Fidelizer Pro - Real or Snake Oil?

Discussion in 'Sound Science' started by watchnerd, Jan 18, 2016.
25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34
36 37
  1. DHEfg34
    Yes, I have observed significant audible difference. That is concrete.

    In the overlap of audiophile music reproduction and science of whatever there is no prove because at least consumer music reproduction gear and its evaluation is no science at all and that can easily be proven by concrete facts. The human factor. And I personally do not care too much what others do in their living rooms but it is funny that some of the local dealer sometimes stop at my place to listen to their favorite stuff in my listening room and leaving comments such as "you really have this room under control" because I might not even use their brand or what they have been proposing to me and so they are looking for a reason why it can still sound great....
    nordkapp likes this.
  2. bigshot
    The thresholds of human perception have been extensively studied. We can measure a LOT more than we can possibly hear. If you apply the threshold of perception to the measurements, you can pretty clearly see if there is an audible difference or not. If you perceive a difference that measurements and thresholds tell you that you shouldn't be able to hear, the first thing is to apply controls to your comparison to eliminate the possibility that bias is affecting your perceptions.

    Throwing up your hands and giving up gets you nowhere.
    colonelkernel8 likes this.
  3. adydula
    So much for sound science.....headed to the hills.....

  4. bigshot
    I bid you a cheese fondu!
  5. adydula
    You know, I just can not resist...

    " I think I can actually hear a difference in a cheddar vs a brie fondue....subtle but I am sure its measureable ...."

  6. bigshot
    Someone will introduce audiophile headphones made from oak wine casks and claim that the aging of the oak adds a velvety smoothness to the sound!
    Glmoneydawg and colonelkernel8 like this.
  7. WindowsX
    Yeah. I thought sound science would be a fun place where you try to discover new possibilities and share with people to do experiment, not shotting down ideas on their armchair without giving effort at all.

    Lately people use sound science as means to protect their belief because they can't afford their time and resource to do the experiment themselves or they don't find it "fun" to do so.

  8. castleofargh Contributor
    if your question is "do I have fun using something", you just ask yourself and there is your answer. pretty simple and we don't need science, objective testing, or a forum for that.
    if your question is "how much does the signal change when using that app?" then personal emotions only get in the way.

    different people will be interested in different things. you care about having fun doing whatever it is you do, @bigshot cares about what he can hear and nothing more. in some other topic on the forum, some find an improvement at -150dB relevant enough to buy something for it. and sometimes I will buy a device instead of another just because I think it looks better.
    this section focuses massively on objective results and controlled listening test. fair to say there are better ways to have fun if that's your only quest. I've seen obituaries being funnier than topics in this section. and that's fine because it's not the "tell your best joke" sub section of HeadFi. this one has a different purpose.
  9. gregorio
    1. Agreed and if WindowX were selling Fidelizer for the reason that it might make the user "happy", I'd have far less of a problem with it. However, that is NOT the basis on which he's selling it, he's selling it on the basis of a "Digital Audio Solution for Everyone" which will "improve sound quality in audio applications". Calling Fidelizer "snake oil" is therefore entirely apt because; snake oil also made "a lot of people happy", some people absolutely swore by it and it obviously worked for some ("a lot of") people. "Snake Oil" has not become a synonym for "a scam" because it never made anyone happy and never worked but because: A. It contained no actual snake oil, and B. It had no actual therapeutic benefit beyond placebo.

    2. Take a look at this:

    You've now observed a real never ending staircase. That is concrete!
    Now have a look at this:


    Are you still willing to make the assertion that there is such a thing as a real never ending staircase? In the first photo, what you've actually observed is your brain's interpretation and obviously NOT a real/"concrete" never ending staircase. So, have you really "observed a significant audible difference" or have you instead just observed your brain at work, while in actual fact there is no audible difference whatsoever? Unless you've taken some "concrete" steps (excuse the pun :)) to eliminate the possibility that you're mistakenly observing your brain's interpretation rather than an actual audible difference, then you cannot say concretely what you have observed!

    We've not been shooting down ideas, we've been shooting down false statements of fact and false (or at the very least, highly misleading) marketing!

    Last edited: Mar 14, 2018
    colonelkernel8 likes this.
  10. DHEfg34
    Hi Keetakawee,

    I have upgrade to Fidelizer Pro and I like the effect it has. That is a scientific fact like >50% voting for Ta certain political candidate is. It does not prove the impact or quality either one has but it is still a measurable scientific fact that I am officially +1 on Fidelizer...

    Keep up the good work,

    WindowsX likes this.
  11. bfreedma

    No, that is an opinion. Nothing wrong with having one, but it is no way a "scientific fact".
  12. DHEfg34
    You have no clue what scientific facts are....
    WindowsX likes this.
  13. bfreedma

    I do know that your (apparently) uncontrolled listening tests forming a personal preference isn't one.

    But perhaps I'm wrong - please describe your testing protocol including how you tested with and without Fidelizer operating on the same system with the same music, how you did this in a controlled fashion where you weren't aware of what was in play, and a log of your test results.

    I'd also expect to see you describe how quickly you were able to move back and forth between testing between Fidelizer and non Fidelizer, how you made sure the output was level matched.

    Again, there is nothing wrong with having a personal opinion, but don't conflate that preference with any kind of "scientific fact".

    Even if you state that your preference for Fidelizer is a "fact", that in no way makes it "scientific".
  14. Glmoneydawg
    well the contents of those barrels certainly would.
  15. DHEfg34
    Come on, you are smarter than that : If 40% of all users report pain after taking a certain pill then that is a fact. It is not a proof that the pill is causing the pain or some kind of interaction with other substances or the environment or any of this, but it is still a scientific fact and they might want to further investigate.

    That is called exploration: You are asking thousands of people about their opinion and regardless "cause and effect" or "proof of concept", their feedback is a scientific fact.

    As an example, assuming Fildelizer's customer satisfaction rate would be 99% then that is a scientific fact and it is also a proof that it(the software) is doing something in the end, at least, it is convincing the vast majority of its users it does. It could still be a placebo but that would be on you to prove and not on WindowsX. It will be hard for you to prove though that a piece of software that is doing absolutely nothing (as you believe) makes people happier with their listening experience.

    All in all, you are confusing facts and proof.

25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34
36 37

Share This Page