[ExpiredLabel]

hush peanut gallery.

 

[adydula]

Once again mr expired, show mw your digital glare measurements....and how you took them, before and after so we can see your digital glare claims..

thanks
Alex

 

[ExpiredLabel]

Once again mr expired, show mw your digital glare measurements....and how you took them, before and after so we can see your digital glare claims..

thanks
Alex

Oh certainly, as soon as you can show me WHERE exactly I posted making such claims.

 

[bigshot]

Why are you continuing to engage him, Alex. Show him the door and be glad when he's gone. All the pointless back and forth is doing is burying the real point of this thread...

1) That Fidelizer Pro hasn't been shown to have any effect on sound quality in a typical computer system at all.

and 2) That an earlier version of Fidelizer Pro was so poorly designed, it had a major security flaw.

 

[ExpiredLabel]

Wow. Looks like we're finally all done here!

 

[WindowsX]

I've been reading silently for a while and I think we all see enough. I'm thankful to see people like ExpiredLabel standing up to show what society is missing nowadays. Some people just want to be a winner desperately.

As Fidelizer was mentioned with some confusion, I'd like to clarify my point about my products and moving on.

1) I did provide measurements and verification to prove that Fidelizer does something to affect audio performance. I did recordings before and after using Fidelizer free version 5 times each and here's the result.

It’s been a challenge to measure digital audio’s qualities and most of the time audiophiles don’t know any measurement outside RMAA’s analog metrics and got failed evaluations as you can see below:

This was done through pure software environment using VB-Audio Virtual Cable to make sure no hardware’s error is involved. After lengthy research in pro audio’s communities, I found DiffMaker being used in this thread below.



Evaluating AD/DA loops by means of Audio Diffmaker – Gearslutz Pro Audio Community



DiffMaker was used to test for audible effects of

• Changing interconnect cables (compensation for cable capacitance may be required)
• Different types of basic components (resistors, capacitors, inductors)
• Special power cords
• Changing loudspeaker cables (cable inductance may need to be matched or compensated)
• Treatments to audio CDs (pens, demagnetizers, lathes, dampers, coatings…)
• Vibration control devices
• EMI control devices
• Paints and lacquers used on cables, etc.
• Premium audio connectors
• Devices said to modify electrons or their travel, such as certain treated “clocks”
• Different kinds of operational amplifiers, transistors, or vacuum tubes
• Different kinds of CD players
• Changing between power amplifiers
• General audio “tweaks” said to affect audio signals (rather than to affect the listener directly)
• Anything else where the ability to change an audio signal is questioned

There’s interesting metric called ‘Correlated Null Depth’ that can detect most subtle changes as measurable data. Archimago refers to this metric as below if you’re following his measurement tests.



The higher this value, the more correlated the 2 samples are (ie. the “closer” they sound).



Now I hope you understand better about DiffMaker and correlation depth. Let’s proceed to the methodology part. After a few runs of Diffmaker’s tests for a few weeks, this was the method I used in final version.

1. Setup master file and audio playback/recording through digital domain. In this case, I’ll use VB-Audio Virtual Cable, foobar2000, and Audacity on Windows 10.
2. Prepare aligned master files with silence added. For basic demonstration, I’ll make 5 samples of aligned/before/after wav files with Audacity at 24/96 format (10ms latency).
3. Route bit-perfect recording from Virtual Cable’s master audio stream with Foobar2000’s WASAPI output to Audacity’s WASAPI input, export audio as before.wav
4. Use free version of Fidelizer at Purist user level with updated foobar2000 configuration from Fidelizer’s User Guide, record again, export audio as after.wav
5. Compare results using Audio DiffMaker with master file as reference.

Testing machine ran on AMD FX8350 with 8 cores 4.2GHz and 8MB cache for L2/L3. I also used high quality motherboard with 16GB RAM and Platinum grade PSU. Here’s the result from my experiment.



Perfected master

parameters: 0sec, 0.000dB (L), 0.000dB (R)..Corr Depth: 300.0 dB (L), 300.0 dB (R)
This is ideal result of exact comparison with 300.0 dB of correlation depth



Aligned master

parameters: -3.5sec, 0.000dB (L), 0.000dB (R)..Corr Depth: 175.6 dB (L), 174.0 dB (R)
parameters: -4.5sec, 0.000dB (L), 0.000dB (R)..Corr Depth: 168.5 dB (L), 168.6 dB (R)
parameters: -5.5sec, 0.000dB (L), 0.000dB (R)..Corr Depth: 167.4 dB (L), 167.5 dB (R)
parameters: -6.5sec, 0.000dB (L), 0.000dB (R)..Corr Depth: 166.3 dB (L), 167.0 dB (R)
parameters: -7.5sec, 0.000dB (L), 0.000dB (R)..Corr Depth: 172.5 dB (L), 176.1 dB (R)
Average: 0.000dB (0.000-0.000)..Corr Depth: 170.35 dB (166.3-176.1)
Median: 0.000dB..Corr Depth: 168.55 dB

Dropped to nearly 50% of perfect data but still above 150 dB. With 9.8 dB swing range, it’s safe to assume about 5% threshold for evaluation.



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)
Average: 0.001dB (0.001-0.001)..Corr Depth: 88.52 dB (86.3-91.5)
Median: 0.001dB..Corr Depth: 88.1 dB

Real world result arrived with quite narrowed range. It’s only 5.2 dB between min/max of correlation depth. At least it’s more reliable than aligned result.



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)
Average: 0.001dB (0.001-0.001)..Corr Depth: 91.62 dB (87.2-104.0)
Median: 0.001dB..Corr Depth: 89.3 dB

It started great with over 100 dB but the rest seems to wear down over time a bit because I also opened Chrome to chat in Facebook while during the experiment for daily usage tests. Strict tests for high quality result may lead to faking data abuse from people who can’t do a proper job.

With Fidelizer’s optimizations, we detected 3.1 dB increment of average and 12.5 db increment of maximum correlation depth with general improvements on other metrics too. I shall conclude that there’s measurable improvement with bit-perfect playback in digital audio.

You can also try running performing this test on your own and adjust DiffMaker configuration to show different kinds of data without rounding error or with other standards. Have fun measuring audio software optimizations with DiffMaker!

Regards,
Keetakawee

If the definition of snake oil is product claiming to do something while actually do nothing, Fidelizer doesn't fall in such category as recorded waveform has noticeable changes from Diffmaker measurements.

2) Fidelizer was found in 2011 with purposes to turn computer audio into dedicated audio machine doing nothing but play audio. In early version of Fidelizer, it was never designed for daily work machine. And inform user to use Audiophile or Extremist optimization level on dedicated audio PC only.

It was also stated that Extremist optimization level will stop all non-audio services and that includes security services too because it's non-audio service. It's named Extremist with a reason. However, after I found some people trying to use Extremist optimization level on daily PC and some raised concern about security. I immediately resolve this case after realizing product is recognized by end users now.

3) I'm busy with Fidelizer projects as full time right now so I don't have time to perform tests in sound science forum anymore. If you want to conduct the similar tests, you can check from here and share your results.

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

Ultimately, this thread is all about "Fidelizer used to have issues" or "I can't hear any difference" or "Your test about Diffmaker makes no sense to me so I'll ignore it" excluding topics related to harassment and bully.

Regards,
Keetakawee

 

[adydula]

Sorry thats smoke and mirrors IMO....your measureable difference has NO provable correlation to an actual audible difference!

Sound level changes, ie db measuements are meaningless if the human ear can not percieve these changes...

No where in this ONE instance of your attempt to measure your stuff....is there a connection to what on YOUR website state as
"digital glare"..UNTIL you can prove in sound science what digital glare is and the other generalities you tout...your product to
me is just more "snake oil".

You tell us here in sound science what exactly your "digital glare" is and how did you measure it??

Until you answer this your products credibility is naught.

Have a great day!

A.

 

[gregorio]

If the definition of snake oil is product claiming to do something while actually do nothing, Fidelizer doesn't fall in such category as recorded waveform has noticeable changes from Diffmaker measurements.

According to your diffmaker measurements, there is nothing even slightly close to "noticeable". In fact, where there are any differences, they're so slight they could even just be random measurement variation and even if they are real, they're roughly 100 times below audible/noticeable. So using your definition, Fidelizer is indeed snake oil ... thanks for clearing that up!

G

 

[adydula]

This guy really believes his stuff is the cats meow...and I really wish it was a good product, but too many people muck with stuff like this and use "gullible" terms, glittering generalities to tout their
dubious claims.

This is a perfect example of such a product....until this guy really takes it seriously he and his product will always be in doubt.

I can understand his frustration with this thread becuase it doesnt throw a wonderul light on his product.

On his website those glittering generalities abound in spades....its his own making.

With so many of his customers claiming to hear audio nirvana and cant live without it, you would think that those in sound science would hear the same "huge sonic improvements??"

I have tried this product several times...and seriously I hear NO sonic differences.

So if you think this product does all these wonderful things, then go buy it...

But until you take this forum seriously and stop your throwing meaningless stuff over the transom and answer credibly...you never will gain respect.

Have a great day!

A.

 

[bfreedma]

According to your diffmaker measurements, there is nothing even slightly close to "noticeable". In fact, where there are any differences, they're so slight they could even just be random measurement variation and even if they are real, they're roughly 100 times below audible/noticeable. So using your definition, Fidelizer is indeed snake oil ... thanks for clearing that up!

G

All of which is explained to WindowsX every time he posts the tests from many versions ago. I really don’t understand what he hopes to gain by continuing to post in the SS forum. As many have pointed out, shutting off services in any reasonably capable PC is entirely unnecessary for the relatively lightweight task of audio playback. A quick look at Task Manager will show how minimal the resource utilization of whatever audio playback software one uses actually is.

 

[adydula]

I have (7) pc's, 6 store bought, one DIY. 12 headphone amps, 3 dacs. The amps are DIY and storebought.

When a claim is made like these I try out the product hardware or software and level match, use the exact same source, and do both objective and
subjective testing.

I invite audio friends over and have them take a listen, do blind A/B testing...

There are many things that really do affect the sound level and sound "quality"...

The only thing that we have actually seen was in some systems using asynchronous dacs there was intermittent pops or clicks...caused by inaedequate
resources in buffering, which was easliy resolved in adjusting a buffer size.

I agree with bfreedma that most pc systems now, being at a 7th generation processor, very fast access ssd's and even hard drives with huge caches...mucking with services doesnt make a difference is sound qualities that us humans can really detect.

Spending thousands of hours listening, with a stripped down software and services and process's system compared to my latest generation I7/I8 gen cpus..I can listen to great bitperfect music while browsing the net, posting to forums, and never hear any audible degradation.

If you agree with this products claims, of removing digital glare, removing the remaining veils so the musical message can be delived in an effortless manner, and on and on....then by this product and be happy.

But if you dont ask what digital glare is, how do you mr. product man measure it and know that you indeed are reducing "digital glare"....then your throwing your hard earned money down the tubes IMO.

When and if this product actually does make audible sonic improvements and are explained scientifically without all these glittering generalities then I will take a second look.

But until then buyer beware.

A.

 

[asymcon]

If anyone needs proof that you don't need a big number cruncher to play audio, my Clip Zip runs at 38.4MHz with 40% CPU usage playing FLAC while doing 110% speed change and resampling to 48kHz.
Also consider it's single threaded AMS/ARM CPU and by far not frequency-comparable to much more powerful x86-64 platform.
@adydula 's setup would be able to run several hunderd-thousands of these audio streams (not accounting for interface speeds) with modest latency.

BTW, I like me some digital glare from time to time.

 

[WindowsX]

@adydula I believe there's search function in Head-Fi so why don't you put the word "digital glare" in there. Pretty easy.

@gregorio 100 times? That's over 300db. I bet you hear jet engine sound as a lullaby.

@bfreedma And how does that matter to current version of Fidelizer after 3 years of fixing this issue? Fidelizer is now safe for over 3 years with zero issues with security risks.

@asymcon I used to think like that too but after coming into contact with the experiment and studies about operating system and computer architecture, I/O utilization is more important than processor power.

Microsoft released Multimedia Class Scheduler and related features for good reason and Fidelizer simply uses those features provided in Microsoft Windows.

If my provided data is inadequate for some group of people, I can understand that. You can just drop this thread and move on but as some people keep coming back is very interesting indeed.

 

[asymcon]

@gregorio 100 times? That's over 300db. I bet you hear jet engine sound as a lullaby.

Actually, 100 times is just 20dB.
In an example - 0dBm = -30dBW = 1mW
10dBm = 10mW
20dBm = 100mW
30dBm = 1000mW = 1W = 0dBW

@asymcon I used to think like that too but after coming into contact with the experiment and studies about operating system and computer architecture, I/O utilization is more important than processor power.

Microsoft released Multimedia Class Scheduler and related features for good reason and Fidelizer simply uses those features provided in Microsoft Windows.

You're correct that I/O scheduling, kernel/hard paging, and all sorts of jazz creates CPU overhead. And that entropy with the rest consumes several times more than what's required for audio decoding and playback. However even with all that considered, we're tapping into 1-2% peak CPU usage per stream and core.

 

[gregorio]

[1] I believe there's search function in Head-Fi so why don't you put the word "digital glare" in there. Pretty easy.
[2] 100 times? That's over 300db. I bet you hear jet engine sound as a lullaby.
[3] I used to think like that too but after coming into contact with the experiment and studies about operating system and computer architecture, I/O utilization is more important than processor power.
[4] If my provided data is inadequate for some group of people, I can understand that.

1. "Digital glare" is a term made-up by audiophiles. There's no such thing as "digital glare" unless you define it as "nothing", an absence of analogue tape or vinyl distortion.

2. Oh dear, you make an audio product and you don't even know how the decibel scale works, how is that even possible?? 100 times is 40dB! And, 300dB is nothing like a jet engine, in fact it's nothing like anything known, even the explosion of a nuclear warhead is way less than 300dB. 300dB is 1,000,000,000,000,000 times! Where do you get this nonsense, do you just make it up?

3. Yet your own data demonstrates that it simply doesn't matter, there is no "noticable" difference!

4. Not at all, your data is perfectly adequate!

G

EDIT:

Actually, 100 times is just 20dB.

It's 20dB if you're measuring power (in Watts) but for voltage it's 40dB.