Frequently Asked Questions
What is it the purpose of the ADDC measure?
Mainly the ADDC measure shows and quantifies the output inaccuracy of an audio system trying to do this with the maximum allowable precision, also showing other physical entities which have a key role to achieve these results. Furthermore it also quantifies other canonical parameters with the same really high precision.
Wanting to make a comparison, you gain an ultra precise magnifying glass focused on the system output, and from here you have the chance of looking at unexpected or hardly detectable phenomenon, which could worst investigate.
How much precise is the ADDC measure?
Its main purpose is to exactly reveal the output inaccuracy of a given system, and this is also achieved thanks to a maximum measurement error threshold freely settable as one of its input parameters.
For example, thanks to it the measure can really operate with an almost arbitrary precision level when the inaccuracy is really smaller than the output it perturbs.
On the other hand, should the output inaccuracy be huge, the ADDC measure gives out an approximated result for it, giving in the mean time a as precise as possible estimation of how much it is wrong.
To sum up, it has been done every effort in order to guarantee the maximum possible precision no matter the operative conditions.
In general, applying it in the typical operative conditions of any high fidelity audio systems, the output inaccuracy detection is practically as precise as you need (of course giving to this statement the meaning that an engineer would give). I went up to revealing output inaccuracies 1 billionth of the output level with a percentage inexactness less than 0.4 billionths.
Thanks to the underlying theory the ADDC measure also allows to go beyond these levels, but for my purposes I personally thought they were enough, as when you reach them it often becomes crucial the whole system time variance.
Anyway, should it be needed to have a glance at the system time variance too, nothing else will be observed even pushing so high the precision requirements. In other words you are given the possibility to only be focused on the system, not being deceived by the limitations of what you use to look at it.
What does it mean freely settable maximum measurement error threshold?
Everyone knows the precision achievable in any measurement systems cannot be higher than their intrinsic precision limits, and even if this can sound trivial, when you try to look at very small imperfections affecting the output signal you definitively need to have full control over the precision of your observation system. This aspect is taken into account by the measurement error threshold, that is a sort of slider you can move to set the needed measurement precision level to the wished value.
What kind of systems can take advantage of the ADDC measure?
I gave birth to the ADDC measure in the audio field because of the great passion I have for it and also for the audio systems are probably the easiest to cope with. The ADDC measure full potential has still to be developed and with regard to this I strongly hope to get in touch with companies or research centres interested in deepening these topics.
Where it comes from the idea of developing the ADDC measure?
I had the idea of developing it roughly five years ago thanks to an apparently silly statement:
the sound of my hi-fi equipment, as well as the one of others, was changing even only substituting a cable or rotating a power plug or twisting some signal cables or making other similar things, but there was no way of exactly work out a reason or quantify any phenomenon.
As all of us were sure we weren’t crazy and our ears were working properly, what followed mainly came from my stubbornness.
What the ADDC measure shows when used in the audio field?
When applied to audio equipments the ADDC measure precisely shows facts and figures due to phenomenon which are considered hardly measurable in general.
For instance it well quantifies effects due to signal cables inversion or change, power plugs phase inversion or newspapers put over an amplifier cap, just to say a few.
Tipically these are the things audio hobbists do when checking or improving the perceived sound quality of their systems, and this necessarily means there must be some physical phenomenon currently not enough taken into account, which worth's investigate.
So do you think you worked out the definitive relation between listening pleasure and objective data?
It could be many people claimed something similar. On my side, as I love truth and science so much I dare say anyone stating this without having a solid statistical evidence cannot be taken seriously, as the scientific measurement of subjective feelings like the listening pleasure cannot be stated in any other way, no matter the kind of objective data you exhibit.
In my opinion it is in this way that the ADDC measure could give us this kind of evidence, but the development of the underlying statistical database is beyond the possibilities of a single researcher or even a few.
If in a hopefully near future this statistical evidence will be developed based on the ADDC measure, it will be definitively possible to verify if it really hits the nail on the head with regard to this matter.
What can be done without having this statistical evidence?
A statistical evidence is only needed if you want to correlate subjective feelings to physical quantities.
On the contrary, should you cope with objective data only, the ADDC measure is already here, and it could be that in other fields or given different targets, a limited number of measurements would be enough to state the system performances from the measured data.