[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]

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"

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.

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]

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]

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]

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]

  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]

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]

  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.
 
Whatever anyone says that doesn't go along with bits are bits myth will be rejected and we will burn them with fire. Get real dude, 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 is 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

 
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.
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.

 
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]

  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.
 
Second, I did write technical explanation about Fidelizer in here.
 
http://www.fidelizer-audio.com/about-fidelizer/
 
or maybe also here.
 
http://www.audioasylum.com/cgi/t.mpl?f=pcaudio&m=142216
 
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. that thread was made by member who used to use Fidelizer free version to show his appreciation after recent upgrade.

 
 
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.