is not for full isolation from a computer connected to said DAC???

Unfortunately you are right that many people who resort to such things have high-end systems.  They are so convinced they hear improvements in any and all things, that even such oxymoronic tweaks make them think it is improving fidelity.

I like to hear the designer of an ultra-high-end DAC explain to me why such tweaks work for their DAC.

As I showed the only case that can be made for these products is with poorly designed, ultra cheap DACs.  Not the other way around.


----------



## Strangelove424

WindowsX said:


> It's totally cool and all if you find no audible changes or from hearing or measurements with Fidelizer. It's not DSP sound enhancer app and focus on curing digital glare effects in computer audio effectively for real sound performance.
> 
> I works on my experience with quality digital sources to satisfy my music enjoyment since I can't find server to meet up my expectations with Esoteric transport as a reference. If Fidelizer works great with your system, I'm glad to hear that. If not, happy listening also.



A lot of professionals who invest money into DSP would consider it a hell of a lot more "real sound performance" than your questionable resource deactivation doohickey. 

I don't think this thread (titled "Fidelizer Pro or Snake Oil") is asking whether or not it's cool if you find no audible change, but whether or not it's cool to make the claims you do, or sell this product in the first place.


----------



## Strangelove424

bigshot said:


> Just get a mac and don't sweat computer noise. I use a Mac Mini to drive my media server. It's nearly 7 years old and it does everything perfectly for human ears. It drives the systems across my whole house, including my HD projection system.



Apple uses the same components that much of the PC markets does, CPU and motherboards made by Intel. They can be effected by noise issues just as easily if not more so considering Apple's obsession with jamming components together into the slimmest metallic chassis they can muster.


----------



## pinnahertz

Strangelove424 said:


> Apple uses the same components that much of the PC markets does, CPU and motherboards made by Intel. They can be effected by noise issues just as easily if not more so considering Apple's obsession with jamming components together into the slimmest metallic chassis they can muster.


Definitely many of the same components, but definitely _not_ the same logic boards or PSUs! It's all about layout and design.  The results speak.

Do you think any PC manufacturer...take Dell as an example... has their equivalent of* this guy at apple* to keep an eye on audio performance (see job history, 2011...his title is "Audio Direction")?  

In the PC world it's all about the third-party upgrade to whip the machine into shape.


----------



## bigshot

Strangelove424 said:


> Apple uses the same components that much of the PC markets does, CPU and motherboards made by Intel. They can be effected by noise issues just as easily if not more so considering Apple's obsession with jamming components together into the slimmest metallic chassis they can muster.



I've used dozens of Apple products- computers, iPods, phones- going all the way back to the 8500AV in 1995. I've never come across a single one whether it be a cheap iPod or a full blown ProTools workstation that had any noise issues at all. Never had one that had any problem with video either. When it comes to media, Apple is perfect. It baffles me to hear people talking about "noisy computer audio" because I've never experienced it. I always assumed it was a PC thing.


----------



## bfreedma

bigshot said:


> I've used dozens of Apple products- computers, iPods, phones- going all the way back to the 8500AV in 1995. I've never come across a single one whether it be a cheap iPod or a full blown ProTools workstation that had any noise issues at all. Never had one that had any problem with video either. When it comes to media, Apple is perfect. It baffles me to hear people talking about "noisy computer audio" because I've never experienced it. I always assumed it was a PC thing.




I've been using a PC for audio for decades and have yet to experience "noisy computer audio".  While I'm sure it would be possible to put together a bunch of cheap parts that _might_ produce audible noise, it would take some work.

Every time I hear "noisy computer audio", it seems to be followed by some unproven/overhyped/hugely expensive fix for alleged "noisy computer audio"....


----------



## Strangelove424

pinnahertz said:


> Definitely many of the same components, but definitely _not_ the same logic boards or PSUs! It's all about layout and design.  The results speak.
> 
> Do you think any PC manufacturer...take Dell as an example... has their equivalent of* this guy at apple* to keep an eye on audio performance (see job history, 2011...his title is "Audio Direction")?
> 
> In the PC world it's all about the third-party upgrade to whip the machine into shape.



Apple's contribution to digital media goes pretty deep. As a software company they are good, and as a systems integrator they aren't bad either. I hate Dell with a passion, and use a home built PC myself. I have heard great things about HP's line of Z workstations which many studios use for their solid performance and incredible support (onsite service within 24 hours). As far as I know, Apple offers nothing of the like to workstation users. I don't want to get into a typical PC vs Mac debate. I've owned both, and both can perform very well in my experience.


----------



## pinnahertz

Strangelove424 said:


> Apple's contribution to digital media goes pretty deep. As a software company they are good, and as a systems integrator they aren't bad either. I hate Dell with a passion, and use a home built PC myself. I have heard great things about HP's line of Z workstations which many studios use for their solid performance and incredible support (onsite service within 24 hours). As far as I know, Apple offers nothing of the like to workstation users. I don't want to get into a typical PC vs Mac debate. I've owned both, and both can perform very well in my experience.


Apple has a Business Partners program for business users that provides preferred tech support and many service options.  I've never used their service options, but I recall on-site being an option.  

In the pro audio world I repeatedly run into clients with noisy PC PSUs.  So often I keep a cheap transformer solution in my kit.  It's the most common audio interface problem in the world today. I've never run into it with a client using a Mac.


----------



## sonitus mirus

pinnahertz said:


> In the pro audio world I repeatedly run into clients with noisy PC PSUs.  So often I keep a cheap transformer solution in my kit.  It's the most common audio interface problem in the world today. I've never run into it with a client using a Mac.



I've had great experience with this little device.

http://www.radialeng.com/usbpro.php

 I even used one at home for a while with a pair of powered speakers.  It only supports 24/96kHz, but it solves the noise problems.


----------



## adydula

I tried this "snake oil" a long time ago and it didnt make any real world difference to me at with my lowly system...lol
For a guy that keeps saying he is too busy for this, its not his job to post real technical details or measurements, just keeps saying try it
you might like it....hmmmm. With all the "I'am too busy for this crap this guy just keeps coming back, why? Go figure.

Sound science I think not.

Start showing me some real sound science rather than hyperbole and glittering generalities...or just go home.

Alex


----------



## castleofargh

adydula said:


> I tried this "snake oil" a long time ago and it didnt make any real world difference to me at with my lowly system...lol
> For a guy that keeps saying he is too busy for this, its not his job to post real technical details or measurements, just keeps saying try it
> you might like it....hmmmm. With all the "I'am too busy for this crap this guy just keeps coming back, why? Go figure.
> 
> ...


while I'm not all that convinced myself, us getting no improvement isn't in itself evidence that it is snake oil. to solve something you first need a problem ^_^.


----------



## adydula (Feb 14, 2018)

understand.....I tried this snake oil back in win 7 days and just downloaded and played with it again...with all the nebulous claims of audio nirvana with no real proof for me...its still snale oil IMO.

The problem was one I was not looking to fix, but with a product like this claiming its the solution to crappy windows internals....well one would wonder...and if it made my perceived listening experience better so be it, it didnt. End of story.

So the problem this product seems to be improving is better sound quality, ok for those that think they are getting their moneys worth here I am happy for them....

I did have an asynch dac that was a bugger in win 7 to get it to stop making pops etc randomly...and this product a few years back didnt so be it....

Call me objective but not late for dinner!

Alex


----------



## music_man

Yes, Windows X you are most certainly where you do not want to be! Wait though this went this far for one reason. As stated above not so politely there are few real "Scientists" here. I mean as in researchers with Government grants ETC. Or Big 10 Professors for instance. 

I did evaluate this. A Key Sight N9038A was employed among other things. Here is were you are going to be sorry and no defense will save you. Hope those purchasing it do not see this. The big point overlooked is the DAC. Unless running a true r2r DAC any valid signal will go on to be processed exactly the same. Hence the output from said DAC will be exactly the same if fed with any valid data. Invalid data and you get no sound only an error. So then we tested the USB output using ASIO. When Fidelizer was running on a clean pc with full installation of windows and all current updates sometimes there was a slight change in the waveform. This can simply be due to The many complexities of Windows itself. Clock-Ram cycles many things. Hardly likely to be the product. Furthermore It was not a difference when measured that would have an outcome on sound. From the USB port. Out of the DAC nothing like this even matters. So long as the signal is valid the dac will emit the same sound it otherwise would. Windows X, have you actually measured your own software? I doubt you have $200,000 of test equipment on hand but I have no idea. If you did measure it you would notice it does nothing. I am sure you would not exactly let the cat out of the bag anyways. Writing code for Windows is easy which is why it is the preferred platform to IOS. Thousands of people coding Windows and Android Apps. I went so far as to Decompile this and have a look solely for my own usage. You have no recourse against that as an end user doing so solely for their own usage. You would not even know otherwise because obviously someone in my position would not distribute the code. So do not worry there. However I am calling you out. What you did is nothing new but you provided it in an automated package for those that are unable to turn off services ETC. Nonetheless in Windows 10 Creators none of this makes any difference. Especially not when fed into a DAC. Count yourself lucky for every sale you make on this. To those that hear a difference double check I suggest if you know what I mean. Bottom line: I call this snake oil. How many people have access to serious test equipment, knowledge of it's use and could care less about this? Me! I am sorry to ruin your party Windows X. You may in fact believe in this but you are then misguided. Novel idea, I will give you that much. You can argue this with me but it falls upon deaf ears. This is the only post I shall make in this thread. Anyone can do as they wish but I have told it like it is. I am sorry I have rained on your parade.


----------



## WindowsX (Mar 2, 2018)

So far I don't see your testing methodology, how you tested and evaluate the results. You also found slight changes of waveform and you used your own judgement rather than finding out how it's actually come from and whether it'll affect audio performance.

So much for being self-proclaimed scientist. No wonder you don't find any result to share with. Please submit your test papers and I'll read it. Make sure to include how you perform tests with $200,000 government hardware properly too.


----------



## WindowsX

By the way, N9038A is electro magnetic interference receiver so it's designed for hardware interference test. I fail to see how this can be used with measurements for software optimizations. Something like Diffmaker would make more sense with digital data differential approach.


----------



## adydula

If you cant see this then you have to be blind or hard of hearing!


----------



## DHEfg34

Hi, 

I have read the entire thread on a train ride today. It is an amazing study raw material to say the least. I confess that I am an audiophile enthusiast but not biased towards Fidelizer or any other tool or hardware. There are two things that have really impressed me:

1. This is a scientific forum and as such you have to be able to prove what you are claiming. I like that approach and also that people continue to insist on this rule. Big one!
2. WindowsX has been given hell. Many times he said he is not going to come back but then he does. He tries to measure, tries to prove, he really goes all the way. True respect!

What I take away for me personally:

I have spent thousands on HIFI and continue to do so. Computer audiophile thrills me because in the CD as well as the turntable arena (big) technical development has come to an end, more or less. Sorry, I cannot prove this claim but I am happy with what I have got there and do not need to prove this at least.

All the Software players and tweaks come for free testing, a point being made 25x by WindowsX regarding Fidelizer. That is a good thing because I believe I can test with no risk as none of these tweaks have screwed up any of my computers so far. Private Q.E.D. 

Self observation:

There have been many post around fooling yourself and I agree. Whenever I change something in my setup, I am testing it with a certain type of music or specific songs that I believe do sound audiophile. That is a self-fullfilling prophecy because they do sound good on any system more or less. Testing with average or even bad quality music tells me a lot more about the impact of any change made until I am confident that there just is not anything more to be revealed from this recording. But I want the good stuff to sound good.  

Well, knowing this about myself, I have tricked myself now: After having spent a lot of money on so-called highend type speaker cables I have learned how to make my own speaker cables and the third set was good enough for me to test with my Setup 1. The total cost of 2x 3m is less than 100 Dollars of which the speaker wire itself is only 30 Dollars and the rest goes out for Bananas and other materials. Since I have spent an hour or so finishing these speaker cables myself I am 100% sure they sound at least as good as any of the highend speaker cable sets I own. Q.E.D. and ROFL.

Fidelizer:
I am not saying WindowsX likes his software because he is the author. But I believe it plays a role and my wife, being a psychologist, could provide the scientific reason, but I am not interested at this point. I like Fidelizer because I like playing around with my Computer audiophile setup and it comes for free. I can also change HQ Player filters all day and if I am in an acceptance mode I think they make a huge difference but if not, I can hardly hear any difference. I am also certain that Windows 2012 R2 sounds a lot different on MacMini than OSX and I know that when I go back and boot from OSX and listen to music there, the gap will not be perceived as big as I have taken it into account at this point.

This is all but scientific. I truly believe, the whole HIFI-Hobby is not very scientific at all. And my cable test has opened my eyes. It is fun, big big fun though.

Fidelizer makes a lot of people happy as it seems. That has value in itself and does not require prove of concept. But that is a different concept than scientific proves...

Chris


----------



## sonitus mirus

If the thread title was called "Does Fidelizer Pro Make Some People Happy?", it would not interest me and probably should not belong in the Sound Science forum.  The app is basically just shutting down services running in the background.  Some of these processes could be critical to some users, depending on what other software they use that may require one of these services to operate correctly.  If one or more of these services are causing noise or some other problem with audio playback, this might be a solution to resolve that issue.  However, it is not a solution I would recommend to anyone.

In an effort to show that this tool makes any significant audible difference, nothing concrete has been provided.


----------



## WindowsX (Mar 13, 2018)

DHEfg34 said:


> Hi,
> 
> I have read the entire thread on a train ride today. It is an amazing study raw material to say the least. I confess that I am an audiophile enthusiast but not biased towards Fidelizer or any other tool or hardware. There are two things that have really impressed me:
> 
> ...



Thank you for your insight to see my effort for contribution in sound science forum. I really went through hell a dozen times trying to prove something I can observe. I understand this is a sound science forum and things like proving from listening isn't scientific at all including DBT.

To properly establish scientific measurements, there's 3 criteria to make things clear.

1) Testing subject
2) Testing methodology
3) Testing validation

People often say digital audio is makes inaudible results with their own ears, throwing their beliefs and degrading others, those are doing armchair works and self-proclaim to be something they aren't.

People who actually do RMAA measurements and oscilloscope on Fidelizer or digital audio software tests gain my respect for actually doing something outside armchair jobs but they still perform invalid tests. You can't use analog metrics to detect changes in digital. You can't expect internal changes of software to produce significant difference with hardware noise and interference outside digital domain.

My proposed methodology is to observe the subject in pure software environment, use testing methodology that can observe changes in digital audio directly and validate the results in controlled environment.

With Diffmaker, I found 5-6db average improved from 5 samples each from using and not using Fidelizer free version. After all of my effort about Diffmaker was ignored and brushed off, I left this den and I'm glad to see someone like you who can appreciate my effort. 

Regards,
Keetakawee


----------



## DHEfg34

Hi Keetakawee, 

I really appreciate your effort and willingness to bend over on this forum telling me you believe in what you are doing - right or wrong, scientific or not.

Some people really seem to have no fun at all. 

Right now I have combined Audiophile Optimizer + Roon + HQP + Fidelizer in Core mode in Windows 2012 Server R2 with Fidelizer as shell replacement and launching HQP. 

I like it and I do know why...but I won't tell. That would be too much. 

Why am I doing this without a scientific prove? Good question, easy to answer:

Well, why does my super wife drive an E-Car? Because it is smart...maybe...(?) but fun anyways. Because she can. Because I like her in this car. I do not need a reason at all.

I like consumer editions and I greet you, WindowsX. Keep them updates coming and keep on insisting it does the trick, very entertaining!!

Chris


----------



## DHEfg34

sonitus mirus said:


> If the thread title was called "Does Fidelizer Pro Make Some People Happy?", it would not interest me and probably should not belong in the Sound Science forum.
> In an effort to show that this tool makes any significant audible difference, nothing concrete has been provided.



Yes, I have observed significant audible difference. That is concrete. 

In the overlap of audiophile music reproduction and science of whatever there is no prove because at least consumer music reproduction gear and its evaluation is no science at all and that can easily be proven by concrete facts. The human factor. And I personally do not care too much what others do in their living rooms but it is funny that some of the local dealer sometimes stop at my place to listen to their favorite stuff in my listening room and leaving comments such as "you really have this room under control" because I might not even use their brand or what they have been proposing to me and so they are looking for a reason why it can still sound great....


----------



## bigshot

The thresholds of human perception have been extensively studied. We can measure a LOT more than we can possibly hear. If you apply the threshold of perception to the measurements, you can pretty clearly see if there is an audible difference or not. If you perceive a difference that measurements and thresholds tell you that you shouldn't be able to hear, the first thing is to apply controls to your comparison to eliminate the possibility that bias is affecting your perceptions.

Throwing up your hands and giving up gets you nowhere.


----------



## adydula

So much for sound science.....headed to the hills.....

A.


----------



## bigshot

I bid you a cheese fondu!


----------



## adydula

You know, I just can not resist...

" I think I can actually hear a difference in a cheddar vs a brie fondue....subtle but I am sure its measureable ...."

nah.....cant be.....lol


----------



## bigshot

Someone will introduce audiophile headphones made from oak wine casks and claim that the aging of the oak adds a velvety smoothness to the sound!


----------



## WindowsX

DHEfg34 said:


> Hi Keetakawee,
> 
> I really appreciate your effort and willingness to bend over on this forum telling me you believe in what you are doing - right or wrong, scientific or not.
> 
> ...



Yeah. I thought sound science would be a fun place where you try to discover new possibilities and share with people to do experiment, not shotting down ideas on their armchair without giving effort at all.

Lately people use sound science as means to protect their belief because they can't afford their time and resource to do the experiment themselves or they don't find it "fun" to do so.

Regards,
Keetakawee


----------



## castleofargh

DHEfg34 said:


> Hi Keetakawee,
> 
> I really appreciate your effort and willingness to bend over on this forum telling me you believe in what you are doing - right or wrong, scientific or not.
> 
> ...


if your question is "do I have fun using something", you just ask yourself and there is your answer. pretty simple and we don't need science, objective testing, or a forum for that.
if your question is "how much does the signal change when using that app?" then personal emotions only get in the way.

different people will be interested in different things. you care about having fun doing whatever it is you do, @bigshot cares about what he can hear and nothing more. in some other topic on the forum, some find an improvement at -150dB relevant enough to buy something for it. and sometimes I will buy a device instead of another just because I think it looks better. 
 this section focuses massively on objective results and controlled listening test. fair to say there are better ways to have fun if that's your only quest. I've seen obituaries being funnier than topics in this section. and that's fine because it's not the "tell your best joke" sub section of HeadFi. this one has a different purpose.


----------



## gregorio (Mar 14, 2018)

DHEfg34 said:


> [1] Fidelizer makes a lot of people happy as it seems. That has value in itself and does not require prove of concept.
> [2] Yes, I have observed significant audible difference. That is concrete.



1. Agreed and if WindowX were selling Fidelizer for the reason that it might make the user "happy", I'd have far less of a problem with it. However, that is NOT the basis on which he's selling it, he's selling it on the basis of a "Digital Audio Solution for Everyone" which will "improve sound quality in audio applications". Calling Fidelizer "snake oil" is therefore entirely apt because; snake oil also made "a lot of people happy", some people absolutely swore by it and it obviously worked for some ("a lot of") people. "Snake Oil" has not become a synonym for "a scam" because it never made anyone happy and never worked but because: A. It contained no actual snake oil, and B. It had no actual therapeutic benefit beyond placebo.

2. Take a look at this:






You've now observed a real never ending staircase. That is concrete!
Now have a look at this:






Are you still willing to make the assertion that there is such a thing as a real never ending staircase? In the first photo, what you've actually observed is your brain's interpretation and obviously NOT a real/"concrete" never ending staircase. So, have you really "observed a significant audible difference" or have you instead just observed your brain at work, while in actual fact there is no audible difference whatsoever? Unless you've taken some "concrete" steps (excuse the pun ) to eliminate the possibility that you're mistakenly observing your brain's interpretation rather than an actual audible difference, then you cannot say concretely what you have observed!



WindowsX said:


> I thought sound science would be a fun place where you try to discover new possibilities and share with people to do experiment, not shotting down ideas ...



We've not been shooting down ideas, we've been shooting down false statements of fact and false (or at the very least, highly misleading) marketing!

G


----------



## DHEfg34

Hi Keetakawee,

I have upgrade to Fidelizer Pro and I like the effect it has. That is a scientific fact like >50% voting for Ta certain political candidate is. It does not prove the impact or quality either one has but it is still a measurable scientific fact that I am officially +1 on Fidelizer...

Keep up the good work,

Chris


----------



## bfreedma

DHEfg34 said:


> Hi Keetakawee,
> 
> I have upgrade to Fidelizer Pro and I like the effect it has. That is a scientific fact like >50% voting for Ta certain political candidate is. It does not prove the impact or quality either one has but it is still a measurable scientific fact that I am officially +1 on Fidelizer...
> 
> ...




No, that is an opinion.  Nothing wrong with having one, but it is no way a "scientific fact".


----------



## DHEfg34

You have no clue what scientific facts are....


----------



## bfreedma

DHEfg34 said:


> You have no clue what scientific facts are....




I do know that your (apparently) uncontrolled listening tests forming a personal preference isn't one.

But perhaps I'm wrong - please describe your testing protocol including how you tested with and without Fidelizer operating on the same system with the same music, how you did this in a controlled fashion where you weren't aware of what was in play, and a log of your test results.

I'd also expect to see you describe how quickly you were able to move back and forth between testing between Fidelizer and non Fidelizer, how you made sure the output was level matched. 

Again, there is nothing wrong with having a personal opinion, but don't conflate that preference with any kind of "scientific fact".

Even if you state that your preference for Fidelizer is a "fact", that in no way makes it "scientific".


----------



## Glmoneydawg

bigshot said:


> Someone will introduce audiophile headphones made from oak wine casks and claim that the aging of the oak adds a velvety smoothness to the sound!


well the contents of those barrels certainly would.


----------



## DHEfg34

Come on, you are smarter than that : If 40% of all users report pain after taking a certain pill then that is a fact. It is not a proof that the pill is causing the pain or some kind of interaction with other substances or the environment or any of this, but it is still a scientific fact and they might want to further investigate.

That is called exploration: You are asking thousands of people about their opinion and regardless "cause and effect" or "proof of concept", their feedback is a scientific fact.

As an example, assuming Fildelizer's customer satisfaction rate would be 99% then that is a scientific fact and it is also a proof that it(the software) is doing something in the end, at least, it is convincing the vast majority of its users it does. It could still be a placebo but that would be on you to prove and not on WindowsX. It will be hard for you to prove though that a piece of software that is doing absolutely nothing (as you believe) makes people happier with their listening experience. 

All in all, you are confusing facts and proof. 

Cheers


----------



## bfreedma

DHEfg34 said:


> Come on, you are smarter than that : If 40% of all users report pain after taking a certain pill then that is a fact. It is not a proof that the pill is causing the pain or some kind of interaction with other substances or the environment or any of this, but it is still a scientific fact and they might want to further investigate.
> 
> That is called exploration: You are asking thousands of people about their opinion and regardless "cause and effect" or "proof of concept", their feedback is a scientific fact.
> 
> ...



You are confusing personal opinion, placebo, group think, and theory with fact.   If you want to take those and construct a proper and peer reviewed study of them to attempt to establish a fact, I’m sure WindowsX would greatly appreciate it.

You are also mistaken about burden of proof.  The owner of Fidelizer is making claims - it is his responsibility to prove them, no one else’s.  Where are the measurements from WindowsX?  Where are the properly controlled listening tests?  Where is any evidence at all that turning off services in any reasonably modern PC can impact audio playback?

If you told me you could fly with no mechanical aid are you seriously claiming it’s my responsibility to prove you can’t?


----------



## Speedskater

DHEfg34 said:


> Come on, you are smarter than that : If 40% of all users report pain after taking a certain pill then that is a fact. It is not a proof that the pill is causing the pain or some kind of interaction with other substances or the environment or any of this, but it is still a scientific fact and they might want to further investigate.


While this is a strong reason for further investigation, it is not in itself a fact.


----------



## WindowsX (Mar 17, 2018)

DHEfg34 said:


> You have no clue what scientific facts are....



When you put that way, you're right. It's almost 3,000 licenses sold now and it's still over 99% satisfaction if not 100%. 

As for scientific measurements and approach behind it, I already explained in pages back but it seems not many scientist got the idea, just like imaginary time concept.


----------



## bigshot




----------



## DHEfg34

At least they are jumping up and down on the whistle blow


----------



## WindowsX

http://www.fidelizer-audio.com/meas...t-playback-with-diffmakers-correlation-depth/

With free version of Fidelizer, there's 3.1 dB increment of average and 12.5 db increment of maximum correlation depth from 5 samples of stereo tracks (10 samples for every channel).


----------



## adydula

Wow!!

I didnt know this version of snake oil was a "pill" what a silly comparison....just because a bunch of people think there is a difference is not a scientific fact..your comparion is terrible IMO.

If you can produce real scientifc evidence ( this is the SOUND SCIENCE Forum) that shows what the actual claimed sonic digital improvements are then I will take a listen to your facts...so far there havent been any except glittering generalities and opinions and people stating its better just becuse..no real basis here so far.

Produce a freq chart that shows whats happeing before and after you use this program....show evidence of what exactly this software does...less jitter, faster loading times? What????? Prove your point not just stating it sounds better to me.....What over???

I worked in software development with a BIG pc company and with Microsoft with pre-release OS's and have played with services, turning on and off, and delaying and setting priorities and resource sharing....to date we have not seen any evidence of this kind of scripting to stop, delay services does anything to improve the listening experience except for a placebo affect....

No date, no evidence, glittering generalities in  scound science forum is just not cutting it.

Now if you really think this stuff is indeed doing somethng to make your listening experience better, great I can believe that, the subjective brain is a strange place.

But your subjective opinions belong elsewhere in a fanboy forum for this product.

Being a fanboy is fine...I think subjectively that sone of my stuff is great, but dont have data is some cases to prove what I am hearing....and I tout that as subjective experience....not sound science....

Time for a beer this subject matter is really gotten very silly...

Alex


----------



## WindowsX

http://www.fidelizer-audio.com/meas...t-playback-with-diffmakers-correlation-depth/

Did you miss this? btw, being rude doesn't make you look smarter.


----------



## asymcon (Mar 18, 2018)

The test doesn't seem right...


> After Fidelizer
> parameters: -563.4msec, 0.001dB (L), 0.001dB (R)..Corr Depth: 104.0 dB (L), 95.9 dB (R)
> parameters: *-1.025sec*, 0.001dB (L), 0.001dB (R)..Corr Depth: *93.5 dB (L), 94.0 dB (R)*
> parameters: -1.286sec, 0.001dB (L), 0.001dB (R)..Corr Depth: 87.2 dB (L), 87.3 dB (R)
> ...


You have two readings at the same time showing different values.

Further, both analyzed recordings are less than 2 seconds in length. To get more conclusive result, it might be beneficial to analyze longer recordings, since that values might just as well be variations in white noise.

Another thing...why choose different test points for before/after comparison?


> Before Fidelizer
> parameters: -1.581sec, 0.001dB (L), 0.001dB (R)..Corr Depth: 90.6 dB (L), 91.5 dB (R)
> parameters: -1.184sec, 0.001dB (L), 0.001dB (R)..Corr Depth: 87.2 dB (L), 87.3 dB (R)
> parameters: -1.018sec, 0.001dB (L), 0.001dB (R)..Corr Depth: 88.1 dB (L), 88.1 dB (R)
> ...


It might seem better idea to analyze the recording on the same test points in both cases, e.g.
686.3ms
946.4ms
1018ms
1184ms
1581ms

PPS: VB-Audio Virtual Cable is not a good choice for routing audio, as it produces distortion. Hi-Fi Virtual Cable should be used.


----------



## WindowsX

I actually used Hi-Fi version. Sorry for not getting the name correct. I did this experiment when I have free time so I chose short track as I need to monitor the whole process.

Making long music with 10 recordings will take a while to record and analyze. I'd be interested to see someone doing experiments with longer tracks because I don't have time to re-do the test right now.

Regards,
Keetakawee


----------



## bfreedma

WindowsX said:


> I actually used Hi-Fi version. Sorry for not getting the name correct. I did this experiment when I have free time so I chose short track as I need to monitor the whole process.
> 
> Making long music with 10 recordings will take a while to record and analyze. I'd be interested to see someone doing experiments with longer tracks because I don't have time to re-do the test right now.
> 
> ...




As usual, your tests are inaccurate at best and you make it someone else's responsibility to vet you product.  Not very convincing.

Your excuse is "you don't have the time" to prove your product does what it says?  Does that apply to everything you sell?


----------



## adydula (Mar 18, 2018)

Is that all you got for scientific proof???

Minute measureable differences in a short duration test, and 3000 licenses sold...

A fool and his money are soon parted...

People thinking it sounds better with glittering adjectives, no real AB blind testing with a large sample?

You could run your tests again with a varying amount of services on, off , delayed etc and get similar "measureable" questionable results.

All that you have proved to me and others IMO is that your doing a great shell game here and for selling 3K licenses your laughing all the way to the bank?

You have found a great black hole "niche" and have exploited it very well.

Congratulations!
Alex


----------



## WindowsX (Mar 18, 2018)

I believe I've done enough favor for armchair scientists. 5-10 samples with over 3db average and 12db maximum is convincing enough for me. Unless Fidelizer Pro customers request it themselves, I would rather spend my time on improving Fidelizer Pro for them.

And since when did I say Fidelizer optimizations is all about shutting down or manipulating non-audio stuff? Consumer user level never touch that.

Regards,
Keetakawee


----------



## asymcon

adydula said:


> scound science



Scound Science presents *Fidelizer Pro*, the 100% REAL Snake Oil. 

Sorry, couldn't resist. Nothing to see here


----------



## asymcon (Mar 18, 2018)

Sorry moosh, have to agree with the crowd here.
Musical enjoyment and audio engineering are two different worlds. When getting a new sonic device, having a good, truthful specs along with all sorts of unfiltered opinions is what pushes all the right buttons for most people.

To reach audio nirvana, you don't need the very best money can buy, and/or turning off some system services to saw off some MBs from RAM. Cool sounding rig is dope, but if you can take it one step further and play or sing along, that's where's the magic. In understanding the tunes rather than sitting on your acoustic sweetspot stiff for 74 minutes. Also maybe you can try transcribing the music by ear.
Sorry, 2c rambling...


----------



## bfreedma

WindowsX said:


> I believe I've done enough favor for armchair scientists. 5-10 samples with over 3db average and 12db maximum is convincing enough for me. Unless Fidelizer Pro customers request it themselves, I would rather spend my time on improving Fidelizer Pro for them.
> 
> And since when did I say Fidelizer optimizations is all about shutting down or manipulating non-audio stuff? Consumer user level never touch that.
> 
> ...



WindowsX,

As you are well aware, a year or two ago I used software intended to identify system configuration change to identify exactly what Fidelizer alters and exchanged some PMs with you as I didn’t believe it was appropriate to release that level of detail about your product publicly.

While I can’t speak to the current version, the version I tested most certainly did manipulate non audio services, primarily turning them off or altering thread priority. There was one major concern I had that I communicated to you that clearly was both non audio and put you personally at risk of being liable for damage done to the Fidelizer user’s PC

In the version I tested, Fidelizer was silently turning off antivirus and anti malware software as part of its “optimization”. Or to be more clear, without asking the user if it was acceptable or even informing the Fidelizer user, your software was turning off virus and malware protection, leaving the system wide open to attack.

Should I run this test again and publish the results?  Does Fidelizer still compromise Windows security as it previously did?


----------



## WindowsX (Mar 18, 2018)

Look. I understand the aspects of sound science forum and I tried to provide contribution in science aspects as much as I could. Right now I have over 50 mails to reply, news I've just published tonight and campaign to launch tomorrow with Fidelizer 8.1 update.

I really don't have time to continue the experiment and you can disagree with my experiment. But using abusive tone and belittle others who took effort to do something isn't what scientist should do. If you're really curious, you can continue the tests but I really can't do right now.

I would appreciate it if everyone here understand my circumstances and tone down sarcasm a bit. It's unpleasant and I already resolved all mentioned cases for over a year. You can safely use Fidelizer without affecting security features now. Thank you.

Regards,
Keetakawee


----------



## bigshot (Mar 18, 2018)

bfreedma said:


> In the version I tested, Fidelizer was silently turning off antivirus and anti malware software as part of its “optimization”. Or to be more clear, without asking the user if it was acceptable or even informing the Fidelizer user, your software was turning off virus and malware protection, leaving the system wide open to attack. Should I run this test again and publish the results?  Does Fidelizer still compromise Windows security as it previously did?



Wow. I would say that any piece of software that does something like this is one to avoid. Was the correction publicly listed in your version notes? Because if it was silently corrected without acknowledging the problem, you are putting all of the people who are still using an old version at risk.


----------



## Don Hills

asymcon said:


> ... sitting on your acoustic sweetspot  ...



This reminds me of one of Mike Moffat (Schiit Audio)'s favourite descriptions of poor sound: "sounds like ass".


----------



## WindowsX (Mar 18, 2018)

bigshot said:


> Wow. I would say that any piece of software that does something like this is one to avoid. And a software developer who knew about this problem and was too busy to correct it or answer questions about whether it has been corrected yet is one to avoid too.





WindowsX said:


> *I already resolved all mentioned cases for over a year. You can safely use Fidelizer without affecting security features now.*


----------



## bigshot

Have you notified the users of the older version? If you have a security flaw, you owe it to them to let them know that they need to upgrade.


----------



## artpiggo

Never use these stuffs because I don't own desktop rig. But I just wonder if Audiophile Optimizer (https://www.highend-audiopc.com/) has as same concept as Fidelizer or not.

If yes, I will wonder why a creator is brave to sell double price from Fidelizer Pro and no one makes a thread about that.

Any answers are welcomed.


----------



## WindowsX (Mar 19, 2018)

bigshot said:


> Have you notified the users of the older version? If you have a security flaw, you owe it to them to let them know that they need to upgrade.



http://www.fidelizer-audio.com/fidelizer-security-disabler-released/

http://www.fidelizer-audio.com/fide...e-fixes-with-security-and-audio-improvements/

Of course I released patch and inform clients right after getting report. This issue was resolved for almost 3 years ago already so can we drop this?



artpiggo said:


> Never use these stuffs because I don't own desktop rig. But I just wonder if Audiophile Optimizer (https://www.highend-audiopc.com/) has as same concept as Fidelizer or not.
> 
> If yes, I will wonder why a creator is brave to sell double price from Fidelizer Pro and no one makes a thread about that.
> 
> Any answers are welcomed.



They probably don't know about AudiophileOptimizer or can't try it without paying I guess.


----------



## Zapp_Fan

WindowsX, Supposedly your null tests give a large residual, would you mind posting a link to download the files so we can see the results for ourselves?


----------



## WindowsX

I no longer kept it. It's been so long after all. You can redo the tests yourself with your choice of music too. 

Regards,
Keetakawee


----------



## adydula

Boy for an expert in this software stuff to even allow for the turning off of stuff without letting the end user know this is well..."stay away for me!"

It makes me wonder if this guy really understands what he is doing....he should have know the implications to this right up front....

a.


----------



## WindowsX

Now we're arguing for the sake of arguing, aren't we? It's been 3 years after fixing this and you still want to talk about this history? I bet you'll keep saying this stuff 10 years later too if I'm still around lol.

To be fair, I disabled those security services as they're non-audio features and Fidelizer was designed for Extreme dedicated audio server (as the optmization level implied for Extremist). Now it's Purist. Got it?


----------



## bfreedma

It’s stunning you’re defending disabling security services, anti virus, and anti malware software without informing the user.  Doing those will in no way improve audio, but a virus and malware ridden system will most likely degrade audio.  Were you prepared to repair systems Fidelizer allowed to become malware ridden?  I wonder how many users had that happen and had no idea why.


----------



## WindowsX (Mar 27, 2018)

I did that when I first started developing Fidelizer as a geek who want best sounding possible. Everyone can make mistake and correct it, OK? How many years do you intend to repeat this again and again? It's been fixed for over 3 years already and no soul was harmed since then.

If you want to bash the long past Fidelizer, fine. Keep beating the dead horse until you're satisfied. Go on.


----------



## bfreedma

WindowsX said:


> I did that when I first started developing Fidelizer as a geek who want best sounding possible. Everyone can make mistake and correct it, OK? How many years do you intend to repeat this again and again? It's been fixed for over 3 years already and no soul was harmed since then.
> 
> If you want to bash the long past Fidelizer, fine. Keep beating the dead horse until you're satisfied. Go on.




If I hadn’t warned you about your own liability exposure due to silently disabling system security features, I doubt anything would have changed.

Time for another deep dive into Fidelizer.  I wonder what will turn up this time....


----------



## WindowsX (Mar 27, 2018)

To be fair, I fixed this issue before this thread exists. If you warned me in one of older threads year back, thank you. Otherwise, also thank you for reminding about the fixed case days back. I hope you'll enjoy Fidelizer 8. 

Regards,
Keetakawee


----------



## asymcon (Mar 28, 2018)

WindowsX said:


> I would rather spend my time on improving Fidelizer Pro for them.


May I ask how do you determine audio improvements while developing the software? In other words, how do you identify the changes that has to be done to the system that leads to audio improvement and not degradation?
Also how do you verify that this change is indeed improvement, not degradation?

Euphonic distortion could be musically pleasing, but it's identified as distortion nonetheless.


----------



## bigshot

It seems to me that turning off background tasks wouldn't be degradation, but I can't picture how that would improve sound in most computers made in the past decade or so.


----------



## gregorio

adydula said:


> It makes me wonder if this guy really understands what he is doing....he should have know the implications to this right up front....



Unfortunately, this sort of thing is pretty common in the audiophile world. It's not uncommon for audiophile products to be designed and made by people whose knowledge/experience is mostly or entirely based on being an audiophile themselves. Typically they've spent considerable time/effort educating themselves well beyond the level of the average audiophile but even then, they often have some serious holes in their knowledge and/or are still subject to a belief in various audiophile myths. For this reason, a not inconsiderable number of audiophile products make no difference and perform no better than their far cheaper, mass produced counterparts and sometimes they perform significantly worse. This leaves you scratching your head, don't these designers know anything about product design/testing or even some of the fundamental basics of audio theory? The only question one is often left with is: Are they really that stupid/ignorant or do they know precisely that they've designed snake oil?

G


----------



## bigshot

I suspect that the desire to correct problems that you haven't even proven *are* problems yet is primary mistake.


----------



## WindowsX

asymcon said:


> May I ask how do you determine audio improvements while developing the software? In other words, how do you identify the changes that has to be done to the system that leads to audio improvement and not degradation?
> Also how do you verify that this change is indeed improvement, not degradation?
> 
> Euphonic distortion could be musically pleasing, but it's identified as distortion nonetheless.



By design concepts of how good bufferless design should apply for optimizations and listening skills from over 10 years of experience with a few ultra highend CD transports I own and listened to from (Esoteric/dCS/Emm Labs/CH Precision/Soulution/Spectral/etc.).

What I know so far is people are enjoying Fidelizer 8 they purchased without a single customer saying no changes detected. Naysayer can say whatever they want without trying Fidelizer. Only feedback from customers matters for me now. 

Regards,
Keetakawee


----------



## asymcon

WindowsX said:


> listening skills from over 10 years of experience with a few ultra highend CD transports





WindowsX said:


> without a single customer saying no changes detected





WindowsX said:


> Only feedback from customers matters for me now.



That answers my question. Thanks!


----------



## WindowsX (Mar 28, 2018)

With pleasure. You can try FIdelizer and share your results here too. I've been arguing with people who never once run Fidelizer in their entire life for years. It's only few minutes and they didn't do it scaring they might perceive improvements. 

Regards,
Keetakawee


----------



## asymcon (Mar 28, 2018)

WindowsX said:


> With pleasure. You can try FIdelizer and share your results here too. I've been arguing with people who never once run Fidelizer in their entire life for years so I don't want to waste my time with those people anymore.
> 
> Regards,
> Keetakawee


Um, sorry, that probably won't happen anytime soon.
I'm not spending so much time in Windows recently and 80% of my playback habits lie in DAPs. Also need my PC 100% optimized for music production.
Alsoalso, I'm afraid I am on the other side of the pond with the objective folk, rather sure that it'll bring nothing measurable or perceptible.

Nevertheless I appreciate the time spent on your part answering questions in this thread, regardless of how exhausting or verifiable those might be.

So I'll just agree to disagree.
It might seem like a blasphemy to some, but I'm really satisfied with my current gear.


----------



## gregorio

asymcon said:


> That answers my question. Thanks!


Not mine though! 



WindowsX said:


> What I know so far is people are enjoying Fidelizer 8 they purchased without a single customer saying no changes detected. ... Only feedback from customers matters for me now.



Then why are you still posting here? 
In this sub-forum (and this particular thread) we're not interested in whether or not your customer feedback indicates they realise they're using snake oil, we're only interested in whether or not Fidelizer is actually snake oil!

G


----------



## WindowsX

gregorio said:


> Not mine though!
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Good point. I shall take my leave now. I came back because I saw my clients posting about Fidelizer and.....we saw how they were treated here.

Regards,
Keetakawee


----------



## adydula

I have downloaded this a few times on different Windows systems and hear "NO" discernable audible differences. 

I am NOT a customer.

So my opinion must not be valid!

Oh Boy!

A.


----------



## bigshot

WindowsX said:


> I came back because I saw my clients posting about Fidelizer and.....we saw how they were treated here.



Our treatment may be brusque, but we don't open up people's computers to viruses!


----------



## WindowsX

adydula said:


> I have downloaded this a few times on different Windows systems and hear "NO" discernable audible differences.
> 
> I am NOT a customer.
> 
> ...



Have you tried Fidelizer 8 yet?


----------



## bigshot

Didn’t you already take your leave?


----------



## adydula

Ok Mr. Snake Oil...

Just downloaded and tried your new improved version ......now I am a potential customer!

and

The results were "NO" audibile difference. Period.

My money stays in my pocket...

Now does this count as a rejection??

Alex


----------



## bfreedma

WindowsX said:


> Have you tried Fidelizer 8 yet?



Are you suggesting that the versions before 8 didn't make an audible difference?  If not, why would trying the latest version matter?


----------



## ExpiredLabel

Not a customer, nor do I know WindowsX personally. What I can say is it doesn't matter the argument in which language, generally the ones doing the yelling and screaming are the ones with something to prove/are the ones in the wrong. I am not claiming to have a advanced background in sound science, however, I do subscribe to the fact that depending on the OS there can/will be processes that can take away from audio performance. One reason I personally don't go with devices with Android OS.. 

As far as whether this actually does as it says, why does it matter how others spend their money? You might as well harp on all the cable makers since we as a whole can't even adequately measure actual differences in cables and their performances, yet I fail to see you give those companies/individuals as much attention as WindowsX (not to say there are not people who do voice their opinions). 

There's always going to be companies that offer services, some are more worthwhile than others and some are of course going to be more regarded than others per customer feedback (an example is Mezzo Soprano with their AK 100/120 mods or analog tuning). If your on this forum than you already know or should know the rude awakening you and your wallet are in. If you are in the position to buy a program which may or may not do anything beneficial like a IC or a new blinged out IEM custom cable that's the individuals prerogative. 



At this point its becoming painfully obvious that the lot on this particular thread opposed to WindowsX are passionate and perhaps caring to a fault. As a third party to this conversation its coming off a lot like harassment at this point against WindowsX who so much hasn't even lost his cool with regards to the constant egging on...  Seems to me as long as the customers are happy then WindowsX doesn't really have a lot to worry about.

Just my 2 cents but ya'll would do better do catch flies with honey if your trying to change minds instead of going about the way you are.


----------



## bigshot

ExpiredLabel said:


> As far as whether this actually does as it says, why does it matter how others spend their money? You might as well harp on all the cable makers since we as a whole can't even adequately measure actual differences in cables and their performances, yet I fail to see you give those companies/individuals as much attention as WindowsX (not to say there are not people who do voice their opinions).



Send those cable makers into sound science and have them shill their products with bogus claims and see how far it gets them. Most snake oil salesmen are smart enough to steer clear of sound science. It's like a bank robber trying to use a police station as a hideout. If things don't turn out well for them, it isn't *our* fault. That's for sure!


----------



## ExpiredLabel

Okay valid point and I get it, but at the same time you can not deny this has even turned from the academic to the childish in regards to the way some of these people are going on.  Make a point and move on, instead this has turned into a flame thread. That defeats the purpose of what your intentions are as a scientist to bring awareness, it's distracting and takes away from the discussion. 



IF there even is one.


----------



## bigshot

If the guy was smart, he would realize he is in a no win situation. He can't prove that his product makes any improvement at all, and he's in the only forum where we get to ask for proof. If he moseyed off into the sunset, this thread would die.


----------



## ExpiredLabel (Mar 28, 2018)

bigshot said:


> If the guy was smart, he would realize he is in a no win situation. He can't prove that his product makes any improvement at all, and he's in the only forum where we get to ask for proof. If he moseyed off into the sunset, this thread would die.




So Im just gonna point out the obvious. This thread now has been around for roughly TWO years. You mean to tell me everyone in Sound Science is SO upset at this thread that they haven't even inquired to a MOD to simply MOVE the thread? I would think that would be the quickest and easiest action to take. From the points being made at least by @bigshot it simply could avoid all this FLAME if he was in another part of the forum......

I would think either this is the MOD's failing the community by not diffusing this situation or both parties cannot see they are potentially both in the wrong......

Surely @WindowsX is not entitled to promote feelings and opinions where facts should reign, nor should members be allowed to continue to troll/harass ONE person of this community as consistently as has been shown here where again @WindowsX has been nothing but courteous and engaging where he.





Edit. P.S. I would go further to say as well the fact TWO years has gone by and not even a mod has felt compelled to interject says something right there....


----------



## bigshot

Look at how many times he's jumped in and stirred it up again. The internet is like those old chinese handcuffs. The harder you struggle, the harder it is to get away.


----------



## bfreedma (Mar 28, 2018)

ExpiredLabel said:


> So Im just gonna point out the obvious. This thread now has been around for roughly TWO years. You mean to tell me everyone in Sound Science is SO upset at this thread that they haven't even inquired to a MOD to simply MOVE the thread? I would think that would be the quickest and easiest action to take. From the points being made at least by @bigshot it simply could avoid all this FLAME if he was in another part of the forum......
> 
> I would think either this is the MOD's failing the community by not diffusing this situation or both parties cannot see they are potentially both in the wrong......
> 
> ...



There are several other Fidelizer threads outside of the Sound Science subforum.  This one in Computer Audio has the most posts. though not many lately. 

https://www.head-fi.org/threads/fidelizer-appreciation-and-impressions-thread.794314/page-30

Edit.  Just noticed that thread was locked.  My mistake for not looking closer after making the thread search.


----------



## bigshot

The Magic Pebbles thread seemed to go on forever. The same thing with that cable that turned out to be zip cord in aquarium tubing filled with loam.


----------



## ExpiredLabel

It would seem obvious to me that if a thread does not fit into the designated format for the site then either it needs to be taken down, moved by a mod or at the very least closed so both sides don't keep carrying on pointing the stick at each other.


----------



## adydula

If you feel that way, and you have come in a stated your feelings, then why dont you send a moderator a note?

LIfe is not fair....if this product actually produced a postive measureable or "audible" as touted then we would most likely applaud this guys's efforts.

But the ambigious adjectives used and glittering generalities is not sound science. period.

It matters not how long this thread is open IMO, if the same product is still being touted as being the greatest thing since sliced bread keeps coming back in the pool with no
sound science proof, well thats just too bad.

If you feel like we are beating up on this guy, then buy his product, get on his blog and become a fanboy....

One way to shut down a sound science topic is to do what you have done....

Alex


----------



## bigshot

ExpiredLabel said:


> It would seem obvious to me that if a thread does not fit into the designated format for the site then either it needs to be taken down, moved by a mod or at the very least closed so both sides don't keep carrying on pointing the stick at each other.



Talking about bogus non-scientific claims made by audio companies *is* on topic for this forum. We are the only ones at Head-Fi that are allowed to call a spade a spade. Why would this thread need to be taken down? It's providing a service. What did you say your relationship to this product was?


----------



## ExpiredLabel (Mar 29, 2018)

bigshot said:


> Talking about bogus non-scientific claims made by audio companies *is* on topic for this forum. We are the only ones at Head-Fi that are allowed to call a spade a spade. Why would this thread need to be taken down? It's providing a service. What did you say your relationship to this product was?



Go back and re-read my first post @bigshot I won't repeat myself and I don't wish to align myself with either side. 





adydula said:


> If you feel that way, and you have come in a stated your feelings, then why dont you send a moderator a note?
> 
> LIfe is not fair....if this product actually produced a postive measureable or "audible" as touted then we would most likely applaud this guys's efforts.
> 
> ...





Alex I don't see how me finding this guys blog and "becoming a fanboy" is going to move this discussion along.

Im simply pointing out something that seems pretty obvious to me as a person not so emotionally as invested as some of you.


I guess the biggest thing for me personally is this. You say you want proof and thats deserving considering the product, fair. But as you both have mentioned with confidence this product doesn't work. So where is YOUR proof? If there is proof then again why hasn't this thread been shut down if sufficient proof is there? If there is no proof to it working and even more you have proof debunking his claims then why not lock it and let that be it... Appears common sense is not so common


Anyways you kids feel free to carry on.


----------



## bigshot

Are you for real? Why are you grabbing on so hard, and why are you totally uninterested in why people might have no patience for this guy? Just because other people sell products using false claims and get away with it, that doesn't excuse this particular example. I don't know why this is so important to you. I have to say, you're behaving very suspiciously.


----------



## adydula

Ok so let me get this straight....I have to provide proof that this product does not do what it claims?

Before we "kids" get to that task....YOU have to define what it is this software really does so we know what to disprove!

Here are the facts:

On his website...claims:

1. Fidelizer will optimize Windows multimedia platform to improve sound quality in audio applications....

Tell us "kids" how???? What sound qualities???

2. The goal of Fidelizer’s optimizations is to reduce the “digital glare” in computer audio solutions and make music sound live like listening to real sound. 

What is "digital glare"?

3. Stop/Disable most non-audio system services greatly reducing system footprints for pure audio performance.

What is "pure audio performance"??

and I could go on and on...so if you want this "kid" tp provide proof that this is indeed snake oil, then define what it is this product does.

My experience on my systems is just as valid as those 2,900 follks that paid for this magic digital glare reduction software, that provides a pure audio performance and
removes the final veils from musical passages and ensures the musical message is delivered in an effortless fashion....

Please get real.....

Alex


----------



## sonitus mirus

What if someone likes digital glare?


----------



## bigshot

I call that "sparkling sheen". Veils are "diaphanous layers of sound". Pure audio performance is "flavorless sound". And effortless sound is "lazy".


----------



## ExpiredLabel

adydula said:


> Ok so let me get this straight....I have to provide proof that this product does not do what it claims?
> 
> Before we "kids" get to that task....YOU have to define what it is this software really does so we know what to disprove!
> 
> ...





Not gonna defend someones elses product, my perspective seems to be one you two fail to grasp at and is actually quite simple. Its a moral one. I get where you two are both coming from in respect to the science forums however, if at this point two years going, no ones has actually made to put this man in his place with proof of his software/mods not working I don't really see how ya'll can expect him to simply just go with what the haters say and stop what he wishes to pursue.

Either shut this down and ban him for not following forum rules, or move the thread. Both parties are the definition of beating a dead horse to death....but please don''t let me interrupt your grand beat off.


----------



## ExpiredLabel

bigshot said:


> Are you for real? Why are you grabbing on so hard, and why are you totally uninterested in why people might have no patience for this guy? Just because other people sell products using false claims and get away with it, that doesn't excuse this particular example. I don't know why this is so important to you. I have to say, you're behaving very suspiciously.




As an individual I have the right to act in whatever fashion I so ever choose. Nothing suspicious about that jack


----------



## adydula

"Not going to defend someones product", because you can not...the claims are so far in the ether....

But you are suporting this product even if you dont realize it, but somehow I think you really do know that...

Its  claims are just full of glitering generalities that permeate audio la-la land IMO.

No one in the past two years has actually defined in scientific terms what this product really does!!

You respectfully dont seem toget that...

Morality from the PC police...

Answer the questions please.....you cant.

For one that doesnt want to interrupt our "grand beat off" your sure doing your share...

I predict this thread will be locked but will re-surface as long as products like this make claims that are just that....dubious claims.

Have a nice day...

Alex

...and I even have a name...


----------



## ExpiredLabel

adydula said:


> "Not going to defend someones product", because you can not...the claims are so far in the ether....
> 
> But you are suporting this product even if you dont realize it, but somehow I think you really do know that...
> 
> ...






I was simply attempting to bring a perspective both parties may have not considered. Though to be sure it would seem WindowsX gets the last laugh as all this has been nothign but publicity staying at the top of the science forums no less. Which again was my reason for interjecting if you will. If all is as you say, which again I do agree with a majority of it, refer to my initial posts, then this has no right getting as much attention as it has, end of my big picture point.

Alex, I wish neither you nor Bigshot ill will. But seriously someone other than myself has to see the silliness in this particular case?


----------



## adydula

I understand that logic.

There are two sides of the coin and your viewpoint of letting things like this just die out is one.
Then other is to call them out as they pop up....

Silliness, absolutely....a lot of it, but its in these audicious ambigious claims (for the most part...)... IMO.

Ok no ill will here as well...just the facts m'am...that old dragnet saying..

Alex


----------



## bigshot

You keep calling for this thread to be locked. Why are you even in it? Just go away and leave it be if it has no relevance for you.



Spoiler



ocsay uppetpay?


----------



## ExpiredLabel

bigshot said:


> You keep calling for this thread to be locked. Why are you even in it? Just go away and leave it be if it has no relevance for you.
> 
> 
> 
> ...




Don't tell me what to do, @bigshot (READ SMALLSHOT) your attitude is exclusionary and goes against what this community is about, why are you particularly upset I am voicing a different opinion? I don't know who you think you are but you are NOT the final authority on everything


----------



## bigshot

We all know who the troublemaker is here. It isn't me!


----------



## ExpiredLabel

Unless your taking my words out of context and going off on a far flung idea of your own on what my motives are, I've been very clear my position in regards to your particular exchanges  and the tone with which you do it in my initial posts. If your gonna act like a scientist leave the emotions at the door, just a suggestion.


----------



## bfreedma

ExpiredLabel said:


> Don't tell me what to do, @bigshot (READ SMALLSHOT) your attitude is exclusionary and goes against what this community is about, why are you particularly upset I am voicing a different opinion? I don't know who you think you are but you are NOT the final authority on everything




A little quid pro quo then please.   Stop trying to tell the mods and members what to do with this thread.
If the content upsets you, simply stop reading it.


----------



## bigshot

This forum has done just fine without your moral input for many years. Thank you for your concern, but it's unnecessary.


----------



## Glmoneydawg

bigshot said:


> I call that "sparkling sheen". Veils are "diaphanous layers of sound". Pure audio performance is "flavorless sound". And effortless sound is "lazy".


Nice...not even sure what you're selling...but i have my wallet out!


----------



## ExpiredLabel

Not upset, you all just seem to be locked into the very definition of madness- doing the same thing and expecting different results. Thought I might add 2 cents and get you all to 3.50


----------



## adydula

Just send your money to me, I will tell you how great it is and you will believe me!!

Keep repeating this....over and over!

"Just Kidding!"

Alex


----------



## castleofargh

a topic's content is only as good as what you members make of it. 

the issue we have in this sub forum is that we wish for solid evidence to be brought up before any claim is made. and that by nature will clash with most marketing. so we're not really kind toward sellers in general as an indirect consequence. not sure there is anything to do about that aside from maybe getting honest marketing(oxymoron).

another issue is that very few among us actually have the will or the means to run the tests required to properly demonstrate things. personally I don't like calling something snake oil only because it doesn't show improvement on my system. as my system is already fairly well configured, measures fine and doesn't have any noticeable issue that a software could even correct in the first place. so I stick to the idea that maybe sometimes his app does something helpful, and sometimes not. doesn't make me care too much for it, but that's about it. 
now if the app can also do something detrimental, that's another story. seems like it happened a few years ago. water under the bridge for some, evidence that we should stay away for others. I would really appreciate language that at least pretends to show some respect, because it is a rule on this forum, but otherwise I have no issue with people expressing all those points of view. 

now of course I'm not the only modo and others may have another opinion on how to run things. not sure if they often come reading those topics though.


----------



## bigshot

thanks. you're doing a good job as a mod.


----------



## adydula (Mar 30, 2018)

Castle....

When someone makes to what I and other sound science thinkers believe are way over the top markering claims, like :

1. Fidelizer will optimize Windows multimedia platform to improve sound quality in audio applications....

Tell us "kids" how???? What sound qualities???

2. The goal of Fidelizer’s optimizations is to reduce the “digital glare” in computer audio solutions and make music sound live like listening to real sound.

What is "digital glare"?

3. Stop/Disable most non-audio system services greatly reducing system footprints for pure audio performance.

What is "pure audio performance"??

and more...

and then a person, the OP asks about these over the top and not so sound science claims.....I and others ask please explain with some facts not just
opinions or dodges that indicate we have no proof to the otherwise...when this entity can not even explain what it is in scientific terms or plain english that this
product claims to do...well it smells of "snake oil" IMO.

What would one expect in a sound science forum???

I welcome a real sound science discussion but not with a vendor or person that just thinks his or her product is good without out honestly telling the public what his/her
product does in terms that make sense and are not hidden in generalities.

For those folks that "really" think this software does wonderful positive things for them, fine go start a fanboy thread "The things product XXX Does For Me" or "the official Product XXX thread" and go as subjectively ballistic as you want.....

but please no here in "Sound Sience".

All the best
Alex


----------



## bigshot

He can say it, and we can answer. That's the purpose of the forum. People should stop worrying about preventing other people from saying things. It isn't Sound Silence.


----------



## ExpiredLabel

bigshot said:


> He can say it, and we can answer. That's the purpose of the forum. People should stop worrying about preventing other people from saying things. It isn't Sound Silence.



You seem to feel you need the last word. I mainly wanted to point out that discussions can happen more fluidly  and learning can take place without people throwing tantrums and acting like fools. This is a science forum not a tantrum forum, MAKE A POINT AND MOVE ON.  Oh and please leave your hurt feelings at the door.  If anything at this point in reference to my beating a dead horse, you guys at this point are both doing nothing for anyone (again both parties) and simply using this as a means to jack your post counts up if at the least.


I'm done reiterating my point for people who simply are not reading my posts, and fail to see how their actions are obstructing the learning possible in this forum. I've laid out exactly my motivations for stepping into this conversation and the logic with which I was operating under. Take it or leave it. I did not do this just for one person.


----------



## bigshot (Mar 30, 2018)

First you want the thread moved. Then you want it locked. Then you want to choose who gets to speak and who doesn't. This isn't your precinct to cop. I'm not going to listen to you any more.

This is a product that solves a problem that doesn't exist. That is one of the big problems in audiophile circles. They don't 1) observe and look for problems, 2) try to figure out what is causing the problem, 3) apply science to try to solve the problem, then 4) observe again to see if the problem has gone away. Instead, they decide on a problem with no observation then apply a shooting fish in a barrel solution and announce success without any kind of observational proof that they've made any kind of an improvement.

It can be argued that anything that "does no harm" is fair, but if you are saying a problem exists and your product solves it, you should be able to come up with some sort of audible proof of that. But in this case, it did open people up to harm, and now we're told that's fixed so we should try it again. Fixing an egregious error isn't making it a worthwhile product. It's still smoke and mirrors.

I can run my computer processing a complex photoshop filter on a very large file and my iTunes library still plays perfectly. Maybe other people have 15 year old computers that chug through stuff like that and the sound skips. If you hear that happening, just shut down whatever app is causing the problem. Solved!


----------



## adydula

Ok to get back to sound science please tell me what "digital glare" is and how to measure it?

One simple thing at a time..

No opinions, just facts  please....if no facts then just go away.

Alex


----------



## ExpiredLabel

bigshot said:


> *First you want the thread moved. Then you want it locked. Then you want to choose who gets to speak and who doesn't. This isn't your precinct to cop. I'm not going to listen to you any more.*
> 
> This is a product that solves a problem that doesn't exist. That is one of the big problems in audiophile circles. They don't 1) observe and look for problems, 2) try to figure out what is causing the problem, 3) apply science to try to solve the problem, then 4) observe again to see if the problem has gone away. Instead, they decide on a problem with no observation then apply a shooting fish in a barrel solution and announce success without any kind of observational proof that they've made any kind of an improvement.
> 
> ...





You were never listening to begin with. I've made myself clear in my representation. You clearly don't understand what I've been saying. I'm out.


----------



## bigshot

adydula said:


> Ok to get back to sound science please tell me what "digital glare" is and how to measure it?



I would say that is describing either a response imbalance or some sort of distortion above 10kHz.


----------



## adydula

For some reason this expired label person seems to be the windowsX guy????

Ok to get back to sound science please tell me what "digital glare" is and how to measure it?

One simple thing at a time..

No opinions, just facts please....if no facts then just go away.

Alex


----------



## ExpiredLabel

adydula said:


> *For some reason this expired label person seems to be the windowsX guy????*
> 
> Ok to get back to sound science please tell me what "digital glare" is and how to measure it?
> 
> ...




For some reason you fail to do what you even tell other to do, Your a good example of a hypocrite. Fact.

I bid adieu now.


----------



## bigshot

ExpiredLabel said:


> I'm done reiterating my point
> 
> I'm out.
> 
> I bid adieu now.


----------



## adydula

What is digital glare and how do you measure it????

Alex


----------



## ExpiredLabel

bigshot said:


>




hush peanut gallery.


----------



## adydula

Once again mr expired, show mw your digital glare measurements....and how you took them, before and after so we can see your digital glare claims..

thanks
Alex


----------



## ExpiredLabel

adydula said:


> Once again mr expired, show mw your digital glare measurements....and how you took them, before and after so we can see your digital glare claims..
> 
> thanks
> Alex



Oh certainly, as soon as you can show me WHERE exactly I posted making such claims.


----------



## bigshot (Mar 30, 2018)

Why are you continuing to engage him, Alex. Show him the door and be glad when he's gone. All the pointless back and forth is doing is burying the real point of this thread...

1) That Fidelizer Pro hasn't been shown to have any effect on sound quality in a typical computer system at all.

and 2) That an earlier version of Fidelizer Pro was so poorly designed, it had a major security flaw.


----------



## ExpiredLabel

Wow. Looks like we're finally all done here!


----------



## WindowsX (Mar 31, 2018)

I've been reading silently for a while and I think we all see enough. I'm thankful to see people like ExpiredLabel standing up to show what society is missing nowadays. Some people just want to be a winner desperately.

As Fidelizer was mentioned with some confusion, I'd like to clarify my point about my products and moving on.

1) I did provide measurements and verification to prove that Fidelizer does something to affect audio performance. I did recordings before and after using Fidelizer free version 5 times each and here's the result.



> It’s been a challenge to measure digital audio’s qualities and most of the time audiophiles don’t know any measurement outside RMAA’s analog metrics and got failed evaluations as you can see below:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



If the definition of snake oil is product claiming to do something while actually do nothing, Fidelizer doesn't fall in such category as recorded waveform has noticeable changes from Diffmaker measurements.

2) Fidelizer was found in 2011 with purposes to turn computer audio into dedicated audio machine doing nothing but play audio. In early version of Fidelizer, it was never designed for daily work machine. And inform user to use Audiophile or Extremist optimization level on dedicated audio PC only.

It was also stated that Extremist optimization level will stop all non-audio services and that includes security services too because it's non-audio service. It's named Extremist with a reason. However, after I found some people trying to use Extremist optimization level on daily PC and some raised concern about security. I immediately resolve this case after realizing product is recognized by end users now.

3) I'm busy with Fidelizer projects as full time  right now so I don't have time to perform tests in sound science forum anymore. If you want to conduct the similar tests, you can check from here and share your results.

http://www.fidelizer-audio.com/meas...t-playback-with-diffmakers-correlation-depth/

Ultimately, this thread is all about "Fidelizer used to have issues" or "I can't hear any difference" or "Your test about Diffmaker makes no sense to me so I'll ignore it" excluding topics related to harassment and bully.

Regards,
Keetakawee


----------



## adydula

Sorry thats smoke and mirrors IMO....your measureable difference has NO provable correlation to an actual audible difference!

Sound level changes, ie db measuements are meaningless if the human ear can not percieve these changes...

No where in this ONE instance of your attempt to measure your stuff....is there a connection to what on YOUR website state as
"digital glare"..UNTIL you can prove in sound science what digital glare is and the other generalities you tout...your product to
me is just more "snake oil".

You tell us here in sound science what exactly your "digital glare" is and how did you measure it??

Until you answer this your products credibility is naught.

Have a great day!

A.


----------



## gregorio

WindowsX said:


> If the definition of snake oil is product claiming to do something while actually do nothing, Fidelizer doesn't fall in such category as recorded waveform has noticeable changes from Diffmaker measurements.



According to your diffmaker measurements, there is nothing even slightly close to "noticeable". In fact, where there are any differences, they're so slight they could even just be random measurement variation and even if they are real, they're roughly 100 times below audible/noticeable. So using your definition, Fidelizer is indeed snake oil ... thanks for clearing that up!

G


----------



## adydula (Mar 31, 2018)

This guy really believes his stuff is the cats meow...and I really wish it was a good product, but too many people muck with stuff like this and use "gullible" terms, glittering generalities to tout their
dubious claims.

This is a perfect example of such a product....until this guy really takes it seriously he and his product will always be in doubt.

I can understand his frustration with this thread becuase it doesnt throw a wonderul light on his product.

On his website those glittering generalities abound in spades....its his own making.

With so many of his customers claiming to hear audio nirvana and cant live without it, you would think that those in sound science would hear the same "huge sonic improvements??"

I have tried this product several times...and seriously I hear NO sonic differences.

So if you think this product does all these wonderful things, then go buy it...

But until you take this forum seriously and stop your throwing meaningless stuff over the transom and answer credibly...you never will gain respect.

Have a great day!

A.


----------



## bfreedma

gregorio said:


> According to your diffmaker measurements, there is nothing even slightly close to "noticeable". In fact, where there are any differences, they're so slight they could even just be random measurement variation and even if they are real, they're roughly 100 times below audible/noticeable. So using your definition, Fidelizer is indeed snake oil ... thanks for clearing that up!
> 
> G




All of which is explained to WindowsX every time he posts the tests from many versions ago.  I really don’t understand what he hopes to gain by continuing to post in the SS forum.  As many have pointed out, shutting off services in any reasonably capable PC is entirely unnecessary for the relatively lightweight task of audio playback.  A quick look at Task Manager will show how minimal the resource utilization of whatever audio playback software one uses actually is.


----------



## adydula (Mar 31, 2018)

I have (7) pc's, 6 store bought, one DIY. 12 headphone amps, 3 dacs. The amps are DIY and storebought.

When a claim is made like these I try out the product hardware or software and level match, use the exact same source, and do both objective and
subjective testing.

I invite audio friends over and have them take a listen, do blind A/B testing...

There are many things that really do affect the sound level and sound "quality"...

The only thing that we have actually seen was in some systems using asynchronous dacs there was intermittent pops or clicks...caused by inaedequate
resources in buffering, which was easliy resolved in adjusting a buffer size.

I agree with bfreedma that most pc systems now, being at a 7th generation processor, very fast access ssd's and even hard drives with huge caches...mucking with services doesnt make a difference is sound qualities that us humans can really detect.

Spending thousands of hours listening, with a stripped down software and services and process's system compared to my latest generation I7/I8 gen cpus..I can listen to great bitperfect music while browsing the net, posting to forums, and never hear any audible degradation.

If you agree with this products claims, of removing digital glare, removing the remaining veils so the musical message can be delived in an effortless manner, and on and on....then by this product and be happy.

But if you dont ask what digital glare is, how do you mr. product man measure it and know that you indeed are reducing "digital glare"....then your throwing your hard earned money down the tubes IMO.

When and if this product actually does make audible sonic improvements and are explained scientifically without all these glittering generalities then I will take a second look.

But until then buyer beware.

A.


----------



## asymcon (Mar 31, 2018)

If anyone needs proof that you don't need a big number cruncher to play audio, my Clip Zip runs at 38.4MHz with 40% CPU usage playing FLAC while doing 110% speed change and resampling to 48kHz. 
Also consider it's single threaded AMS/ARM CPU and by far not frequency-comparable to much more powerful x86-64 platform.
@adydula 's setup would be able to run several hunderd-thousands of these audio streams (not accounting for interface speeds) with modest latency.

BTW, I like me some digital glare from time to time.


----------



## WindowsX

@adydula I believe there's search function in Head-Fi so why don't you put the word "digital glare" in there. Pretty easy.

@gregorio 100 times? That's over 300db. I bet you hear jet engine sound as a lullaby.

@bfreedma And how does that matter to current version of Fidelizer after 3 years of fixing this issue? Fidelizer is now safe for over 3 years with zero issues with security risks.

@asymcon I used to think like that too but after coming into contact with the experiment and studies about operating system and computer architecture, I/O utilization is more important than processor power.

Microsoft released Multimedia Class Scheduler and related features for good reason and Fidelizer simply uses those features provided in Microsoft Windows.

If my provided data is inadequate for some group of people, I can understand that. You can just drop this thread and move on but as some people keep coming back is very interesting indeed.


----------



## asymcon (Mar 31, 2018)

WindowsX said:


> @gregorio 100 times? That's over 300db. I bet you hear jet engine sound as a lullaby.



Actually, 100 times is just 20dB. 
In an example - 0dBm = -30dBW = 1mW
10dBm = 10mW
20dBm = 100mW
30dBm = 1000mW = 1W = 0dBW





WindowsX said:


> @asymcon I used to think like that too but after coming into contact with the experiment and studies about operating system and computer architecture, I/O utilization is more important than processor power.
> 
> Microsoft released Multimedia Class Scheduler and related features for good reason and Fidelizer simply uses those features provided in Microsoft Windows.


You're correct that I/O scheduling, kernel/hard paging, and all sorts of jazz creates CPU overhead. And that entropy with the rest consumes several times more than what's required for audio decoding and playback. However even with all that considered, we're tapping into 1-2% peak CPU usage per stream and core.


----------



## gregorio (Mar 31, 2018)

WindowsX said:


> [1] I believe there's search function in Head-Fi so why don't you put the word "digital glare" in there. Pretty easy.
> [2] 100 times? That's over 300db. I bet you hear jet engine sound as a lullaby.
> [3] I used to think like that too but after coming into contact with the experiment and studies about operating system and computer architecture, I/O utilization is more important than processor power.
> [4] If my provided data is inadequate for some group of people, I can understand that.



1. "Digital glare" is a term made-up by audiophiles. There's no such thing as "digital glare" unless you define it as "nothing", an absence of analogue tape or vinyl distortion.

2. Oh dear, you make an audio product and you don't even know how the decibel scale works, how is that even possible?? 100 times is 40dB! And, 300dB is nothing like a jet engine, in fact it's nothing like anything known, even the explosion of a nuclear warhead is way less than 300dB. 300dB is 1,000,000,000,000,000 times! Where do you get this nonsense, do you just make it up?

3. Yet your own data demonstrates that it simply doesn't matter, there is no "noticable" difference!

4. Not at all, your data is perfectly adequate!

G

EDIT: 





asymcon said:


> Actually, 100 times is just 20dB.


It's 20dB if you're measuring power (in Watts) but for voltage it's 40dB.


----------



## asymcon

gregorio said:


> Digital glare


I suspect it's a very old term from the days of first linear SRCs which caused ramp of extra harmonic distortion and aliasing errors. Many of those machines ran 12bit ADC and so full 16bit potential of redbook wasn't fully utilized. 
Alternatively, it could be connected to the playback side not performing oversampling, causing aliasing errors at high frequencies. 

But we're talking 80s digital tech here. The issues are long rectified by now.


----------



## WindowsX (Mar 31, 2018)

Funny how you guys tried to correct with different values. How about 66db for psychoacoustics too? Corrections:

1. It's correlation depth measured from Diffmaker not volume in standard measurements
2. 300db is maximum volume for correlation depth
3. I added some fail science mixed intentionally to see if you guys really know about Diffmaker when correcting this

As I can see, you can't even identify the correct metric and forget to add 100 times on top of 3.1db which are "43.1 / 63.1 / 69.5" though they aren't related to Diffmaker at all.

For real scientist, it's a failure at the most basic level of physics, getting metrics right. Well, I guess I said enough. Time to continue my jobs.


----------



## bigshot

WindowsX said:


> I'm thankful to see people like ExpiredLabel standing up to show what society is missing nowadays.



AHEM!(sock puppet)AHEM!


----------



## asymcon (Mar 31, 2018)

WindowsX said:


> 1. It's correlation depth measured from Diffmaker not volume in standard measurements
> 2. 300db is maximum volume for correlation depth


It's maximum difference Diffmaker can make out, not an universal limit. But saying that, 300dB of anything, that's quite a number.



WindowsX said:


> Funny how you guys tried to correct with different values.



Edit: Yes, it's correct because P = U˘2*R so 10V = 20dBV and 100V = 40dBV
and 0dBV = +30dBmV = +60dBuV
but 10W = 10dBW and 100W = 20dBW
and 0dBW = +30dBmW = +60dBuW



WindowsX said:


> Time to continue my jobs.



When you're on a coffee break, check out this:
http://www.cantwellengineering.com/calculator/convert/dBm



WindowsX said:


> For real scientist, it's a failure at the most basic level of physics, getting metrics right.


Exactly:


WindowsX said:


> @gregorio 100 times? That's over 300db. I bet you hear jet engine sound as a lullaby.




-----


----------



## gregorio (Mar 31, 2018)

WindowsX said:


> 1. It's correlation depth measured from Diffmaker not volume in standard measurements
> 2. 300db is maximum volume for correlation depth
> 3. I added some fail science mixed intentionally to see if you guys really know about Diffmaker when correcting this
> 4. For real scientist, it's a failure at the most basic level of physics



1. Are you really saying that RMAA is labelled incorrectly? "Stereo Crosstalk" what's that measured in, is it not dB? What about freq response? Noise and DR are in dBA are they not?
2. What's that got to do with anything? 100 times is 40dB, not 300dB as you erroneously stated!!
3. What do you mean "some fail science"? The measurements all look reasonably accurate and adequate for the purpose. Unfortunately for you, they demonstrate that Fideliser is snake oil.

4. For an audio product designer not to understand the dB scale is a failure which is beyond staggering, I wouldn't even have believed it possible if you hadn't just done it!!!!
Even after all these years, the audiophile world can still amaze me!


----------



## adydula

Gosh, the more this guy speaks the more he does to bury himself and his product. So sad, its almost funny.

He uses "digital glare" on his website, but he can not tell you how much his product reduces it. 

Why????

Because its all "made up" IMO.

This is the greatest act of foolhardiness I have run into in over 40+ years of engineering.

Maybe its measured in mips per parasec? In some Galaxy Far, Far Away..

A.


----------



## adydula

Ok if you can not tell us how you know your product reduces "digital glare", then maybe you can tell us what veils are being removed as users you have posted on your website state....

What service or process or I/O issue is being addressed with your script that attenuates these veils ??? 
And if its the last veil, what are the other veils preceeding this "last" one...

And of course how did you measure that as well??

????

A.


----------



## asymcon (Mar 31, 2018)

gregorio said:


> adequate for the purpose


I'm not so sure, what was measured was basically a software feedback loop, which even Fidelizer had no chance of improving. Much more relevant would be measuring the actual audio output.
Anyway I digress.



WindowsX said:


> listening skills from over 10 years of experience with a few ultra highend CD transports


I think that's the problem here really.
You see, *human ear* is a pretty skookum choocher when it comes to interpreting complex baseband signals. But it makes for a *really lousy *audio measurement tool.

Firstly, there's this uneven frequency response, which to make matters worse, changes with age, aldosterone levels, fatigue, mood etc. So you calibrate it in the morning, and by noon, it's again off the scale. 
The precision is pretty bad, you get 1% frequency error below 1kHz and up to 10% above 10kHz. But you can't even center it properly, unless you get the _perfect pitch_ model, which are quite rare and cost big bucks.
On volume level scale, it's not even average, only 1dB precision and Automatic Gain Control you can't turn off, so all your measurements are worthless above 80dB SPL, where it starts to overload.
Noise performance also isn't stellar - as the receiving transducers transfer the signal using water as a medium, there's always this 8dB rumble below 500Hz. It resonates all over the place, with most distortion happening around 3kHz.

THD+N and Stereo Crosstalk are both rather abysmal.

The QC on them is really a blind shot into the lake, sometimes you get models where left and right channel doesn't even match in terms of sensitivity or frequency response.
Measuring phase is impossible, due to compensation in DSP you can't turn off. It's prone to frequency masking.

The DSP inside is closed-source and quite impossible to reverse-engineer, so we're not seeing it Rockboxed anytime soon. Also when the transducers wear out, you can't exchange them easily without permanent damage to the system. Friggin' planned obsolescence I say. 

And to top it all off, the bloddy thing doesn't even have a proper backlit screen, so all your readouts are worthless.

Can you believe more than 108 billion pairs of them were made (7.6 bilion pairs are in active use)? It's really puzzling how the company hasn't gone bankrupt at this point.
I mean before you can really test your new pair if it's not DOA and is built to specs, it's already out of warranty and nobody offers returns.

Solution? We should all listen using our scopes.


----------



## castleofargh (Apr 1, 2018)

not sure it's doing anything at this point, but please try to argue only points and not people. I know how hard it can be, but do make the extra effort when you write. it goes with the rules of the forum, and it also gives a post that extra credibility where we stop wondering how much of it all is a personal vendetta. win/win

for those who aren't clear on dB relation to voltage or power:
http://www.sengpielaudio.com/calculator-gainloss.htm


----------



## adydula

Hey Castle...

Thanks for your insight.

The point I am wanting to clarify in this product is : When there is a claim that this product reduces "digital glare" then I must ask what this is and how does the developer of this code actually base this revelation on?

IMO if you cant tell how you know this to be true with some objective measurements the how can you make a claim as such?

To be able to dispute or dis-prove this one claim, it has to be defined so others can test objectively.

So I ask once again the objective definition of "digital glare" and how do you know your product reduces this ?? What is your measurement?

I would also ask the developer what "real sound" is that is stated on his site as well? 

Thanks!
Alex


----------



## WindowsX

@gregorio Looks like you believe RMAA can be used to measure everything about audio. Well, suit yourself. Would like to hear how you'll explain about increment to 300db in Diffmaker also if you can.

@adydula To answer about digital glare, I'll need you to answer my three questions so I can give answer based on your understanding about digital glare.

1. Your definition of digital glare term
2. Your method to measure digital glare
3. Your classification of digital glare's level

After I receive your answers, I'll try to explain about digital glare based on your understanding in scientific manner.

By the way, is there anyone here using ultra highend stereo systems? Just curious.


----------



## Glmoneydawg (Mar 31, 2018)

WindowsX said:


> @gregorio Looks like you believe RMAA can be used to measure everything about audio. Well, suit yourself. Would like to hear how you'll explain about increment to 300db in Diffmaker also if you can.
> 
> @adydula To answer about digital glare, I'll need you to answer my three questions so I can give answer based on your understanding about digital glare.
> 
> ...


Define ultra lol...i feel like most people in here would be embarrassed to admit to owning ultra high end.


----------



## adydula

Mr. X,

You claim to reduce digital glare. 
Its your responsibility to define what it is and what your product does to reduce and or eliminate it.
Its your responsibility since you make the claim and not us how you measure this "digital glare".

As a audiophile that has and has had  a very high end system its not my responsibility to tell you my defintion of digital glare.

IMO there is no such thing and have never heard or seen this dubious glittering generality.

and while your at it what the heck is "real sound" vs not-real sound....

these are terms YOU use on your website....these arent terms most audiophiles use that I know.

I am going to have a audiophile meeting at my place in the near future and we will be testing your shutdown process scripting product and will be curious to
see how others with high end systems think about your claims and you can count on my reporting the results.

Now please tell us about your digital glare useage, how you measure it in objective terms, not in I think or my opinion etc..

We all are waiting......

Alex


----------



## adydula

Also why are you curious if we have an ultra high end system....see here you go again....please define what an ultra high end system is?

Are you implying we need to have an ultra high end system, whatever this is?? to be able to enjoy your products claimed attributes???

Inquiring minds here want to know.

Alex


----------



## asymcon (Apr 1, 2018)

WindowsX said:


> By the way, is there anyone here using ultra highend stereo systems? Just curious.


Not sure what you mean here, but I think I have one.
It's La Patrie Concert CW. I use it for solo guitar listening. IMHO, you can't get much better than that, and my mind can rest easy, because what I'm hearing is 100% natural guitar sound.
This is what I'd call ultra high-end.
One problem with my model is that it went into iPhone territory and doesn't feature any headphone or line out jack. So I'm stuck listening to it through its onboard loudspeaker.

As for regular high-end, this is what I'd call anything that's faithfully able to reproduce full 16bit depth of RedBook standard.


castleofargh said:


> please try to argue only points and not people


Uh oh, looks like I screwed up somewhere. I have been trying that since start, but as it happens, EN isn't my first language and this kiddo ain't the brightest to discuss seance, I mean science.
When in doubt, look at my sig, that should clear things up a bit. In any case, big honest apologies to all for what I did, even though I'm not sure what it was.


----------



## castleofargh

asymcon said:


> Not sure what you mean here, but I think I have one.
> It's La Patrie Concert CW. I use it for solo guitar listening. IMHO, you can't get much better than that, and my mind can rest easy, because what I'm hearing is 100% natural guitar sound.
> This is what I'd call ultra high-end.
> One problem with my model is that it went into iPhone territory and doesn't feature any headphone or line out jack. So I'm stuck listening to it through its onboard loudspeaker.
> ...


I didn't say that for you specifically or I would have quoted your post, or named you, or spanked you with a tuna fish. you know, the usual. ^_^ 
I was just reminding everybody about good practice at a time when the topic is getting real hot.


----------



## WindowsX (Apr 1, 2018)

Well, I don't think I can explain in scientific manner to people who can't provide their own definition and scope of subject to discuss. Pointless arguments start from failing to establish mutual understanding about subject.

If you can't explain about your understanding about digital glare, I conclude that we can't continue this discussion and I shall drop this subject and move on. You probably don't find digital glare disturbing too so no point to say why it should be gone.

As for ultra system, I'm just curious. Well, someone gave good answer I like. Some gave otherwise. People who love to argue often make their own assumptions for the sake of argument huh?

By the way, I don't think owning ultra highend system is embarrassing at all. Some good components use really expensive parts with years of research and development on circuit.


----------



## TheAttorney (Apr 1, 2018)

Hi Mr X, as a satisfied Fidelizer customer, I strongly suggest that you really do make that your very last post in this thread.
I know it must be hard when people criticise something that you've spent years perfecting. But these people will never hear the differences you claim and they will never buy your product. And you will never produce a measurement or explanation that meets the high objective standards of the Sound Science forum. So please stop trying.

BTW, Fidelizer Pro 8.1 is the best yet. Well done .


----------



## adydula

But wait!!

There's more!!

Mr. X, if you really feel that way, 


WindowsX said:


> I conclude that we can't continue this discussion and I shall drop this subject and move on



I welcome this, so goodbye and have a great life!

We will remain here and since you have dodged most honest inquiries and questions with even more questions, not answers..that your product is indeed
what we all would call "snake oil"....

A.


----------



## asymcon

castleofargh said:


> I was just reminding everybody about good practice at a time when the topic is getting real hot.


I know, I was just teasin'


----------



## gregorio

TheAttorney said:


> [1] But these people will never hear the differences you claim ...
> [2] And you will never produce a measurement or explanation that meets the high objective standards of the Sound Science forum.



1. That's true, because the differences demonstrated are well below audibility of human beings. Your wording is a little strange though, your use of the term "these people" implies you think there is some other group of people who are not human beings?

2. That's also a very strange thing to say, as he's ALREADY produced a set of measurements which meet the standards of this forum!

G


----------



## gregorio (Apr 1, 2018)

WindowsX said:


> [1] Looks like you believe RMAA can be used to measure everything about audio.
> [2] Would like to hear how you'll explain about increment to 300db in Diffmaker also if you can.
> [3] If you can't explain about your understanding about digital glare, I conclude that we can't continue this discussion and I shall drop this subject and move on.
> [3a] You probably don't find digital glare ...



1. How does it look like that? It's being used to measure differences between audio files, not "everything about audio", isn't that obvious?

2. According to you: "Pointless arguments start from failing to establish mutual understanding about subject." So how can I possibly answer that question if you don't know what decidels (dB) are to start with??

3. You are the one claiming to reduce digital glare. If you don't know what digital glare is and can't define it, how on earth can you claim to reduce it?
3a. Tell me what it is and I'll tell you if I can find it!

And lastly, enough of the "has anyone got an ultra high-end system?". It's a fairly safe bet that my system is far superior to yours, so you're not going to get anywhere with that tried, old audiophile ploy!

G


----------



## adydula

G...

The man has stated he has moved on...so be it.....

I have done a bunch of reading on Microsofts built in Multimedia Scheduler Service...quite interesting....dont see any real reason for one to muck with these settings in the registy especially when you have a modern pc.....the default is an 80/20 % CPU split....and if your not experiencing any delays, pops, clicks etc...I see no earthly reason to muck with them.

Music players like Jriver being an audio app might want to call upon these registry datapoints, but take a read over at Jriver and see what they say and think of this issue. 

There are other products out there as well that do things that, sound wonderful, but do no real audible improvements etc...

I have found in AB testing, most perceived changes sourced back to mis-matched levels due to not having certain settings set up accurately.

Once things are level matched these minor changes become very hard to discern with the human ear as it is...

Alex


----------



## bigshot

WindowsX said:


> @gregorioTo answer about digital glare, I'll need you to answer my three questions so I can give answer based on your understanding about digital glare.
> 
> 1. Your definition of digital glare term
> 2. Your method to measure digital glare
> 3. Your classification of digital glare's level



<Raising my hand politely> Sir, I'm afraid I don't know anything about this subject. This isn't a term I am familiar with. I understand that you have designed a product that reduces digital glare. That must make you more knowledgeable about this subject than I am. Can you please explain to me what digital glare is, how you went about reducing it and how you measured it to know that you had successfully reduced it? I appreciate you taking the time to enlighten me and I look forward to your answers to these three questions...

1. Your definition of digital glare term
2. Your method to measure digital glare
3. Your classification of digital glare's level


----------



## Zapp_Fan

@WindowsX - Sorry, but I just had to chime in regarding "digital glare". You use the term in YOUR marketing materials, on YOUR website, to sell YOUR product. Then you turn around and say you don't actually have a definition of the term, and can't discuss it unless someone enlightens you as to what it means?  That's not a good look.  I think that takes some chutzpah to be sure.  I don't know who you hope to convince that way.


----------



## WindowsX

Digital glare was introduced since decades back during CD format transition by vinyl audiophiles. Pure analogue playback is very smooth and relaxing for long listening session without fatigue.

With digital audio, there's glare effect from frequency distortion and can cause listening fatigue to some people. Digital audio doesn't have transient pulse as smooth as analogue ones.

Digital glare isn't only thing in computer audiophile, it's also in CD player/transport back in days but it's better now after 30 years of improvements. Still, not's not 100% resolved as glare effect isn't from the drive alone.

Computer audio is a new thing and most of them aren't aware about this effect, especially when everyone starts with digital music and don't have good old vinyl playback as references.

Some serious audiophiles may still find glare effects in modern Esoteric drive and prefer older Esoteric P-0 model using Philips drive for very low glare effect with very smooth transient response.

If you check Fidelizer's testimonials from here, you can see a few audiophiles sharing their feedback with glare term to describe the improvements as below.

http://www.fidelizer-audio.com/fidelizer-feedback/

Digital glare is less used nowadays after completing digital transition and people are fine with mp3 quality playback unlike older days. Some serious audiophiles gave up on computer audio as source due to digital glare effect as well.

Long story short, digital glare is term described by some group of audiophiles to identify issues they have with digital audio.


----------



## gregorio (Apr 3, 2018)

WindowsX said:


> [1] With digital audio, there's glare effect from frequency distortion and can cause listening fatigue to some people. Digital audio doesn't have transient pulse as smooth as analogue ones.
> [2] Computer audio is a new thing and most of them aren't aware about this effect ...
> [3] If you check Fidelizer's testimonials  ...
> [4] Digital glare is less used nowadays ...



1. No! There is virtually no frequency distortion with digital audio, that's why it was invented!! If analogue does have a smoother "transient pulse", it's due to the addition distortion of analogue. If you are making a statement of fact here in the science forum, then you must provide some some reliable evidence, in this case that digital does have audible frequency distortion. Unfortunately for you, all the reliable evidence demonstrates that digital has far less distortion than analogue, indeed, there are few facts more well demonstrated and accepted! So according to your definition, "digital glare" is effectively a lack of analogue distortion and therefore, for your claim of reducing "digital glare" to be true, you must be adding analogue distortion. However, your RMAA results indicate that Fidelizer is adding no or only minute amounts of any sort of distortion, many times below the threshold of audibility.

2. Huh? I've been doing computer audio for over 20 years, so it's hardly a "new thing" and most are probably aware about this effect (that digital is more accurate than analogue).

3. Your marketing material does NOT constitute reliable evidence, please remember this is the "sound science" forum, NOT the "any old marketing" forum!

4. That's debatable, although I would say that "digital glare" (the lack of analogue distortion) is generally used more nowadays.

G


----------



## TheAttorney

Well I did warn you WindowsX, but you couldn't resist the bait and its got you absolutely nowhere - unless you actually enjoy never ending spirals.

OF COURSE everyone here knows what Digital Glare is. These are intelligent people and the the debate's been going on for years. Anyone can google it.
It's just that they don't believe the term has any validity in the Sound Science forum (and maybe it doesn't) and want to prove now that they are right.
No, the purpose of the question is to draw you back in to entangle you to show that you're a complete fraud at worst, or a misguided fool at best.

The bait's been set and the wolves are circling round, waiting for you to lose your rag so that they can pounce. The Moderators can only hold them back for so long.
My final warning: stop posting, leave now and don't look back, whilst you still have all your limbs intact [1],

Note [1] That was a slight exageration for dramatic effect , but this sort of carnage did happen a while back. It was kinda fun - in a slow motion car crash way


----------



## Niouke (Apr 3, 2018)

WindowsX said:


> Digital glare was introduced since decades back during CD format transition by vinyl audiophiles. Pure analogue playback is very smooth and relaxing for long listening session without fatigue.
> 
> With digital audio, there's glare effect from frequency distortion and can cause listening fatigue to some people. Digital audio doesn't have transient pulse as smooth as analogue ones.
> 
> ...



that doesn't define "digital glare" and it's measurable effects.


----------



## Zapp_Fan (Apr 3, 2018)

Niouke said:


> that doesn't define "digital glare" and it's measurable effects.



Well, if you want to be really charitable, he did mention something quantifiable.  Analogue supposedly has a 'smoother' transient response than digital.  In real terms this would probably equate to a reduction in the higher frequencies that make up a transient.  Since we are talking about the two broadest categories of audio signal reproduction possible - "analog" and "digital", this statement could be true in some cases, in fact it could even represent a desirable effect, sometimes, maybe?  

Another way to put it is "analog rounds off transients" which sounds a little worse when you put it that way.  It's also probably only true in very limited cases, in other cases the exact opposite will be true.  So I guess it's not a very definitive statement either way.

I leave it to the rest of the group to judge whether shutting down various system processes in windows actually rounds off transients, or improves the performance of a DAC anti-aliasing filter, or whatever, or not.


----------



## asymcon (Apr 3, 2018)

WindowsX said:


> With digital audio, there's glare effect from frequency distortion and can cause listening fatigue to some people. Digital audio doesn't have transient pulse as smooth as analogue ones.


More precisely, there *was*. Also when you mention digital, which digital specifically? PCM or DSD (or MQA  )?
The same for analog.


WindowsX said:


> Pure analogue playback is very smooth and relaxing for long listening session without fatigue.
> Smooth and relaxing doesn't necessarily constitute accurate. And that could be problem with digital (PCM, I need to watch it now), it's simply too _perfect _and revealing that nothing remains hidden under surface noise.





WindowsX said:


> Computer audio is a new thing and most of them aren't aware about this effect, especially when everyone starts with digital music and don't have good old vinyl playback as references.


There are *much *better members of the analog domain than vinyl. VHS Hi-Fi for instance.
Based on the standard, audio carrier is FM modulated below high frequency image carrier, so no surface other low frequency noises interfere with it.
Over 80dB of stereo separation, 20-20000Hz +- 1dB (with slow rolloff to 30k) frequency response and over 4 hours of recording space.


WindowsX said:


> people are fine with mp3 quality playback unlike older days


That is a sad truth unfortunately, despite being available for over 12 years, FLAC is still boutique format to some.
But I can't say it was unlike older days. It was always like that.


----------



## bigshot

WindowsX said:


> Digital glare was introduced since decades back during CD format transition by vinyl audiophiles. Pure analogue playback is very smooth and relaxing for long listening session without fatigue.



Do you really design digital audio filters? Because it seems that you don't understand very much about how digital audio works.


----------



## HotIce

We can maybe collect some VC, and setup a Lab for professionally driven A/B tests, where if a product meets a certain human detectable threshold, we release a Certificate Of Audibility to manufacturers which wants to qualify and be able to use such certificate in their marketing campaigns.
My guess, Chapter 11 after a few weeks for The Lab.


----------



## bigshot

How about the manufacturers of snake oil being billed for the costs if their products don't pass muster. That would be a put up or shut up.


----------



## gregorio

TheAttorney said:


> [1] OF COURSE everyone here knows what Digital Glare is.
> [2] These are intelligent people and the the debate's been going on for years.
> [3] It's just that they don't believe the term has any validity in the Sound Science forum (and maybe it doesn't) and want to prove now that they are right. No, the purpose of the question is to draw you back in to entangle you to show that you're a complete fraud at worst, or a misguided fool at best.
> [3a] The bait's been set and the wolves are circling round ...



1. That's obviously FALSE! I know what is meant by the term "glare" but not "digital glare", digital doesn't have any glare, it's effectively linear. I am guessing that "digital glare" refers to a lack of analogue recording media distortion from what WindowsX and others have said over the years but I don't really know. For this reason and as I am part of "everyone here", your statement is false!

2. The debate's been going on for years in a subset of the audiophile community. For the rest of the audio community the debate was very short lived and ended decades ago or was virtually non-existent to start with, because it was nothing more than an early marketing phrase, invented by those who were still marketing expensive turntables and tape machines! 

3. Belief has nothing to do with it, facts are relevant, beliefs are not! Additionally, it has nothing to do with validity specifically in the science forum but validity everywhere. And lastly, it also has nothing to do with us wanting to prove that we are right. WindowsX has made the claim, it's for him to prove those claims BUT his OWN evidence demonstrates his claim is false! In other words, we do not need to "entangle" or draw him back in to show he's a fraud or misguided fool, his own evidence ALREADY unequivocally shows that, without any input from us! Our input is still apparently required because there are some (including apparently you and WindowsX himself), who astonishingly don't seem to understand what his evidence "already unequivocally shows"!!
3a. The bait has been set ... by WindowsX himself! And the trap has been sprung, again by WindowsX himself. Us "wolves" are now just "circling round" bemused, watching WindowsX futilely trying to extricate himself from his own trap!!!

G


----------



## TheAttorney

Well, WindowsX, after gergorio's post, I hope you you're beginning to understand my warnings. 
My parting point:

Just don't take the bait however enticing it may appear. 
For they will find you. And they will eat you. With a nice chianti fffffff

(That's best read as film trailer voice-over man)


----------



## gregorio

TheAttorney said:


> My parting point: Just don't take the bait however enticing it may appear.



A more appropriate parting point would be: Don't lie in the first place. Don't then attempt to defend that lie. And last but not least, don't dispute the evidence you yourself have posted which clearly demonstrates that you're lying!!

BTW, I've just designed a great audiophile product which reduces the number of flying pigs. Shall I just go ahead and invoice you for one?

G


----------



## bigshot

Virtue is its own reward.


----------



## adydula

What a bunch of BS. Period.

Mr X. said he was leaving and here he is back again with more nebulous meaningless garbage.

No where has he any sound science data to prove how to measure this "digital" glare and how much his product supposedly elimnates it so you can have
"real sound".

This guys is a charlatan at best.

No real facts, no real measurements and yet he keeps pounding nonsense about digital glare....a fool and his money are soon parted.

He has lost ALL credability IMO.

Alex


----------



## colonelkernel8

If WindowsX can tell me what a reconstruction filter is without copying and pasting from Wikipedia, I’ll completely believe everything he has to say about Fidelizer. That’s how confident I am that this guy is full of crap.


----------



## Glmoneydawg

gregorio said:


> A more appropriate parting point would be: Don't lie in the first place. Don't then attempt to defend that lie. And last but not least, don't dispute the evidence you yourself have posted which clearly demonstrates that you're lying!!
> 
> BTW, I've just designed a great audiophile product which reduces the number of flying pigs. Shall I just go ahead and invoice you for one?
> 
> G


while i dont currently have a flying pig problem,it is comforting to have all the bases covered....how much for your wonderful new product?


----------



## gregorio

Glmoneydawg said:


> [1] while i dont currently have a flying pig problem,it is comforting to have all the bases covered....
> [2] how much for your wonderful new product?



1. Admittedly, flying pigs don't exist but then neither does "digital glare". So, if you did happen to suffer from digital glare then logically you may also suffer from flying pigs, which just like digital glare don't exist either! You can't fault this logic! I tell you what, how about I post some testimony from satisfied customers that they no longer experience flying pigs, heck I'll even furnish you with an RMAA measurement which proves my product makes absolutely no audible difference whatsoever, surely that must be enough to convince you it's worth it's asking price? Actually, I'll even go a step further and guarantee my product! If, after installing my product, you can provide any evidence that you've still got any flying pigs, I'll give you a full refund. I can't say fairer than that!!

2. Pig-elizer Pro is just $69.95! 

G


----------



## adydula (Apr 5, 2018)

Warning if you use JRiver Music Player be aware.

They do NOT recommend using any "optimizer or enhancement" software products with their software.

If you want a good look at the many, many people that have used this fiddle program and the numerouse issues they have had.....

From BSOD's, systems hangs, crashes, audio interuptions...and more....then take a read over in the Interact forum of Jriver, found under their support page.

Any use of this program and other core twiddling enhancement code is "unsupported"....

Many real people with terrible fiddle experiences and they are part of that "2900" happy campers????

Buyer beware......

Alex


----------



## Glmoneydawg

gregorio said:


> 1. Admittedly, flying pigs don't exist but then neither does "digital glare". So, if you did happen to suffer from digital glare then logically you may also suffer from flying pigs, which just like digital glare don't exist either! You can't fault this logic! I tell you what, how about I post some testimony from satisfied customers that they no longer experience flying pigs, heck I'll even furnish you with an RMAA measurement which proves my product makes absolutely no audible difference whatsoever, surely that must be enough to convince you it's worth it's asking price? Actually, I'll even go a step further and guarantee my product! If, after installing my product, you can provide any evidence that you've still got any flying pigs, I'll give you a full refund. I can't say fairer than that!!
> 
> 2. Pig-elizer Pro is just $69.95!
> 
> G


Sounds too good to be true....you need Bigshot to write your advertising. ..he's very good with the audiophile descriptive vocabulary.


----------



## bigshot

DE-PORKALIZER PRO!

Your system may be plagued by avian swine without you even knowing it! Do you want a pristine sparkling clean listening experience, or do you want to drag your ears through the muck of a pig pen? Get De-Prokalizer Pro today and you'll never experience the horror of a flying pig. WE GUARANTEE THAT!


----------



## Glmoneydawg

bigshot said:


> DE-PORKALIZER PRO!
> 
> Your system may be plagued by avian swine without you even knowing it! Do you want a pristine sparkling clean listening experience, or do you want to drag your ears through the muck of a pig pen? Get De-Prokalizer Pro today and you'll never experience the horror of a flying pig. WE GUARANTEE THAT!


Overachiever..even better than expected lol


----------



## bigshot

Of course the next product I'm going to promote is the Pig Levitator for people who actually prefer the euphonic effects of flying pigs...


----------



## Glmoneydawg

bigshot said:


> Of course the next product I'm going to promote is the Pig Levitator for people who actually prefer the euphonic effects of flying pigs...


Sigh....sound science my friend. ..gonna need a graph...i am not an idiot.


----------



## bigshot




----------



## bfreedma

bigshot said:


>



Bumblepigs can’t fly.....

This must be a levitating porker.  Wings are too small to support the babybacks.


----------



## Glmoneydawg

bfreedma said:


> Bumblepigs can’t fly.....
> 
> This must be a levitating porker.  Wings are too small to support the babybacks.


Yep....definitely gonna need supporting evidence here...i feel like he may have manufactured this to sell the product....we are smarter than this right?....how much is it again?


----------



## bigshot

hint: _helium_


----------



## castleofargh

how about you gents go have fun in bigshot's pub topic. 
it pains me to always be the guy killing legendary creatures, but you only bring them up when a topic has gone to crap and should be locked up.


----------

