[bigshot]

What audio latency between the HDD and the DAC? A HDD can shuffle data from place to place a lot faster than a DAC can play it. The only time I hear of latency being an issue is when you are recording with a million real time plugins engaged. That is a CPU thing. Are there computers that have trouble keeping up with the CPU requirement of simple audio playback? I don't understand what the problem is. It would be a good idea to define the problem before coming up with a solution!

 

[Zapp_Fan]

What audio latency between the HDD and the DAC? A HDD can shuffle data from place to place a lot faster than a DAC can play it. The only time I hear of latency being an issue is when you are recording with a million real time plugins engaged. That is a CPU thing. Are there computers that have trouble keeping up with the CPU requirement of simple audio playback? I don't understand what the problem is. It would be a good idea to define the problem before coming up with a solution!

My point was more that it's a non-problem. I basically mean the buffer length the audio player / driver is working with is maybe reduced by this thing? I am struggling to even understand the utility. Buffer length such a non-problem for playback I don't even know where to begin. It's like saying the length of your driveway affects the torque curve of your car.

Unless your computer is from 1991, this won't help with anything.

 

[bigshot]

My Apple II is lagging! It must be the cassette drive!

 

[bfreedma]

My Apple II is lagging! It must be the cassette drive!

The good old days. Hoping that your program wouldn't fail 15 minutes into loading off cassette.

Not many people remember that the original IBM PC and PCjr also had ports for cassette drives, though by the time they made market inroads, the incredibly fast and storage dense 5.25" single sided floppy had taken over mass storage for personal computers....

 

[castleofargh]

So, if I am understanding this right, Fidelizer claims to improve sound quality because audio latency from your HDD to your DAC is reduced, basically? Or maybe the CPU usage would be less? In the former case, I cannot even think of a possible mechanism that this might improve sound quality. In the latter, I imagine someone will talk about EMI from the CPU and how it does something to imaging or whatever.

But anyway, did anyone do any null tests or any measurements at all ITT? I feel that these debates should be very easy to settle.

as anything changing plenty of settings, it 100% sure that the result if ever significant, won't be consistent over various machines. if only because various users won't have their audio system setup the same way, or might just be using different audio drivers and players doing their own things(like pre loading the song entirely or not and other funky stuff). or the users might have gone and tweaked several stuff they do not understand based on crappy internet advice. so showing that fidelizer does nothing relevant on a typical machine, wouldn't prove it cannot solve some specific issue some dude will have. and the opposite is true too. showing one machine with a significant improvement between before and after would most likely just suggest the before was a mess that was man made.

I've always consider this app as an automated solution for people who messed up and hope this would by chance set up whatever they touched to a better setting. because obviously even with a PI there is no reason to have degraded audio due to latency or whatever. any modern computer, has everything to deal with so much bigger than an audio files both to process and to stream somewhere. and modern usb DACs have pretty solid handling of buffering, reclocking, custom drivers, and anything used very much to make the computer as irrelevant as possible.


aside from that, our buddy @WindowsX has a very unique vision of what a proper test is. and that has been a very real problem when discussing this or several other topics. your approach wouldn't settle anything for him, I can tell you that much right now.

 

[amirm]

So, if I am understanding this right, Fidelizer claims to improve sound quality because audio latency from your HDD to your DAC is reduced, basically? Or maybe the CPU usage would be less? In the former case, I cannot even think of a possible mechanism that this might improve sound quality. In the latter, I imagine someone will talk about EMI from the CPU and how it does something to imaging or whatever.

You are basically correct. The argument for better fidelity is that of intuition: the less activity in the system (outside of playing audio), then less "noise" that can bleed out of the computer. And once you include the definition of "noise that is not audible without music," their marketing argument is made. And subjective impressions of betterness pour in.

I have always asked them and myriad of other player apps to create any configuration as even the best case scenario to show any audible difference. They have not done so. But as it turns out, I stumbled on two using Schiit DACs. See: https://audiosciencereview.com/foru...puter-activity-can-impact-dac-performance.22/

And from https://audiosciencereview.com/forum/index.php?threads/budget-dac-review-schiit-modi-2-99.1649/:

There is about a 10 db difference in noise performance depending on what the computer is doing.

But here is the challenge: it is not clear doing less in a computer even if it results in less "noise" is audibly better! See all those distortion spikes? If I took away the broadband noise ("skirt") around them they would actually stick out better and be more audible!!!

In other words, chaotic response is your friend when it comes to distortion. Change that to deterministic tones and come and go in absence of any other noise to mask them and the results can be negative, not positive.

This is counterintuitive so not even thought about by these companies.

But anyway, did anyone do any null tests or any measurements at all ITT? I feel that these debates should be very easy to settle.

Null results are hard because timing of audio playback drifts over time. You can use audiodiffmaker to compensate but for me it crashes 99% of the time.

I vaguely remember people trying to capture the timing of audio samples and show a difference a few years ago but don't remember the details.

Outside of that, a simple test of two exactly configured system driving the Schiit Modi 2 DAC per above would be revealing of any such differences. I am open to doing the testing if someone loans me the two configured PCs. It is not worth it to me enough to spend my own money to buy that gear and put in the time to configure them.

 

[Zapp_Fan]

You are basically correct. The argument for better fidelity is that of intuition: the less activity in the system (outside of playing audio), then less "noise" that can bleed out of the computer. And once you include the definition of "noise that is not audible without music," their marketing argument is made. And subjective impressions of betterness pour in.

I have always asked them and myriad of other player apps to create any configuration as even the best case scenario to show any audible difference. They have not done so. But as it turns out, I stumbled on two using Schiit DACs. See: https://audiosciencereview.com/foru...puter-activity-can-impact-dac-performance.22/

And from https://audiosciencereview.com/forum/index.php?threads/budget-dac-review-schiit-modi-2-99.1649/:

There is about a 10 db difference in noise performance depending on what the computer is doing.

Hmm, that's pretty interesting. I guess there really is some effect, although I won't open the "Do you really expect me to believe you can hear the difference between -90 and -100dBFS noise" can of worms right now. I was always a bit skeptical of that "CPU causes audible noise" claim, so it's good to see an actual test of the phenomenon, thank you.

On the other hand, the noise within a sweep seems almost as large as the difference between the sweeps on that Schiit chart... unless they are averaged across several runs?

And we are still left with the fact that even if you optimize the performance of audio playback as much as Windows and the greatest minds in computer science can, that is still the difference between... maybe... 5% and 1% CPU load in the most extreme case. (on my work laptop Foobar2000 registers as 0-0.5% CPU usage during playback with a 50ms buffer) Audio playback is not demanding on modern systems as many have noted. The problem will arise when you do something else that's CPU/RAM-intensive while listening to music, which the Fidelizer can't save you from.

On the other hand, if jitter / EMI noise from your CPU is the quality bottleneck in your system, you probably have enough cash to throw at this regardless...

 

[WindowsX]

It's totally cool and all if you find no audible changes or from hearing or measurements with Fidelizer. It's not DSP sound enhancer app and focus on curing digital glare effects in computer audio effectively for real sound performance.

I works on my experience with quality digital sources to satisfy my music enjoyment since I can't find server to meet up my expectations with Esoteric transport as a reference. If Fidelizer works great with your system, I'm glad to hear that. If not, happy listening also.

Regards,
Keetakawee

P.S. I still hope to see some highend computer audiophiles jumping into this thread sharing his insights from computer audio with ultra highend DACs. But since they can afford those, they probably have better ways to use their free time on something else.

 

[bigshot]

Just get a mac and don't sweat computer noise. I use a Mac Mini to drive my media server. It's nearly 7 years old and it does everything perfectly for human ears. It drives the systems across my whole house, including my HD projection system.

 

[amirm]

On the other hand, the noise within a sweep seems almost as large as the difference between the sweeps on that Schiit chart... unless they are averaged across several runs?

Usually I average them for single shot measurements but I am not sure if I did or did not do that in this continuous run.

 

[amirm]

P.S. I still hope to see some highend computer audiophiles jumping into this thread sharing his insights from computer audio with ultra highend DACs.

A high-end DAC is not a high-end DAC if it is sensitive to what the computer is doing! What on earth am I paying for if it is not for full isolation from a computer connected to said DAC???

Unfortunately you are right that many people who resort to such things have high-end systems. They are so convinced they hear improvements in any and all things, that even such oxymoronic tweaks make them think it is improving fidelity.

I like to hear the designer of an ultra-high-end DAC explain to me why such tweaks work for their DAC.

As I showed the only case that can be made for these products is with poorly designed, ultra cheap DACs. Not the other way around.

 

[Strangelove424]

It's totally cool and all if you find no audible changes or from hearing or measurements with Fidelizer. It's not DSP sound enhancer app and focus on curing digital glare effects in computer audio effectively for real sound performance.

I works on my experience with quality digital sources to satisfy my music enjoyment since I can't find server to meet up my expectations with Esoteric transport as a reference. If Fidelizer works great with your system, I'm glad to hear that. If not, happy listening also.

A lot of professionals who invest money into DSP would consider it a hell of a lot more "real sound performance" than your questionable resource deactivation doohickey.

I don't think this thread (titled "Fidelizer Pro or Snake Oil") is asking whether or not it's cool if you find no audible change, but whether or not it's cool to make the claims you do, or sell this product in the first place.

 

[Strangelove424]

Just get a mac and don't sweat computer noise. I use a Mac Mini to drive my media server. It's nearly 7 years old and it does everything perfectly for human ears. It drives the systems across my whole house, including my HD projection system.

Apple uses the same components that much of the PC markets does, CPU and motherboards made by Intel. They can be effected by noise issues just as easily if not more so considering Apple's obsession with jamming components together into the slimmest metallic chassis they can muster.

 

[pinnahertz]

Apple uses the same components that much of the PC markets does, CPU and motherboards made by Intel. They can be effected by noise issues just as easily if not more so considering Apple's obsession with jamming components together into the slimmest metallic chassis they can muster.

Definitely many of the same components, but definitely not the same logic boards or PSUs! It's all about layout and design. The results speak.

Do you think any PC manufacturer...take Dell as an example... has their equivalent of this guy at apple to keep an eye on audio performance (see job history, 2011...his title is "Audio Direction")?

In the PC world it's all about the third-party upgrade to whip the machine into shape.

 

[bigshot]

Apple uses the same components that much of the PC markets does, CPU and motherboards made by Intel. They can be effected by noise issues just as easily if not more so considering Apple's obsession with jamming components together into the slimmest metallic chassis they can muster.

I've used dozens of Apple products- computers, iPods, phones- going all the way back to the 8500AV in 1995. I've never come across a single one whether it be a cheap iPod or a full blown ProTools workstation that had any noise issues at all. Never had one that had any problem with video either. When it comes to media, Apple is perfect. It baffles me to hear people talking about "noisy computer audio" because I've never experienced it. I always assumed it was a PC thing.