[nick_charles]

   
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]

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.
 

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]

  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]

  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]

 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

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]

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]

   
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

 
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]

   
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]

   
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

 
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]

   
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]

   
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]

   
 
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]

   
$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.