[Guidostrunk]

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

 

[bfreedma]

*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 ^_^

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]

   
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]

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

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?

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]

  
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

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]

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.....

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]

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]

   
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

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]

   
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

  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?

 

 

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]

  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?