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.
"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:
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.
"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:
Comment