Amazon Diana's "review" reviewed with very interesting results

[NewMelle]

I found Diana (of DVDFab?) had done a head to head comparison with AS [2024 Update] and their results were astonishing to say the least. You could say too good to be true.

However, I suspected from first hand experience (in particular as of late) these results were heavily biased so I decided to do my own head to head shoot out. This post might get zapped. No dictatorial regime would allow dissension and dissemination of actual facts among the masses. For this very reason these results have been posted numerous other places outside of corporate control. Keep in mind, I am merely reviewing a review DVDFab has posted on THEIR site so I must not be breaking any rules they set.

https://www.dvdfab.cn/downloader/anystream-review.htm

"All the results are tested and reviewed by our team. Any unauthorized copy is prohibited. If you want to recite our experience as a reference, please contact the editor to get authorization."

Hmmm, you had no issue at all posting screen crops of A$ copyright material, or did you miss the "© 2024 The RedFox Project" at the bottom of every page on their site? What's good for the goose is good for the gander.

So in essence you're saying no one is allowed to contest or confirm these claims without your censorship? Tested and reviewed by your team? Whose team? Not my team. Once you say it you can't unsay it. I'm somewhat allergic to BS and right now I can't stop sneezing. If you sling BS someone is gonna call you out on it. I'll be your huckleberry!

To confirm or contest these findings I picked a title that is fairly recent yet shouldn't be affected by the 01-25-24 DRM change (despite the article's 2024 update claim). I got far different results.

I have no idea if Diana's review was sponsored or if Diana is even a real human being or just a fabrication. But I do have to react not just for myself but for those considering purchasing this product based this "professional" review. You seldom see such slanted results in most honest head to head comparisons of very similar products. Definitely raises an eyebrow if you know what I mean.

Diana, the moral of the story is don't make claims you don't want debunked. I'm from Missouri, you gotta show me. How 'bout we put it to the test.

System: GPU Nvidia GTX 960, CPU AMD FX-6300, RAM 16GB, i-Net speed 8.87Mb/s actual (10Mb link) with NO CHANGES IN PARAMETERS FOR EITHER TEST DOWNLOAD.

Title: The Exorcist: Believer, 2023, 1 hour 54 minutes, 1920X1040, 15000Kb/s, EAC3 5.1 chosen, no subtitles

$F 6.1.7.4
Download started: 11:18am
Download finished: 12:17pm
Processing began: 12:17pm
Processing finished: 1:01pm
Total download time: 59 minutes
Total processing time: 44 mintues
Total time to complete: 103 mintues or 1 hour 43 minutes for a 1 hour 54 minute title.

I'd say that's a tad more than 9 minutes 18 seconds for a title that is 9 minutes shorter than the reviewer's.

Note: Processor usage during processing hovered between 47% and 56% and occasionally spiking to 70% dropping later on to around 6-12% and RAM usage hovered around 43% with Chrome, Thunderbird, SF and AS all running. Audio downgraded to AAC 2.0 from EAC3 5.1.

A$ 1.8.7.0
Download started: 1:05pm
Download finished: 2:07pm
Processing began: N/A
Processing finished: N/A
Total download time: 62 minutes
Total processing time: N/A
Total time to complete: 62 minutes

Processor rarely peaked 25% and the audio came down EAC3 5.1 as selected.

Now how is it my results vary so much? It would also seem the issue MrGrackle posted about AAC 2.0 stereo only episodes now bleeds over into movies.

And the screen snips for inquiring minds....

$F Settings:



A$ Settings:




$F Results



A$ Results:

[Chameleon]

I also did some testing, Fab Staff most probably wrote that review. AS takes about 5 minutes a download. At this point, Fab has to do more or it is the end of the line. I have been a customer here for ages. I have no idea why this staff here has to make up stories that are not true. All they have to do is read the forum. I loved Fab before this program was sold. Now I am losing respect for their staff, especially after reading that phony review.

[Sebastian001]

I actually tested the program today too. After despairing about Paramount+...

I tested with the Paramount+ and RTL+.
(Paramount, not on Amazon Prime)

I was surprised! It looks to me like they don't do any processing or "remuxing".
With Paramount+ the download bar ran from 0 to 100% at my full internet speed. The video was there in 5 minutes.
With StreamFab it loads first, and not at the full speed of my connection. Sometimes it is fast, sometimes slow, after the download there is still processing and remuxing. If it's quick, a video can be finished in 20 minutes. It must be said that both streaming providers no longer fall under the DRM problem.

With RTL+ the same thing is a bar from 0 to 100 at full internet speed. The video will be there in 5 minutes at the latest.
Streamfab also loads at full speed, then processes and remuxes. On average it always takes me around 15-20 minutes depending on the file size...

Why Streamfab's RTL+ module is faster than Paramount+ is because the RTL+ website and URL were fundamentally revised in autumn 2023. For this reason the RTL module had to be corrected. From this point on, the new RTL+ module is very fast compared to the old module. I think at Paramount they also use the slightly older base that they used for the old RTL module, which used to be so slow. And it has the same problems as before that I no longer have with RTL+ today...

When I look in the installation folder I don't see anything from other programs under the hood neither yt Dl, Pyton, mkvmerge, ffmpeg... The only thing I see is that they have files with Chrome and Vulkan is mentioned... Maybe, Did they hide everything better?...

But as I said, it looks to me like NOT editing... as if you already have the videos in your own cloud and they come to us from there...

[Sebastian001]

I also did some testing, Fab Staff most probably wrote that review. AS takes about 5 minutes a download. At this point, Fab has to do more or it is the end of the line. I have been a customer here for ages. I have no idea why this staff here has to make up stories that are not true. All they have to do is read the forum. I loved Fab before this program was sold. Now I am losing respect for their staff, especially after reading that phony review.

Of course they wrote it themselves. All of your reviews on the homepage are just marketing messages. Somewhere it says that you load prime in 4K and others don't....

[Chameleon]

I actually tested the program today too. After despairing about Paramount+...

I tested with the Paramount+ and RTL+.
(Paramount, not on Amazon Prime)

I was surprised! It looks to me like they don't do any processing or "remuxing".
With Paramount+ the download bar ran from 0 to 100% at my full internet speed. The video was there in 5 minutes.
With StreamFab it loads first, and not at the full speed of my connection. Sometimes it is fast, sometimes slow, after the download there is still processing and remuxing. If it's quick, a video can be finished in 20 minutes. It must be said that both streaming providers no longer fall under the DRM problem.

With RTL+ the same thing is a bar from 0 to 100 at full internet speed. The video will be there in 5 minutes at the latest.
Streamfab also loads at full speed, then processes and remuxes. On average it always takes me around 15-20 minutes depending on the file size...

Why Streamfab's RTL+ module is faster than Paramount+ is because the RTL+ website and URL were fundamentally revised in autumn 2023. For this reason the RTL module had to be corrected. From this point on, the new RTL+ module is very fast compared to the old module. I think at Paramount they also use the slightly older base that they used for the old RTL module, which used to be so slow. And it has the same problems as before that I no longer have with RTL+ today...

When I look in the installation folder I don't see anything from other programs under the hood neither yt Dl, Pyton, mkvmerge, ffmpeg... The only thing I see is that they have files with Chrome and Vulkan is mentioned... Maybe, Did they hide everything better?...

But as I said, it looks to me like NOT editing... as if you already have the videos in your own cloud and they come to us from there...

AS download straight from the provider, it muxes at the end. They coded everything themselves, with no third-party software. There is no cloud with downloads in it. You can see that. After using this I can see where you might get a little mixed up, they just have better developers than Fab. When Fengtao sold the program in 2019 it went downhill.

[Sebastian001]

Well, I'm curious whether Streamfab version 7 will ever be released. However, to date they have not managed to implement what was announced with version 6. They do a lot of construction work, but they don't finish it. Like the fiber optic expansion in Germany, lots of holes but no cables

[Chameleon]

That will probably probably be an upgrade and you’ll probably have to pay for it. If they can’t do it in version six what makes you think version seven will be any different?

[hizbf]

I found Diana (of DVDFab?) had done a head to head comparison with AS [2024 Update] and their results were astonishing to say the least. You could say too good to be true.

However, I suspected from first hand experience (in particular as of late) these results were heavily biased so I decided to do my own head to head shoot out. This post might get zapped. No dictatorial regime would allow dissension and dissemination of actual facts among the masses. For this very reason these results have been posted numerous other places outside of corporate control. Keep in mind, I am merely reviewing a review DVDFab has posted on THEIR site so I must not be breaking any rules they set.

https://www.dvdfab.cn/downloader/anystream-review.htm

"All the results are tested and reviewed by our team. Any unauthorized copy is prohibited. If you want to recite our experience as a reference, please contact the editor to get authorization."

Hmmm, you had no issue at all posting screen crops of A$ copyright material, or did you miss the "© 2024 The RedFox Project" at the bottom of every page on their site? What's good for the goose is good for the gander.

So in essence you're saying no one is allowed to contest or confirm these claims without your censorship? Tested and reviewed by your team? Whose team? Not my team. Once you say it you can't unsay it. I'm somewhat allergic to BS and right now I can't stop sneezing. If you sling BS someone is gonna call you out on it. I'll be your huckleberry!

To confirm or contest these findings I picked a title that is fairly recent yet shouldn't be affected by the 01-25-24 DRM change (despite the article's 2024 update claim). I got far different results.

I have no idea if Diana's review was sponsored or if Diana is even a real human being or just a fabrication. But I do have to react not just for myself but for those considering purchasing this product based this "professional" review. You seldom see such slanted results in most honest head to head comparisons of very similar products. Definitely raises an eyebrow if you know what I mean.

Diana, the moral of the story is don't make claims you don't want debunked. I'm from Missouri, you gotta show me. How 'bout we put it to the test.

System: GPU Nvidia GTX 960, CPU AMD FX-6300, RAM 16GB, i-Net speed 8.87Mb/s actual (10Mb link) with NO CHANGES IN PARAMETERS FOR EITHER TEST DOWNLOAD.

Title: The Exorcist: Believer, 2023, 1 hour 54 minutes, 1920X1040, 15000Kb/s, EAC3 5.1 chosen, no subtitles

$F 6.1.7.4
Download started: 11:18am
Download finished: 12:17pm
Processing began: 12:17pm
Processing finished: 1:01pm
Total download time: 59 minutes
Total processing time: 44 mintues
Total time to complete: 103 mintues or 1 hour 43 minutes for a 1 hour 54 minute title.

I'd say that's a tad more than 9 minutes 18 seconds for a title that is 9 minutes shorter than the reviewer's.

Note: Processor usage during processing hovered between 47% and 56% and occasionally spiking to 70% dropping later on to around 6-12% and RAM usage hovered around 43% with Chrome, Thunderbird, SF and AS all running. Audio downgraded to AAC 2.0 from EAC3 5.1.

A$ 1.8.7.0
Download started: 1:05pm
Download finished: 2:07pm
Processing began: N/A
Processing finished: N/A
Total download time: 62 minutes
Total processing time: N/A
Total time to complete: 62 minutes

Processor rarely peaked 25% and the audio came down EAC3 5.1 as selected.

Now how is it my results vary so much? It would also seem the issue MrGrackle posted about AAC 2.0 stereo only episodes now bleeds over into movies.

And the screen snips for inquiring minds....

$F Settings:



A$ Settings:




$F Results



A$ Results:

I just read this article posted by streamfab, and at the end of the article, it says:"However, if you don't want any limitations or challenges in your video downloading experience, StreamFab could be an attractive alternative to AnyStream. "I didn't expect the official to spend time not on fixing problems, but on writing articles to deceive people.

[Chameleon]

It is all about the money folks, throw the truth out the window, it's obvious that Fab Staff wrote that review it is almost laughable. What's not funny is the fact that some people will read that and spend their honest money on a deceitful review. Shame on Fab.

[NewMelle]

It is all about the money folks, throw the truth out the window, it's obvious that Fab Staff wrote that review it is almost laughable. What's not funny is the fact that some people will read that and spend their honest money on a deceitful review. Shame on Fab.

This is precisely why I did my own head to head comparison. If that review got any more slanted it would be vertical. I made absolutely certain the environment was identical for both downloads. The results speak for themselves. Pure hogwash new customers could easily buy into.

I haven't used DVDFab DVD Copy in a long time, not since I backed up all my DVDs so I wouldn't scratch or damage them through use. I no longer buy discs but instead buy digital as discs can de-laminate over time. I wonder if that's gone to hell in a hand basket as well.

[KidJoe]

I question when that review was conducted. I see it was posted 1/31/2024 , did "she" test before the DRM issue started and take that long to write up and post. That being said, to see a Feb 2024 note that Anystream is not working, with no mention of StreamFab also being impacted and not working is extremely dishonest to say the least.

[NewMelle]

This policy has become the business model for DVDFab. One failure after another and STILL pushing the product as fully functional.

I chose a title released before the DRM change to get a true head to head comparison. The results would have been far more embarrassing for SF if I chose a post DRM title.

Would you believe I got a popup when the focus switched from their review page to the forums? I sincerely hope people seeing this give it a THOROUGH test before shelling out a single yuan.

In local terms, Fèiwù.

[Chameleon]

I question when that review was conducted. I see it was posted 1/31/2024 , did "she" test before the DRM issue started and take that long to write up and post. That being said, to see a Feb 2024 note that Anystream is not working, with no mention of StreamFab also being impacted and not working is extremely dishonest, to say the least.

I agree with you KidJoe. Thanks for your honest opinions. I think we all know what this new ownership at Fab is all about. Dishonesty and sell at any cost. Even if you have to lie to sell your product.

[Sebastian001]

I question when that review was conducted. I see it was posted 1/31/2024 , did "she" test before the DRM issue started and take that long to write up and post. That being said, to see a Feb 2024 note that Anystream is not working, with no mention of StreamFab also being impacted and not working is extremely dishonest to say the least.

Well, who says this comparison actually existed?!

[Sebastian001]

That will probably probably be an upgrade and you’ll probably have to pay for it. If they can’t do it in version six what makes you think version seven will be any different?

I don't know, it may be that version 7 is rewritten from scratch. Or at least all modules run like Amazon, or at least renew the programs under the hood. Then they might have a reason to say version 7 is X% faster than version 6...

But I remember when version 6 was released, some of you said that the program could also have been called version 5.5...

I don't pay anything anymore!