FIdelizer makes it one, to a degree.

 

It is not a matter of a different audio buffer sent to the audio interface, but of significant jitter causing tiny time-shifts that occur due to exposure to a whole lot of exceptions if your memory is crowded. Also the IM distortion happens due to the fact that exceptions frequently occur on regular basis (with a certain frequency) which reflects to the audio as noise and as Intermodulation (IM) or intermodulation distortion (IMD), affecting the impulse response as well as frequency response.

 

Ok, there's plenty of stuff wrong here I'm afraid. First, all DLL calls are emphatically not exceptions or interrupts, only certain system services requiring kernel syscalls and async IO (like callbacks), and the ones that are have different priorities. The biggest of these are a) the audio callback thread and b) disk I/O thread which usually run at high (or realtime, depending) priority. Then, say any UI activity would run at lower priority and it would not interfere with those higher priority, and besides, you can't kill the UI unless your audio software runs as a service. Then we need to add threads to the mix and what have you making this much complex issue than you make it out to be.

For people worried about this, fire up Task Manager and look up "System Interrupts" under "Windows Processes", if it's alarmingly high, then you might have an issue, otherwise carry on as usual.

And besides, if you're getting audio weirdness, you'd be way better off looking at DPC latency.

 

Ok, let's assume the audio buffer gets sent fine to the audio device (if it didn't, it would be very noticeable and not exactly subtle freq response skew). Anything else after that is done by the audio interface itself, and any jitter would be part of it's own clock and D/A converter. Nothing to do with software here, apart from broken drivers, perhaps. Normal DA converters have jitter usually in the nanosecond range, and this is not noticeable and it has to be measured with rather specialist equipment.

And if you're getting IM distortion, then it would be measurable, right? I saw no data on this on the website. Surely it would be the main selling point.

 

Fidelizer almost makes one.

 

I can't imagine CPU is not busy processing DLL calls? And it does not take its time?
This is the jitter than happens within CPU (micro-time delays).
Every jitter is noticeable to the ear. Manufacturers struggle hard to make non-jitter DACs at a big price.
You don't need a measuring equipment if you aim at your ears' satisfaction (if you prefer music over graphs).
The main point is try before buy. And if you are not satisfied you just delete it (there is no installation), it is just 496 KB, or keep using the free version. You don't need to buy PRO, and if you use the settings I posted earlier and install Prio you'll get everything PRO gives you except 'disable non-audio services instead of stopping' which is of no importance.

 

Last edited by a moderator: Aug 16, 2020

As matter of fact, it would be nice audio-wise to have a keyboard and mouse with an on/off switch.

 

If you make a library call of course the CPU processes it. However, as said earlier this has nothing to do with interrupts since most of these calls are synchronous. CPU jitter will not affect the sound quality one bit, think about it. Any audio app needs to provide a fresh audio buffer to the interface every few milliseconds, right? If this is interrupted you will hear drop-outs, not IM and not any frequency range abnormalities. the CPU clock runs in the gigahertz range so each cycle is measured in picoseconds. If the clock would go mental and all wobbly then the CPU would not simply work.

All jitter you're going to hear comes from the DA conversion, that runs off a separate clock than your CPU, and I'm betting the IMD you hear comes from your speakers.

There are people who claim their ears can perceive differences between (working, btw) USB cables, so that's not a convincing argument as such because we all know placebo is a thing. ABX tests anyone? Or measurements, again.

 

With CRT screens it was more usual that you could hear something working when using the mouse. But sometimes Waredows slows down and same shit happens.

 

The easiest (and most cosy) way to dismiss a perception of an empirical phenomena is to declare it is just a placebo.
But how come many different people at different times and circumstances have the same 'placebo'? For instance, few months ago I started Finalizer on my brother's computer (attached to his 3.000$ Hi-Fi system) not telling him anything while he was busy reading a book. When I started the playback of a file from his playlist he was stunned, and asked me 'why the sound is so sharper all of a sudden?" He had no previous suggestion of anything.
I am not attempting to persuade anybody into hearing anything by arguments (what I posted earlier was an attempt of explanation, some of those things I read on forums, but I am not such an expert as you and I might be wrong in that), but enticing people to personal trial.
No theory can refute 'phenomena bene fundata', ie. things almost everybody will experience at certain circumstances. Either the theory is inadequate, incomplete, or applied erroneously. Or is just bad at predictions because of complexity of the problem.
So I would really like you to experiment a little (jump out of theory into praxis and try the software), and that will be the way to possibly prove/disprove your theoretical approach (concerning the potential acoustic effect of Fidelizer, at least).
If you get the feel of it, it would be worth the effort.
Thanks for your patience.

 

If you're going to bring empiricism into the argument, that calls for evidence, not descriptions of subjective experience.

And if we're going purely by ear, then ABX is called for to dismiss psychological aspects of the listening experience.

But I've said my piece, best of luck with your software.

 

Tried Asio player yet?

 

Warning Rules:
0-points - Dishonored content
Includes: Flat-earth theories, non-political conspiracy theories, questionable statements about increasing fidelity without providing evidence (ex. power cords make audible difference)

I guess I'd need to try the software myself.

 

I do not know what player you have in mind. Could you supply a link, please?

 

https://sites.google.com/site/pureasioplayer/

 

Thanks. Although I do not understand what would be empirical 'evidence' in this case apart from auditory perception (listening experience). ABX as a must? But it is quite impossible to implement because loading of Fidelizer takes several minutes, and unloading is done through system reboot only. So you can compare a single file only, in one instance of comparison, with a too big time lag of several minutes.

 

Use identical systems, one without the software.

 

Evidence as in you quote jitter and intermodulation distortion causing audio fidelity loss. These are technical terms, and as they've a strict definition they can be measured. Also frequency response and so on. Then we can compare these things with and without, and then do a comparison with say USB packet jitter. Or use a simpler digital connection, say S/PDIF which is much more liable to jitter (and even then, it does not matter unless you're using plastic straws for cables).

As for ABX, as @Smoove Grooves said, two identical systems and a switching box to the amplifier.

 

https://www.head-fi.org/threads/fidelizer-pro-real-or-snake-oil.795259/page-17
Some serious people, including the developer himself, have already debated the issue of measuring and many more.
46 pages of discussion.

 

Last edited by a moderator: Aug 16, 2020

I only read the page you posted the link to, but is it not strange that the dev didn't even provide screenshots of his findings?
Dev just stated stuff.