[castleofargh]

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.

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.

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]

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]

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,

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]

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]

[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]

[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]

@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]

[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]

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.

that doesn't define "digital glare" and it's measurable effects.

 

[Zapp_Fan]

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.