Latest Thread Images

upload_2018-1-17_17-10-55.png
upload_2018-1-17_17-9-7.png
upload_2018-1-17_17-5-38.png
17458063_10212553212695942_3040298021055360587_n.jpg
083.gif
claims.png
2016-02-2602.25.57.jpg silence.png silence2.png ive-never-pretended-to-be-anything-im-not-except-sober-ive-pretended-to-be-sober-a-few-times-f4b84.png Capture.jpg rmaa.jpg Picard-Riker-Facepalm.jpg rmaaresults.png Fidelizer_JPLAY_Summary.png DMAC2BResult.png latest.png Summary.png 8kHz_USB2.png 8kHz_CorningUSB3.png
See full thread gallery...
Fidelizer Pro - Real or Snake Oil?
Status
Not open for further replies.
Mar 29, 2018 at 10:01 PM Post #603 of 683
a topic's content is only as good as what you members make of it.

the issue we have in this sub forum is that we wish for solid evidence to be brought up before any claim is made. and that by nature will clash with most marketing. so we're not really kind toward sellers in general as an indirect consequence. not sure there is anything to do about that aside from maybe getting honest marketing(oxymoron:imp:).

another issue is that very few among us actually have the will or the means to run the tests required to properly demonstrate things. personally I don't like calling something snake oil only because it doesn't show improvement on my system. as my system is already fairly well configured, measures fine and doesn't have any noticeable issue that a software could even correct in the first place. so I stick to the idea that maybe sometimes his app does something helpful, and sometimes not. doesn't make me care too much for it, but that's about it.
now if the app can also do something detrimental, that's another story. seems like it happened a few years ago. water under the bridge for some, evidence that we should stay away for others. I would really appreciate language that at least pretends to show some respect, because it is a rule on this forum, but otherwise I have no issue with people expressing all those points of view.

now of course I'm not the only modo and others may have another opinion on how to run things. not sure if they often come reading those topics though.
 
Mar 30, 2018 at 1:02 AM Post #604 of 683
thanks. you're doing a good job as a mod.
 
Mar 30, 2018 at 7:15 AM Post #605 of 683
Castle....

When someone makes to what I and other sound science thinkers believe are way over the top markering claims, like :

1. Fidelizer will optimize Windows multimedia platform to improve sound quality in audio applications....

Tell us "kids" how???? What sound qualities???

2. The goal of Fidelizer’s optimizations is to reduce the “digital glare” in computer audio solutions and make music sound live like listening to real sound.

What is "digital glare"?

3. Stop/Disable most non-audio system services greatly reducing system footprints for pure audio performance.

What is "pure audio performance"??

and more...

and then a person, the OP asks about these over the top and not so sound science claims.....I and others ask please explain with some facts not just
opinions or dodges that indicate we have no proof to the otherwise...when this entity can not even explain what it is in scientific terms or plain english that this
product claims to do...well it smells of "snake oil" IMO.

What would one expect in a sound science forum???

I welcome a real sound science discussion but not with a vendor or person that just thinks his or her product is good without out honestly telling the public what his/her
product does in terms that make sense and are not hidden in generalities.

For those folks that "really" think this software does wonderful positive things for them, fine go start a fanboy thread "The things product XXX Does For Me" or "the official Product XXX thread" and go as subjectively ballistic as you want.....

but please no here in "Sound Sience".

All the best
Alex
 
Last edited:
Mar 30, 2018 at 12:41 PM Post #606 of 683
He can say it, and we can answer. That's the purpose of the forum. People should stop worrying about preventing other people from saying things. It isn't Sound Silence.
 
Mar 30, 2018 at 1:14 PM Post #607 of 683
bigshot said:
He can say it, and we can answer. That's the purpose of the forum. People should stop worrying about preventing other people from saying things. It isn't Sound Silence.
Click to expand...

You seem to feel you need the last word. I mainly wanted to point out that discussions can happen more fluidly and learning can take place without people throwing tantrums and acting like fools. This is a science forum not a tantrum forum, MAKE A POINT AND MOVE ON. Oh and please leave your hurt feelings at the door. If anything at this point in reference to my beating a dead horse, you guys at this point are both doing nothing for anyone (again both parties) and simply using this as a means to jack your post counts up if at the least.


I'm done reiterating my point for people who simply are not reading my posts, and fail to see how their actions are obstructing the learning possible in this forum. I've laid out exactly my motivations for stepping into this conversation and the logic with which I was operating under. Take it or leave it. I did not do this just for one person.
 
Mar 30, 2018 at 2:03 PM Post #608 of 683
First you want the thread moved. Then you want it locked. Then you want to choose who gets to speak and who doesn't. This isn't your precinct to cop. I'm not going to listen to you any more.

This is a product that solves a problem that doesn't exist. That is one of the big problems in audiophile circles. They don't 1) observe and look for problems, 2) try to figure out what is causing the problem, 3) apply science to try to solve the problem, then 4) observe again to see if the problem has gone away. Instead, they decide on a problem with no observation then apply a shooting fish in a barrel solution and announce success without any kind of observational proof that they've made any kind of an improvement.

It can be argued that anything that "does no harm" is fair, but if you are saying a problem exists and your product solves it, you should be able to come up with some sort of audible proof of that. But in this case, it did open people up to harm, and now we're told that's fixed so we should try it again. Fixing an egregious error isn't making it a worthwhile product. It's still smoke and mirrors.

I can run my computer processing a complex photoshop filter on a very large file and my iTunes library still plays perfectly. Maybe other people have 15 year old computers that chug through stuff like that and the sound skips. If you hear that happening, just shut down whatever app is causing the problem. Solved!
 
Last edited:
Mar 30, 2018 at 4:16 PM Post #610 of 683
bigshot said:
First you want the thread moved. Then you want it locked. Then you want to choose who gets to speak and who doesn't. This isn't your precinct to cop. I'm not going to listen to you any more.

This is a product that solves a problem that doesn't exist. That is one of the big problems in audiophile circles. They don't 1) observe and look for problems, 2) try to figure out what is causing the problem, 3) apply science to try to solve the problem, then 4) observe again to see if the problem has gone away. Instead, they decide on a problem with no observation then apply a shooting fish in a barrel solution and announce success without any kind of observational proof that they've made any kind of an improvement.

It can be argued that anything that "does no harm" is fair, but if you are saying a problem exists and your product solves it, you should be able to come up with some sort of audible proof of that. But in this case, it did open people up to harm, and now we're told that's fixed so we should try it again. Fixing an egregious error isn't making it a worthwhile product. It's still smoke and mirrors.

I can run my computer processing a complex photoshop filter on a very large file and my iTunes library still plays perfectly. Maybe other people have 15 year old computers that chug through stuff like that and the sound skips. If you hear that happening, just shut down whatever app is causing the problem. Solved!
Click to expand...



You were never listening to begin with. I've made myself clear in my representation. You clearly don't understand what I've been saying. I'm out.
 
Mar 30, 2018 at 4:25 PM Post #611 of 683
adydula said:
Ok to get back to sound science please tell me what "digital glare" is and how to measure it?
Click to expand...

I would say that is describing either a response imbalance or some sort of distortion above 10kHz.
 
Mar 30, 2018 at 8:08 PM Post #612 of 683
For some reason this expired label person seems to be the windowsX guy????

Ok to get back to sound science please tell me what "digital glare" is and how to measure it?

One simple thing at a time..

No opinions, just facts please....if no facts then just go away.

Alex
 
Mar 30, 2018 at 8:49 PM Post #613 of 683
adydula said:
For some reason this expired label person seems to be the windowsX guy????

Ok to get back to sound science please tell me what "digital glare" is and how to measure it?

One simple thing at a time..

No opinions, just facts please....if no facts then just go away.

Alex
Click to expand...


For some reason you fail to do what you even tell other to do, Your a good example of a hypocrite. Fact.

I bid adieu now.
 
Mar 30, 2018 at 9:15 PM Post #614 of 683
Status
Not open for further replies.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 5 (members: 0, guests: 5)
Back
Top