AudiophileOptimizer

A system optimizer for Win10. Anybody know anything about this? Or another, called Fidelizer? Will these things optimize a machine to work with a DAW? Or are they just useful for streaming applications?

John
Wow the best digital sound from a computer system ever.  I read nothing about speakers or amps.  Then they may have used headphones. 

well a lot of use are restricted to headphones, plus it takes out the whole amp/speakers hoo-har

pwalpwal

chuckebaby
its aimed more towards windows media and streaming. I cant really see the necessity or productivity for DAW users.

the same might have been said about bluetooth until recently?
here's a link at least http://www.highend-audiop.com/audiophile-optimizer
you've got 14 days to decide!

you seem to be more interested in it more than I. Im perfectly happy with my set up.
Same with Bluetooth. Do you know anyone actually taking advantage of this ?
 
And while I agree many are restricted to using headphones but only because they choose to.
Weather that be for purposes such as  late night mixing, not enough money to purchase a cheap set of monitors.
But anyone doing any serious (professional) type of work..does not use headphones unless they are checking, doing reference, phase issues.
Any professional work is done with monitors and preferably in a treated room.

John

pwalpwal

John
Wow the best digital sound from a computer system ever.  I read nothing about speakers or amps.  Then they may have used headphones. 

well a lot of use are restricted to headphones, plus it takes out the whole amp/speakers hoo-har

An audiophile is not going to be content with headphones alone. The only exception could be binaural reproduction.   

yeah but an audiophile doesn't necessarily have the moolah to sort the room acoustics, faking it on headphones is much more convenient/do-able

drewfx1

John
By the way an audiophile is not into recording per se, they are into the playing back of already recorded music. Its not money that makes an audiophile its the concern of getting gear that will sound the best with the resources they have. 

I would say that many audiophiles couldn't care less about "audio" - by which I mean a real thing in the real world. Because if you don't care about differentiating between real stuff and idiotic BS you don't care about "audio" - by which I mean a real thing in the real world. For those people it's about gear or pretension or whatever, not audio - by which I mean a real thing in the real world.
 

I don't know whom you are talking about but they are not audiophiles. Sound is everything to an audiophile. They are the ones that build their own speakers and amps. It isn't how much one spends on gear its how much one cares about the music. They are not the ones that buy Monster cables. They know better. Believe me when I say this, its not audiophiles that a HI FI store wants to see come into their store. Its those that will buy any hype if a label of "audiophile" is placed on it. They love those shoppers. 

In many cases the same way you would by listening. 

rd2rk
Attempting to get this thread back on course....
 
My question had nothing to do with AUDIO QUALITY, but with APPLICATION (DAW) PERFORMANCE and RELIABILITY.
Seems logical to me that the less unrelated tasks the CPU is performing, the better the application will perform.
 
I was hoping that someone had experience or knowledge, even second hand, of whether AO works with a DAW, as opposed to simple streaming applications, or if it shuts down services required for DAW functionality.

If you don't have drop outs at a desired latency and workload, there is nothing to "improve". OTOH, removing unnecessary processes does leave more resources available for potential DAW related tasks.
 
But since AO is completely BS when it comes to its supposed purpose in life, why would you even want to go there?

A quick glance at the website and the opening page of their linked 62 page pdf has my woo, magical thinking, sales spiel and bs detectors well into the yellow and heading for the red.

A SinglePC setup is not as good in terms of audio quality as a DualPC one linked via TVP/IP apparently. Who knew? And they emphasise you must only do what they tell you and only use the software and settings they tell you to use. If you do you get "analogue like sound" apparently. Which I can only assume means they process the binary data to add in some distortion, a bit of background noise, a phasing issue or two and for all I know or care real genuine emulated wow, flutter and vinyl scratches.

I couldn't be bothered to see if any DAWs are on their list of approved software. Digital audio is complicated in many ways, but very simple in one way. If the 1s and 0s are streaming nicely and without interruption from the disk to the driver's buffer en-route to the DAC chip nothing at all done in the computer will improve the quality of those 1s and 0s. They are fine just as they are. And even a by current standards ancient PC or Mac can play back stereo or 5.1 surround audio without a problem.

The only real-world problem in the computer is crackles and drop-outs caused by too low a buffer for the OS/hardware to handle. Which is usually cured by running latencymon to see what it finds, checking power settings and cpu sleep states/core parking and if necessary considering hardware upgrades. And dropouts are something that affects people like us who need as close to real-time computing as possible to create, mix and produce audio, not the people the product is aimed at who play stereo or surround files.

I will say one thing though, this is the first time I've seen it suggested that you can improve the audio quality of a media player by loading an alternative shell instead of Windows. Must be serious stuff then.

Applying a bunch of "audiophile tweaks" to the operating system is about as necessary as using silver mains cables to reduce the smearing in the treble and improve bass timing. Or is it to improve the depth of the mid range? No, sorry, I remember now.

It's to improve the bank balance of people who sell solid silver mains cables, and serves no other purpose at all.

Tell ya what, find proof that their claims are fraudulent, I'll pay the lawyer and we'll split the take. You can't, because sound quality is subjective. Audiophiles don't CARE about your science, or what your spectrum analyzer says, or what YOUR ears tell YOU, only what THEIR ears tell THEM. To call them dupes for buying things like AO is pretentious at best.
 
In the meantime, can anybody here understand english? I DON"T CARE ABOUT AO's CLAIMS TO BETTER AUDIO QUALITY!!!! I'm trying to find out if their optimizations will improve DAW PERFORMANCE and RELIABILITY!
 
If you have no experience with the product, don't know anyone who does, and don't know about the kind of audio system optimizations that this type of product might make to Windows TO IMPROVE RESOURCE USAGE AND SHUT DOWN UNNECESSARY BACKGROUND OPERATIONS then PLEASE - YOU'VE NOTHING TO CONTRIBUTE! GO AWAY! Your dog needs to go for a walk! WAVES has yet another plugin to sell you that's guaranteed to make your mixes sound 73.6% better! ON SALE! THIS WEEKEND ONLY! HURRY!
 
There, now I feel better. Sorry for yelling, I just got through going round and round with yet another penguin who's absolutely CERTAIN that LINUX is poised to knock Apple and Microsoft out of the ring with it's fantastic audio capabilities. God bless 'em, they love what they do, and they really BELIEVE! Kinda like audiophiles and climate scientists on both sides of the global warming thing. Everybody's got their facts.
 
 
 
 

rd2rk
Tell ya what, find proof that their claims are fraudulent, I'll pay the lawyer and we'll split the take. You can't, because sound quality is subjective. Audiophiles don't CARE about your science, or what your spectrum analyzer says, or what YOUR ears tell YOU, only what THEIR ears tell THEM. To call them dupes for buying things like AO is pretentious at best.

The reason I use a phrase like "audio - by which I mean a real thing in the real world" in discussions like this is that generally when talking about "the real world" we are talking about what we call "objective reality". It should be obvious that the way in which we learn about objective reality can't be subjective - by definition.
 
This doesn't seem to me like it should be particularly controversial - it's just keeping the objective and subjective separate. Unfortunately in some segments of the audiophile world there is a desire to pretend that one's subjective experience must be regarded as objectively real until proven otherwise. 
 
AO is a real thing in the real world. What it actually does in the real world is not subjective. The problem is that what it claims to do doesn't make any sense - when you're dealing with buffered data of any kind, if you don't have a buffer underrun (or overrun) then everything works as perfectly as it can be. If you do have an underrun, well anyone with a DAW knows what happens when we try to get our latency lower than our system can handle. The point is the system only has to have enough resources to handle the throughput at whatever the given latency is and then you're done. They are claiming otherwise and that's simply nonsense. 

Hey, there's a free demo, so why not give it a try and see if it does improve your DAW performance? If you think the output from your master bus sounds better too (I trust you're sophisticated enough to make that determination as objectively as possible), then it's icing on the cake, isn't it?
 
Too bad the product's name contains "Audiophile," which is a trigger word for some people. :-)
 
Cheers,
Eddie