Is Fidelizer or other optimisation software worth the asking price?

[struth]

cheers

[struth]

question is, is it compatible with audirvana?

[Hudz]

Sorry Grant I only use Foobar, nowt to lose in experimenting if you get the free trial, mind you the paid version does sound noticably better due I think to it isolating a core of your processor for music only.

[struth]

Sorry Grant I only use Foobar, nowt to lose in experimenting if you get the free trial, mind you the paid version does sound noticably better due I think to it isolating a core of your processor for music only.

sent them the question

[Gazjam]

I am still keen on getting my music server to work as good as I can, so I was wondering if audio optimisation software has been tried by anyone here, and if it was worth the asking price?

I still need to look at going fanless if I can, and perform a few other tweaks but at the moment it sounds pretty good to me.

Very much worth it Kevin in my experience.
Software tweaks, whether to the OS or the playback software can have a big impact.

Go for it.

[sq225917]

I wonder if the benefits are measurable?

[struth]

[CageyH]

I have just installed the free version. It seems to work, and there is an improvement in sound quality.
Should I upgrade to the Plus version, or is the Pro worth the extra?

On another point, my old socket LGA775 music server has a quad core CPU with a TDP of 95W. I was looking for a passive cooler, but can't seem to find one. Is it critical to go no fan?
The Zalman FX70 at 80w capacity looks the best option, and as the processor will not be running flat out, it should be fine?
I currently have a Corsair H80i V2 AIO watercooler running on it (yes, I know it is not supposed to fit, but I modified it so that it would). Is it worth changing?
The pump unit is positioned right next to the CPU.

Eventually, I will upgrade the server, but as it still works, I don't see the point - yet.

[chipcalzada]

question is, is it compatible with audirvana?

Hi Grant, yes its compatible with Audirvana. I've also used it successfully with Foobar and Deezer in the past before settling on my current setup which is Audirvana with Tidal. In the pro version you can choose between 3 user levels: consumer, audiophile and purist. This allows you to customize how much optimization you want Fidelizer to perform. So if for example you're downloading windows updates or new music you would have to switch Fidelizer to consumer level which allows you to download faster whereas in purist mode downloading a file takes quite a while. This is what I've found in my case at least, not sure if its the same for other Fidelizer users.

There's more information of this on the website: http://www.fidelizer-audio.com/about-fidelizer/

I agree with what Martin said, I wouldn't be without it. The best way I would describe the difference in sound is that it makes instruments on digital files sound more real. I already had Fidelizer installed when I bought Audirvana (which I believe sounds very good on its own) so there's no basis of comparison in terms of how Fidelizer made Audirvana sound better. But with my DJ software Traktor, which I used many years before installing Fidelizer, the difference in SQ was huge. My thinking was that the same principle should apply to a different music playback software program which is Audirvana.

[mikmas]

Don't know about the Windows version but on the Mac Audirvana already has a 'System Optimisation' option in the Preferences.
There are 4 options but the first shuts down any non-essential activity that can be detrimental to sound quality and prioritises Audirvana (with 3 settings - Standard, Very High and Extreme)

Sound like Fidelizer would simply double up on (or interfere with) what Audirvana is already capable of doing