[asymcon]

With digital audio, there's glare effect from frequency distortion and can cause listening fatigue to some people. Digital audio doesn't have transient pulse as smooth as analogue ones.

More precisely, there was. Also when you mention digital, which digital specifically? PCM or DSD (or MQA )?
The same for analog.

Pure analogue playback is very smooth and relaxing for long listening session without fatigue.
Smooth and relaxing doesn't necessarily constitute accurate. And that could be problem with digital (PCM, I need to watch it now), it's simply too perfect and revealing that nothing remains hidden under surface noise.

Computer audio is a new thing and most of them aren't aware about this effect, especially when everyone starts with digital music and don't have good old vinyl playback as references.

There are much better members of the analog domain than vinyl. VHS Hi-Fi for instance.
Based on the standard, audio carrier is FM modulated below high frequency image carrier, so no surface other low frequency noises interfere with it.
Over 80dB of stereo separation, 20-20000Hz +- 1dB (with slow rolloff to 30k) frequency response and over 4 hours of recording space.

people are fine with mp3 quality playback unlike older days

That is a sad truth unfortunately, despite being available for over 12 years, FLAC is still boutique format to some.
But I can't say it was unlike older days. It was always like that.

 

[bigshot]

Digital glare was introduced since decades back during CD format transition by vinyl audiophiles. Pure analogue playback is very smooth and relaxing for long listening session without fatigue.

Do you really design digital audio filters? Because it seems that you don't understand very much about how digital audio works.

 

[HotIce]

We can maybe collect some VC, and setup a Lab for professionally driven A/B tests, where if a product meets a certain human detectable threshold, we release a Certificate Of Audibility to manufacturers which wants to qualify and be able to use such certificate in their marketing campaigns.
My guess, Chapter 11 after a few weeks for The Lab.

 

[bigshot]

How about the manufacturers of snake oil being billed for the costs if their products don't pass muster. That would be a put up or shut up.

 

[gregorio]

[1] OF COURSE everyone here knows what Digital Glare is.
[2] These are intelligent people and the the debate's been going on for years.
[3] It's just that they don't believe the term has any validity in the Sound Science forum (and maybe it doesn't) and want to prove now that they are right. No, the purpose of the question is to draw you back in to entangle you to show that you're a complete fraud at worst, or a misguided fool at best.
[3a] The bait's been set and the wolves are circling round ...

1. That's obviously FALSE! I know what is meant by the term "glare" but not "digital glare", digital doesn't have any glare, it's effectively linear. I am guessing that "digital glare" refers to a lack of analogue recording media distortion from what WindowsX and others have said over the years but I don't really know. For this reason and as I am part of "everyone here", your statement is false!

2. The debate's been going on for years in a subset of the audiophile community. For the rest of the audio community the debate was very short lived and ended decades ago or was virtually non-existent to start with, because it was nothing more than an early marketing phrase, invented by those who were still marketing expensive turntables and tape machines!

3. Belief has nothing to do with it, facts are relevant, beliefs are not! Additionally, it has nothing to do with validity specifically in the science forum but validity everywhere. And lastly, it also has nothing to do with us wanting to prove that we are right. WindowsX has made the claim, it's for him to prove those claims BUT his OWN evidence demonstrates his claim is false! In other words, we do not need to "entangle" or draw him back in to show he's a fraud or misguided fool, his own evidence ALREADY unequivocally shows that, without any input from us! Our input is still apparently required because there are some (including apparently you and WindowsX himself), who astonishingly don't seem to understand what his evidence "already unequivocally shows"!!
3a. The bait has been set ... by WindowsX himself! And the trap has been sprung, again by WindowsX himself. Us "wolves" are now just "circling round" bemused, watching WindowsX futilely trying to extricate himself from his own trap!!!

G

 

[TheAttorney]

Well, WindowsX, after gergorio's post, I hope you you're beginning to understand my warnings.
My parting point:

Just don't take the bait however enticing it may appear.
For they will find you. And they will eat you. With a nice chianti fffffff

(That's best read as film trailer voice-over man)

 

[gregorio]

My parting point: Just don't take the bait however enticing it may appear.

A more appropriate parting point would be: Don't lie in the first place. Don't then attempt to defend that lie. And last but not least, don't dispute the evidence you yourself have posted which clearly demonstrates that you're lying!!

BTW, I've just designed a great audiophile product which reduces the number of flying pigs. Shall I just go ahead and invoice you for one?

G

 

[bigshot]

Virtue is its own reward.

 

[adydula]

What a bunch of BS. Period.

Mr X. said he was leaving and here he is back again with more nebulous meaningless garbage.

No where has he any sound science data to prove how to measure this "digital" glare and how much his product supposedly elimnates it so you can have
"real sound".

This guys is a charlatan at best.

No real facts, no real measurements and yet he keeps pounding nonsense about digital glare....a fool and his money are soon parted.

He has lost ALL credability IMO.

Alex

 

[colonelkernel8]

If WindowsX can tell me what a reconstruction filter is without copying and pasting from Wikipedia, I’ll completely believe everything he has to say about Fidelizer. That’s how confident I am that this guy is full of crap.

 

[Glmoneydawg]

A more appropriate parting point would be: Don't lie in the first place. Don't then attempt to defend that lie. And last but not least, don't dispute the evidence you yourself have posted which clearly demonstrates that you're lying!!

BTW, I've just designed a great audiophile product which reduces the number of flying pigs. Shall I just go ahead and invoice you for one?

G

while i dont currently have a flying pig problem,it is comforting to have all the bases covered....how much for your wonderful new product?

 

[gregorio]

[1] while i dont currently have a flying pig problem,it is comforting to have all the bases covered....
[2] how much for your wonderful new product?

1. Admittedly, flying pigs don't exist but then neither does "digital glare". So, if you did happen to suffer from digital glare then logically you may also suffer from flying pigs, which just like digital glare don't exist either! You can't fault this logic! I tell you what, how about I post some testimony from satisfied customers that they no longer experience flying pigs, heck I'll even furnish you with an RMAA measurement which proves my product makes absolutely no audible difference whatsoever, surely that must be enough to convince you it's worth it's asking price? Actually, I'll even go a step further and guarantee my product! If, after installing my product, you can provide any evidence that you've still got any flying pigs, I'll give you a full refund. I can't say fairer than that!!

2. Pig-elizer Pro is just $69.95!

G

 

[adydula]

Warning if you use JRiver Music Player be aware.

They do NOT recommend using any "optimizer or enhancement" software products with their software.

If you want a good look at the many, many people that have used this fiddle program and the numerouse issues they have had.....

From BSOD's, systems hangs, crashes, audio interuptions...and more....then take a read over in the Interact forum of Jriver, found under their support page.

Any use of this program and other core twiddling enhancement code is "unsupported"....

Many real people with terrible fiddle experiences and they are part of that "2900" happy campers????

Buyer beware......

Alex

 

[Glmoneydawg]

1. Admittedly, flying pigs don't exist but then neither does "digital glare". So, if you did happen to suffer from digital glare then logically you may also suffer from flying pigs, which just like digital glare don't exist either! You can't fault this logic! I tell you what, how about I post some testimony from satisfied customers that they no longer experience flying pigs, heck I'll even furnish you with an RMAA measurement which proves my product makes absolutely no audible difference whatsoever, surely that must be enough to convince you it's worth it's asking price? Actually, I'll even go a step further and guarantee my product! If, after installing my product, you can provide any evidence that you've still got any flying pigs, I'll give you a full refund. I can't say fairer than that!!

2. Pig-elizer Pro is just $69.95!

G

Sounds too good to be true....you need Bigshot to write your advertising. ..he's very good with the audiophile descriptive vocabulary.

 

[bigshot]

DE-PORKALIZER PRO!

Your system may be plagued by avian swine without you even knowing it! Do you want a pristine sparkling clean listening experience, or do you want to drag your ears through the muck of a pig pen? Get De-Prokalizer Pro today and you'll never experience the horror of a flying pig. WE GUARANTEE THAT!