advertisement


Fidelizer; anyone tried this?

Have to say the concept seems fundamentally flawed to me. As long as you have enough system performance to clock the bits in/out at a sufficient rate, it's a total fallacy that getting the computer to do "less" is somehow a good thing. The processor is always doing SOMETHING, so if it's running less windows processes it's just running the idle loop more often, which can't possibly be audible.
 
I am using it just for "my peace of mind" , but it is hard to say, if it is really doing anything better ...
 
It's quite clear that, at least when using a USB port as an audio output, it doesn't make any audible difference.

Perhaps on a machine that for one reason or another is 'struggling', it might have an effect but even my petite netbook consumes only a few percent of its CPU power when playing FLAC files. Desktop machines with only modest CPU power are regularly used to play 30+tracks of audio (with negligible latency) to the satisfaction of some of the most critical ears in the biz so the suggestion that even a modest home machine is somehow incapable of playing decent audio without the assistance of this soft foo, is nonsense.
 
Lots of users have tried it and report improvements.

I have a music dedicated Windows 7 server with minimal processes running (only 42 at most times). That includes running both Logitech Music Server and JRiver simultaneously. So I can reduce the processes running a bit more if I want. If I run only Jriver and turn off some of the networking, I can get the number of processes down to 36.

Installed Fidelizer, and the number of running process went from 42 to 45! So decided there wasn't any reason to use it. And didn't hear any improvement anyway.

But if you aren't using a dedicated music server (and need more processes running most of the time) or can't be bothered to wade in and optimize your Windows processes, Fidelizer may help.
 
Tw99 said:
Have to say the concept seems fundamentally flawed to me. As long as you have enough system performance to clock the bits in/out at a sufficient rate, it's a total fallacy that getting the computer to do "less" is somehow a good thing. The processor is always doing SOMETHING, so if it's running less windows processes it's just running the idle loop more often, which can't possibly be audible.
Click to expand...

Don't agree with this. You're thinking about a computer as a data device, not a computer as an audio device. The two things aren't the same. Even your digital audio stream includes timing data in addition to "bits", so it has an "analog" like component.

Say you don't have a wireless network card running (one example): less processes means less HW running, which means that less interference (noise) is being produced. In addition, the more stuff running on your music server (especially if it is in the same room as your speakers), the more microphonics are going to be produced by the equipment. Any or all of this can increase the jitter produced with the digital audio signal, or can cause noise pollution that can negatively effect the audio signal.
 
JPlay makes bugger all difference to output from my computer, is this going to be any different?
 
Just tried it, it's pointless IMHO.

Task manager say I'm running 51 services whilst playing music via JRMC 17. CPU usage was at 13% and 950MB RAM usage out of the 4GB installed.
With Fidelizer set to the highest quality and keeping wireless network running, I was running 48 processes, but CPU usage can down to about 5%, RAM remained at 950MB ish.

It’s irrelevant......
 
-Stop most system services leaving only audio-related ones
-Optimize audio thread, I/O priorities, clock rate in resource scheduler
-Optimize process thread priorities and system clock resolution
-Configure Fidelizer to run automatically on system startup
Click to expand...

I certainly wouldn't try it before doing a system restore image of my system. Also I'm not sure how relevant it would be on a modern computer. I remember playing with oldish M-Audio soundcards (Revo, Audiophile etc), 7-8 years ago, before the dual core processor era, these tweaks were not only useful but mandatory to get a stutter free playback (and described, point by point, in long FAQ's on their website). But those times are gone, there are fewer and fewer bottlenecks in a modern computer as far as audio goes, I don't expect any dramatic improvement from something like this. On the other hand a simple comparison between Amarra and iTunes on my Mac proves that there is bit perfect and bit perfect so who knows?

Probably the sound card / DAC interface is also important, some seem more sensitive to hardware / software tweaks than others.
 
Tiz a funny li'll patch, doesn't actually install on the PC so very safe to use. A simple reboot takes it back to standard services. I did a screen shot of 'services' before and aft, just to make sure it didn't fek anyfink upsi.
 
There are no such things as funny li'll patches and I am always a bit paranoid about anything being offered for free, in an approximate English (not that mine is much better), on an unknown website, by a developer who only provides an email address as reference / contact.
 
But the website looks clear (whois) and the patch is offered on Softpedia as Ad-supported. There is a warning at the bottom of the page:

Users are advised to pay attention while installing this ad-supported application: Offers to change the homepage for web browsers installed in the system.
Click to expand...
 
I used it about a year ago with a relatively low powered, silent, laptop. Running JRiver and Dirac resulted in the occasional interuption to the audio. Fidelizer completely stopped this, so it can have its uses. It made no difference to the sound quality, for better or worse.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.


advertisement


Back
Top