[WindowsX]

  If you are having problems which that software is trying to solve (AFAICT just changes processes scheduling policies), these are pretty clear, as they manifest with audio skipping. Which is audible (and annoying) w/out any effort.
But that's a big if, as with modern many-cores-and-even-more-many-hyperthreads systems, it takes quite a bit of system stress for the audio feeding app, to miss scheduling windows so big to let the audio device starving for data.
I have personally not had audio skipping since I don't even remember, and I stress my system quite a bit with big/parallel software builds.
IOW, I won't go as far as claiming snake oil, but you can be almost certain you can do without it.

 
It's not about process scheduling policies in Fidelizer. It makes Windows to actually make use of NT6 multimedia platform. Since Windows Vista, there's multimedia class scheduler service, runtime service, and other related API features to handle resource scheduling between audio/video/network better for system and I/O performance.
 
These features won't touch individual process. If you use Fidelizer with default consumer level, all processes will be left untouched and multimedia platform in Windows itself will be optimized. I recommend everyone to at least trying this software before passing judgement. Many claimed it'll make no difference without trying. They don't understand the nature of software and mistook some of additional features as core features instead.
 
Regards,
Keetakawee

 

[watchnerd]

   
It's not about process scheduling policies in Fidelizer. It makes Windows to actually make use of NT6 multimedia platform. Since Windows Vista, there's multimedia class scheduler service, runtime service, and other related API features to handle resource scheduling between audio/video/network better for system and I/O performance.
 
These features won't touch individual process. If you use Fidelizer with default consumer level, all processes will be left untouched and multimedia platform in Windows itself will be optimized. I recommend everyone to at least trying this software before passing judgement. Many claimed it'll make no difference without trying. They don't understand the nature of software and mistook some of additional features as core features instead.
 
Regards,
Keetakawee

 
None of this matters if you switch to using a stream-based system.
 
These problems are from directly attaching DACs to PCs.
 
So 5-10 years ago.

 

[WindowsX]

   
None of this matters if you switch to using a stream-based system.
 
These problems are from directly attaching DACs to PCs.
 
So 5-10 years ago.

 
That's not true. Streaming audio will also have issues with digital audio transport.Simply moving to networked audio won't solve any problem. It's like moving to a new unfamiliar field and marketing tells you how awesome it is. Here's another feedback I received from certain customer recently.
 
"Hi,

First about Fidelizer. I've used the free version for several months. I always thought it made quite a difference. But I was unprepared for the incredible difference the full version brought to my system. Simply incredible. Better more defined bass, depth, and a blackness around the vocals and instruments which caused the speakers to disappear. And all clearly heard while using the microrendu over the network. There are many microrendu users that insist programs like AudiophileOptimizer and Fidelizer cannot cause a difference in sound quality across the network."
 
For Fidelizer Plus/Pro, you can access audio profile option for specialized audio optimizations with the right audio profile. Using Streamer audio profile to stream music to microRendu is a pure bliss to many Fidelizer Pro users.
 
Regards,
Keetakawee

 

[HotIce]

   
It's not about process scheduling policies in Fidelizer. It makes Windows to actually make use of NT6 multimedia platform. Since Windows Vista, there's multimedia class scheduler service, runtime service, and other related API features to handle resource scheduling between audio/video/network better for system and I/O performance.
 
These features won't touch individual process. If you use Fidelizer with default consumer level, all processes will be left untouched and multimedia platform in Windows itself will be optimized. I recommend everyone to at least trying this software before passing judgement. Many claimed it'll make no difference without trying. They don't understand the nature of software and mistook some of additional features as core features instead.
 
Regards,
Keetakawee

 
These are your major claims, right in front of my browser:
 
Improve audio performance by giving audio task more priority, improve low latency stability, and increase accuracy of clock resolution.
 
Isolate non-audio processes and reduce its priority to minimize any possible interference to audio task and related processes.
Launch music player application at high priority without interference from user permissions for solid performance.

From a downstream device (DAC, for example) POV, the PC is going to establish a connection saying it is going to feed audio data with a given format and bitrate.
If the PC keeps feeding the device with enough data to cover the claimed bitrate, there is no need of the extra software.
If the PC, due to high scheduling latencies, misses timely feeding to the device, the device "skips" (how it is generally referred to), and that's a pretty darn clear (annoyingly so) event, even if the skip window is pretty minor.
So the "Do I need it?" question is pretty clear. There is no magic and subtle listening ritual you have to undergo to, in order to understand whether you might need it.

Unless you claim that the software makes the sound better, even for a never-skip link, which might trigger more questions.
 

 

[watchnerd]

   
That's not true. Streaming audio will also have issues with digital audio transport.Simply moving to networked audio won't solve any problem. 

 
Yes, it is true and it solves many problems.
 
1. Remove the DAC away from the PC to another room, solving EMI/RFI/acoustic issues related to noisy PC
 
2. Using asynchronous transports that allow the DAC to control the flow
 
3. Using protocols like RAAT that comply with asynchronous models
 
4. Implement clock/relock in a way that has nothing do with the PC
 
5. Endpoint buffering

 

[WindowsX]

   
These are your major claims, right in front of my browser:
 
Improve audio performance by giving audio task more priority, improve low latency stability, and increase accuracy of clock resolution.
 
Isolate non-audio processes and reduce its priority to minimize any possible interference to audio task and related processes.
Launch music player application at high priority without interference from user permissions for solid performance.

From a downstream device (DAC, for example) POV, the PC is going to establish a connection saying it is going to feed audio data with a given format and bitrate.
If the PC keeps feeding the device with enough data to cover the claimed bitrate, there is no need of the extra software.
If the PC, due to high scheduling latencies, misses timely feeding to the device, the device "skips" (how it is generally referred to), and that's a pretty darn clear (annoyingly so) event, even if the skip window is pretty minor.
So the "Do I need it?" question is pretty clear. There is no magic and subtle listening ritual you have to undergo to, in order to understand whether you might need it.

Unless you claim that the software makes the sound better, even for a never-skip link, which might trigger more questions.
 

 
You don't need Fidelizer to get audio working properly. That's given. But if you want to improve sound quality, you can give Fidelizer a try. This is headline above information you read.
 

Sound quality improvement solutions for everyone​

 
I quoted your message just to clear your misunderstanding about Fidelizer as 'changing process scheduling policies' tool. Its fundamental is different and I hope you get my point. I'm not convincing you to believe that Fidelizer will improve sound quality in your system. You can try it and see for yourself if you're interested. You can also move on without trying Fidelizer too if you believe in 'bits are bits' and don't want anything else to confuse you.
 
Regards,
Keetakawee

 

[watchnerd]

   
microrendu users

 
LOL...you shouldn't cite this.  Microrendu has been show to have zero positive measurable effects.  It does nothing positive, except possibly introducing noise from bad power supply isolation.

 

[WindowsX]

   
Yes, it is true and it solves many problems.
 
1. Remove the DAC away from the PC to another room, solving EMI/RFI/acoustic issues related to noisy PC
 
2. Using asynchronous transports that allow the DAC to control the flow
 
3. Using protocols like RAAT that comply with asynchronous models
 
4. Implement clock/relock in a way that has nothing do with the PC
 
5. Endpoint buffering

 
I wonder if you ever take any course in digital audio or data communication related classes. I used to believe like that until I was proven wrong and further studies showed me why it doesn't work. Your point aren't valid and I don't think I can change your belief in few sentences when I spent years in trials and research to reach my own conclusion.
 
For your information, I also know some bros who's into audiophile and took network courses for his IT career. He hates networked audio to the bones, purchased cisco network hub switch, separated nano router and connect to ethernet port to minimize network interference problems. And he only used network for remote control, no audio streaming through network at all.
 

   
LOL...you shouldn't cite this.  Microrendu has been show to have zero positive measurable effects.  It does nothing positive, except possibly introducing noise from bad power supply isolation.

 
I only quoted customer's feedback. It's not my intention to give any reference to microRendu personally. My point is customer finding streaming audio sounding a lot better with Fidelizer.
 
Regards,
Keetakawee

 

[watchnerd]

   
I wonder if you ever take any course in digital audio or data communication related classes. ]

 
Why yes...I have a degree in applied physics, specializing in digital signal processing, work in the software industry, and build my own music streaming servers from scratch using open source software.

 

[WindowsX]

   
Why yes...I have a degree in applied physics, specializing in digital signal processing, work in the software industry, and build my own music streaming servers from scratch using open source software.

 
In that case, I recommend you to bring your music server and compare to any Esoteric CD transport in hifi shop. See if you can make it sounding better. I did that and I'm still trying to make device sounding as close as Esoteric's performance as much as possible.
 
Regards,
Keetakawee

 

[HotIce]

   
You don't need Fidelizer to get audio working properly. That's given. But if you want to improve sound quality, you can give Fidelizer a try. This is headline above information you read.
 

Sound quality improvement solutions for everyone​

 
I quoted your message just to clear your misunderstanding about Fidelizer as 'changing process scheduling policies' tool. Its fundamental is different and I hope you get my point. I'm not convincing you to believe that Fidelizer will improve sound quality in your system. You can try it and see for yourself if you're interested. You can also move on without trying Fidelizer too if you believe in 'bits are bits' and don't want anything else to confuse you.
 
Regards,
Keetakawee

 
OK, it is not a process scheduler policy change tool, yet, 90% of the claims you list on your own main page, are around that.
Hence the confusion.
 
 

 

[watchnerd]

 
For your information, I also know some bros who's into audiophile and took network courses for his IT career. He hates networked audio to the bones, purchased cisco network hub switch, separated nano router and connect to ethernet port to minimize network interference problems. And he only used network for remote control, no audio streaming through network at all.
 
 

 
Your "bros" need to learn how to do it right.
 
Audio over IP has been used in professional recording studios for years, using multiple different technology stacks, some of them proprietary (Dante, Rednet), more recently open sourced.

 

[WindowsX]

   
OK, it is not a process scheduler policy change tool, yet, 90% of the claims you list on your own main page, are around that.
Hence the confusion.
 
 

 
People often mistook it for process tweaking. I used to write like optimizing multimedia runtime platform using API call to increase audio thread and stuff. Those contain a lot of jargons and confuse many end-user. So, I wrapped them up again to make things easier to follow and grasp the concept better. If you want to read about detailed features, please check Support > About Fidelizer here.
 
http://www.fidelizer-audio.com/about-fidelizer/
 
I wrote detailed explanation about its technology there and hope it'll help you understanding the product better.
 
Regards,
Keetakawee

 

[watchnerd]

   
In that case, I recommend you to bring your music server and compare to any Esoteric CD transport in hifi shop. See if you can make it sounding better. I did that and I'm still trying to make device sounding as close as Esoteric's performance as much as possible.
 
Regards,
Keetakawee

 
Compare to a CD transport?
 
If you had listed a high-end network transport / streamer from someone like Auralic I would get the comparison.
 
You're comparing to old tech.

 

[WindowsX]

   
Your "bros" need to learn how to do it right.
 
Audio over IP has been used in professional recording studios for years, using multiple different technology stacks, some of them proprietary (Dante, Rednet), more recently open sourced.

 
Doing it right? He also work on PA audio, digital audio mastering, and highend audio equipment service industries. I and he played around with a few highend network players, built a few Windows/OSX/Linux models together. I also played around with Dante/Rednet and Merging NADAC too.
 
I also have Nimitra customers who work on famous audio recording studios. He's also an audiophile using Playback Designs for DSD256 playback/recording and Nimitra makes his album sounding a lot better. I recommend you to have actual experience with highend sources. It'll widen up your experience a lot.
 
Regards,
Keetakawee