[bfreedma]

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.

Cheers

You are confusing personal opinion, placebo, group think, and theory with fact. If you want to take those and construct a proper and peer reviewed study of them to attempt to establish a fact, I’m sure WindowsX would greatly appreciate it.

You are also mistaken about burden of proof. The owner of Fidelizer is making claims - it is his responsibility to prove them, no one else’s. Where are the measurements from WindowsX? Where are the properly controlled listening tests? Where is any evidence at all that turning off services in any reasonably modern PC can impact audio playback?

If you told me you could fly with no mechanical aid are you seriously claiming it’s my responsibility to prove you can’t?

 

[Speedskater]

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.

While this is a strong reason for further investigation, it is not in itself a fact.

 

[WindowsX]

You have no clue what scientific facts are....

When you put that way, you're right. It's almost 3,000 licenses sold now and it's still over 99% satisfaction if not 100%.

As for scientific measurements and approach behind it, I already explained in pages back but it seems not many scientist got the idea, just like imaginary time concept.

 

[bigshot]

 

[DHEfg34]

At least they are jumping up and down on the whistle blow

 

[WindowsX]

http://www.fidelizer-audio.com/meas...t-playback-with-diffmakers-correlation-depth/

With free version of Fidelizer, there's 3.1 dB increment of average and 12.5 db increment of maximum correlation depth from 5 samples of stereo tracks (10 samples for every channel).

 

[adydula]

Wow!!

I didnt know this version of snake oil was a "pill" what a silly comparison....just because a bunch of people think there is a difference is not a scientific fact..your comparion is terrible IMO.

If you can produce real scientifc evidence ( this is the SOUND SCIENCE Forum) that shows what the actual claimed sonic digital improvements are then I will take a listen to your facts...so far there havent been any except glittering generalities and opinions and people stating its better just becuse..no real basis here so far.

Produce a freq chart that shows whats happeing before and after you use this program....show evidence of what exactly this software does...less jitter, faster loading times? What????? Prove your point not just stating it sounds better to me.....What over???

I worked in software development with a BIG pc company and with Microsoft with pre-release OS's and have played with services, turning on and off, and delaying and setting priorities and resource sharing....to date we have not seen any evidence of this kind of scripting to stop, delay services does anything to improve the listening experience except for a placebo affect....

No date, no evidence, glittering generalities in scound science forum is just not cutting it.

Now if you really think this stuff is indeed doing somethng to make your listening experience better, great I can believe that, the subjective brain is a strange place.

But your subjective opinions belong elsewhere in a fanboy forum for this product.

Being a fanboy is fine...I think subjectively that sone of my stuff is great, but dont have data is some cases to prove what I am hearing....and I tout that as subjective experience....not sound science....

Time for a beer this subject matter is really gotten very silly...

Alex

 

[WindowsX]

http://www.fidelizer-audio.com/meas...t-playback-with-diffmakers-correlation-depth/

Did you miss this? btw, being rude doesn't make you look smarter.

 

[asymcon]

The test doesn't seem right...

After Fidelizer
parameters: -563.4msec, 0.001dB (L), 0.001dB (R)..Corr Depth: 104.0 dB (L), 95.9 dB (R)
parameters: -1.025sec, 0.001dB (L), 0.001dB (R)..Corr Depth: 93.5 dB (L), 94.0 dB (R)
parameters: -1.286sec, 0.001dB (L), 0.001dB (R)..Corr Depth: 87.2 dB (L), 87.3 dB (R)
parameters: -1.025sec, 0.001dB (L), 0.001dB (R)..Corr Depth: 88.1 dB (L), 88.2 dB (R)
parameters: -856.4msec, 0.001dB (L), 0.001dB (R)..Corr Depth: 90.4 dB (L), 87.6 dB (R)

You have two readings at the same time showing different values.

Further, both analyzed recordings are less than 2 seconds in length. To get more conclusive result, it might be beneficial to analyze longer recordings, since that values might just as well be variations in white noise.

Another thing...why choose different test points for before/after comparison?

Before Fidelizer
parameters: -1.581sec, 0.001dB (L), 0.001dB (R)..Corr Depth: 90.6 dB (L), 91.5 dB (R)
parameters: -1.184sec, 0.001dB (L), 0.001dB (R)..Corr Depth: 87.2 dB (L), 87.3 dB (R)
parameters: -1.018sec, 0.001dB (L), 0.001dB (R)..Corr Depth: 88.1 dB (L), 88.1 dB (R)
parameters: -946.4msec, 0.001dB (L), 0.001dB (R)..Corr Depth: 88.3 dB (L), 86.3 dB (R)
parameters: -686.3msec, 0.001dB (L), 0.001dB (R)..Corr Depth: 90.2 dB (L), 87.6 dB (R)

It might seem better idea to analyze the recording on the same test points in both cases, e.g.
686.3ms
946.4ms
1018ms
1184ms
1581ms

PPS: VB-Audio Virtual Cable is not a good choice for routing audio, as it produces distortion. Hi-Fi Virtual Cable should be used.

 

[WindowsX]

I actually used Hi-Fi version. Sorry for not getting the name correct. I did this experiment when I have free time so I chose short track as I need to monitor the whole process.

Making long music with 10 recordings will take a while to record and analyze. I'd be interested to see someone doing experiments with longer tracks because I don't have time to re-do the test right now.

Regards,
Keetakawee

 

[bfreedma]

I actually used Hi-Fi version. Sorry for not getting the name correct. I did this experiment when I have free time so I chose short track as I need to monitor the whole process.

Making long music with 10 recordings will take a while to record and analyze. I'd be interested to see someone doing experiments with longer tracks because I don't have time to re-do the test right now.

Regards,
Keetakawee

As usual, your tests are inaccurate at best and you make it someone else's responsibility to vet you product. Not very convincing.

Your excuse is "you don't have the time" to prove your product does what it says? Does that apply to everything you sell?

 

[adydula]

Is that all you got for scientific proof???

Minute measureable differences in a short duration test, and 3000 licenses sold...

A fool and his money are soon parted...

People thinking it sounds better with glittering adjectives, no real AB blind testing with a large sample?

You could run your tests again with a varying amount of services on, off , delayed etc and get similar "measureable" questionable results.

All that you have proved to me and others IMO is that your doing a great shell game here and for selling 3K licenses your laughing all the way to the bank?

You have found a great black hole "niche" and have exploited it very well.

Congratulations!
Alex

 

[WindowsX]

I believe I've done enough favor for armchair scientists. 5-10 samples with over 3db average and 12db maximum is convincing enough for me. Unless Fidelizer Pro customers request it themselves, I would rather spend my time on improving Fidelizer Pro for them.

And since when did I say Fidelizer optimizations is all about shutting down or manipulating non-audio stuff? Consumer user level never touch that.

Regards,
Keetakawee

 

[asymcon]

scound science

Scound Science presents Fidelizer Pro, the 100% REAL Snake Oil.

Sorry, couldn't resist. Nothing to see here

 

[asymcon]

Sorry moosh, have to agree with the crowd here.
Musical enjoyment and audio engineering are two different worlds. When getting a new sonic device, having a good, truthful specs along with all sorts of unfiltered opinions is what pushes all the right buttons for most people.

To reach audio nirvana, you don't need the very best money can buy, and/or turning off some system services to saw off some MBs from RAM. Cool sounding rig is dope, but if you can take it one step further and play or sing along, that's where's the magic. In understanding the tunes rather than sitting on your acoustic sweetspot stiff for 74 minutes. Also maybe you can try transcribing the music by ear.
Sorry, 2c rambling...