[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]

  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.

 
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]

@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.

 
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]

 
 
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]

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."

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]

  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]

   
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...

 
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]

   
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

 
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]

   
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.
 
If you want to make a proper debate, proposed 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

 
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]

   
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]

   
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.
 
Regards,
Windows X

 
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]

   
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.