Have a look at this site:
Measure not measurable signals with the greatest precision
This guy claims to be able to measure signal differences produced by a number of things that subjectivists claims are audible, but (until now?) nobody have ever been able to detect with any instrument (things such as effect of audio cables, power-plugs insertion direction, etc).
Have a look at these incredible results:
Facts and figures
If these extraordinary claims/results are true and trustworthy, this may be a real revolution in the audio world!
More info from the site (not much, unfortunately):
How the ADDC measure works
F.A.Q.
Measure not measurable signals with the greatest precision
This guy claims to be able to measure signal differences produced by a number of things that subjectivists claims are audible, but (until now?) nobody have ever been able to detect with any instrument (things such as effect of audio cables, power-plugs insertion direction, etc).
Have a look at these incredible results:
Facts and figures
If these extraordinary claims/results are true and trustworthy, this may be a real revolution in the audio world!
More info from the site (not much, unfortunately):
How the ADDC measure works
F.A.Q.
Last edited:
I've been measuring the unmeasurable for decades. This is just marketing BS because it doesn't describe what the measurement is. A heck of a lot of words that might impress somebody somewhere, but very little actual content. He says another site is coming, so I wouldn't get too excited until that shows up with a real explanation.
Nordost promised something that can measure differences in a cable.
We are still waiting...
This is already a dead giveaway that this is audiophile bull. It is supposedly useful in the money-sucking medical industry, yet the creator decides to market it as an audio product first.
And also, the mastery of the English language on that page...
We are still waiting...
This is already a dead giveaway that this is audiophile bull. It is supposedly useful in the money-sucking medical industry, yet the creator decides to market it as an audio product first.
And also, the mastery of the English language on that page...
Last edited:
interesting. What kind of measures have you done? Can we see some results?
very little actual content, indeed. But figures with results does look quite impressive, don't you think so?
If it really works "as advertised", one may make some real money out of it. Can you blame him if he don't want to give it away for free telling too much on a web page?
There is no product to speak of. The author did it in his spare time as a hobby project, and did it for audio. I guess that only later he have recognized that his work may find useful applications in other fields too. AFAIK, he's still trying to find a way to market it...
Here's some cap comparisons for you using a differential bridge method- Measured Differences Between Capacitors for Audio Applications Wander the rest of my site if you like as well.
I find differential comparisons are the most powerful tool. Done right, there are almost no limitations in resolution. The two generalizations I can make (and I hate generalizations) are that no two electrical components or completed systems are so identical that I can't tell them apart by measurements, and it usually doesn't matter near as much as people like to claim.
The mistake most people make is assuming the usual measurements they hear about like response and THD are the only ones possible. The ways of examining signals and transfer functions are almost unlimited.
I find differential comparisons are the most powerful tool. Done right, there are almost no limitations in resolution. The two generalizations I can make (and I hate generalizations) are that no two electrical components or completed systems are so identical that I can't tell them apart by measurements, and it usually doesn't matter near as much as people like to claim.
The mistake most people make is assuming the usual measurements they hear about like response and THD are the only ones possible. The ways of examining signals and transfer functions are almost unlimited.
very little actual content, indeed. But figures with results does look quite impressive, don't you think so?
No, I don't think so. As you said, content-free.
I'm sure we can forgive him the weak English, as it is not his mother tongue. However, pages of content-free woffle would presumably be much the same in his native Italian. Or did all the information somehow escape during translation?
My guess is that this is some sort of input-output comparison (Hafler test?). Almost everything seen will be due to filtering. Once that has been compensated away, what is left can be difficult to interpret because differences which annoy us and differences we don't notice can look the same to a meter or a computer.
My guess is that this is some sort of input-output comparison (Hafler test?). Almost everything seen will be due to filtering. Once that has been compensated away, what is left can be difficult to interpret because differences which annoy us and differences we don't notice can look the same to a meter or a computer.
?! can you understand the difference between "production" and "reproduction"? On an original sound (signal) there's no "distortion" to speak of!
No matter how complex (and "rich of harmonics") the signal is, that's your original signal! It's your reference, it does have NO distortion whatsoever, by definition!
You speak about "distortion" when you are trying to reproduce something and your reproduction is not exactly equal to what you are trying to reproduce.
yes, unfortunately. He is almost paranoid about someone possibly stealing his IP, thus he refuse to give away any information which may be useful to understand what he have actually done. Even his friends had to sign an NDA if they wanted to know something more!
from the very little info on his site ("method can be applied to anything which can be seen as a black-box with input and output" and "no assumptions whatsoever" ==> system is assumed to be non-LTI), together with the very high (claimed) sensitivity, I guess that it should be something like that. Likely, "ADDC" has much to do with the way he process/analyze data.
exactly, and that (I mean, the data processing/analysis) may be what's really valuable about his method (again, if his claims are true...).
Last edited:
This joker is certainly no scientist.
There's a section titled "How the ADDC measure works" with ABSOLUTLEY NO DESCRIPTION OF HOW IT WORKS or even what it is. Not just the theory is missing, but even the methodology is missing.
It's easy to find differences between cables, heck one is blue. Finding and explaining AUDIBLE differences between cables in a particular application is a different task.
There's a section titled "How the ADDC measure works" with ABSOLUTLEY NO DESCRIPTION OF HOW IT WORKS or even what it is. Not just the theory is missing, but even the methodology is missing.
It's easy to find differences between cables, heck one is blue. Finding and explaining AUDIBLE differences between cables in a particular application is a different task.
Hi to all of you,
I am the author of the ADDC measure and first of all I hope you will forgive me for my not perfect english, as you could have noticed reading my web site Measure not measurable signals with the greatest precision. I am sorry for this and I know I have to improve (and any support from any of you will be greatly appreciated), but I decided to publish my site anyway to let companies know about my measure.
But I am sure my english knoledge is not the main topic all of you want to discuss with me, so let me go on. Unfortunately my life is quite busy in this period, and it was today only that I noticed this 3d over the internet, so I can try to answer your doubts now only.
With regard to the way in which the measure works, at the moment the measure theory is being evaluated by a scientific commitee, and it would be not correct to tell you more. Just Let's wait for their response.
From what I wrote on my site you may have guessed I don't think it is a good idea to give away the measure theory without any control from my side. Indeed I hope to get some sort of revenues of any kind from my idea, and I hope any of you will not blame me for this. Honestly, what would you do if you were in my shoes?
It is also true I am not a scientist as I am simply an engineer working in the TLC field and I did the measure as an hobby, but this doesn't mean I am trying to deceive people nor don't I love truth. Truth has been my only beacon during the five years in which I developed the measure and if anything is wrong please believe in my good faith, at least. Anyway it is not me who has to state if the measure is good or bad, and this is the exact reason for which it is being evaluated at the moment.
If you read my site carefully, it is just aimed at getting in touch with companies interested in deepening the measure, and this is completely different from marketing it just selling smoke, which is not my purpose. If you come to think of it for a moment, as a single person I don't have any instruments for doing so, hence it is only possible to give a future to the mesure if it has its own substance, even if I chose to not to share it over the Internet at the moment, as I explained before.
To sum up, at the moment I will not give out any additional information about the measure, but if it is good enough it is likely this will naturally emerge, and I'll be patiently waiting for that moment.
At the same time, should the measure result partially or even completely wrong, this is the wway in which science works and I will accept this virdict as well.
Thanks to all of you for having given me the chance of chatting about the measure. Of course any additional remark will be appreciated and I'll do my best to answer you, even if in the boundaries I have tried to better figure out here.
Best regards,
I am the author of the ADDC measure and first of all I hope you will forgive me for my not perfect english, as you could have noticed reading my web site Measure not measurable signals with the greatest precision. I am sorry for this and I know I have to improve (and any support from any of you will be greatly appreciated), but I decided to publish my site anyway to let companies know about my measure.
But I am sure my english knoledge is not the main topic all of you want to discuss with me, so let me go on. Unfortunately my life is quite busy in this period, and it was today only that I noticed this 3d over the internet, so I can try to answer your doubts now only.
With regard to the way in which the measure works, at the moment the measure theory is being evaluated by a scientific commitee, and it would be not correct to tell you more. Just Let's wait for their response.
From what I wrote on my site you may have guessed I don't think it is a good idea to give away the measure theory without any control from my side. Indeed I hope to get some sort of revenues of any kind from my idea, and I hope any of you will not blame me for this. Honestly, what would you do if you were in my shoes?
It is also true I am not a scientist as I am simply an engineer working in the TLC field and I did the measure as an hobby, but this doesn't mean I am trying to deceive people nor don't I love truth. Truth has been my only beacon during the five years in which I developed the measure and if anything is wrong please believe in my good faith, at least. Anyway it is not me who has to state if the measure is good or bad, and this is the exact reason for which it is being evaluated at the moment.
If you read my site carefully, it is just aimed at getting in touch with companies interested in deepening the measure, and this is completely different from marketing it just selling smoke, which is not my purpose. If you come to think of it for a moment, as a single person I don't have any instruments for doing so, hence it is only possible to give a future to the mesure if it has its own substance, even if I chose to not to share it over the Internet at the moment, as I explained before.
To sum up, at the moment I will not give out any additional information about the measure, but if it is good enough it is likely this will naturally emerge, and I'll be patiently waiting for that moment.
At the same time, should the measure result partially or even completely wrong, this is the wway in which science works and I will accept this virdict as well.
Thanks to all of you for having given me the chance of chatting about the measure. Of course any additional remark will be appreciated and I'll do my best to answer you, even if in the boundaries I have tried to better figure out here.
Best regards,
Welcome to DIYaudio! There is a wide range of expertise available here, from complete novices to world-class experts and professional scientists and engineers.
I am sure you will understand that there are lots of claims made for major breakthroughs in audio-related technology: some are confused, some are fraudulent, and just a few are really true. Some people on here are naturally suspicious. Others will believe almost anything, provided only that it is disputed by accepted science.
I am sure you will understand that there are lots of claims made for major breakthroughs in audio-related technology: some are confused, some are fraudulent, and just a few are really true. Some people on here are naturally suspicious. Others will believe almost anything, provided only that it is disputed by accepted science.
Sure I perfectly understand and I'm the first who thinks to be skeptical is a good think.
I also understand my lack of information could have lead to bad impressions and feeling, I am sorry but this is a price I knew I had to pay so I already took it into account.
Anyway it is a pleasure to know a lot of people more skilled than me are here and I hope I'll have the chance of getting in touch and learn something from them.
As I said in my web site, my only added value, if any, was my "stubborness" and my insane passion for precision!
Best regards, Daniele
I also understand my lack of information could have lead to bad impressions and feeling, I am sorry but this is a price I knew I had to pay so I already took it into account.
Anyway it is a pleasure to know a lot of people more skilled than me are here and I hope I'll have the chance of getting in touch and learn something from them.
As I said in my web site, my only added value, if any, was my "stubborness" and my insane passion for precision!
Best regards, Daniele
Dear all,
I wish to let you know that at the moment my ADDC measure full report is in the hands of Mr. Jan Abildgaard Pedersen, president of the Audio Engineering society, who directly asked me more details about my research and to whom I sent this document on June 11.
He wrote me as I sent a really brief measure report to his company (B&O) and he explained he was both skeptical and courious, so he and anyone he forwarded the report to is what I called "a scientific committee" in my previous messages, and indeed I feel I couldn't have expected a person better than him to state if my job is good or not.
To tell you the truth, despite not being a kid anymore, I am currently waiting for his impressions feeling a bit anxious, but I also hope he will find my measure somewhat interesting. Also I have to confess it seems to me it is taking a quite long time to get a first answer, but it is also true the full report contains 80 dense pages of theory and roughly 40 pages describing some first measure applications (which should be extended actually), and I understand to analyze all this stuff could be demanding.
I was wondering if any of you had a similar experience (having its job evaluated by someone at audio enginnering society), just to share experiences.
Also, should Mr Pedersen state the measure works, I would ask some help from your side to better understand what can be done at that stage and what could happen, as this is my first time in the professional audio field.
Thanks in advance to all of you,
Daniele
I wish to let you know that at the moment my ADDC measure full report is in the hands of Mr. Jan Abildgaard Pedersen, president of the Audio Engineering society, who directly asked me more details about my research and to whom I sent this document on June 11.
He wrote me as I sent a really brief measure report to his company (B&O) and he explained he was both skeptical and courious, so he and anyone he forwarded the report to is what I called "a scientific committee" in my previous messages, and indeed I feel I couldn't have expected a person better than him to state if my job is good or not.
To tell you the truth, despite not being a kid anymore, I am currently waiting for his impressions feeling a bit anxious, but I also hope he will find my measure somewhat interesting. Also I have to confess it seems to me it is taking a quite long time to get a first answer, but it is also true the full report contains 80 dense pages of theory and roughly 40 pages describing some first measure applications (which should be extended actually), and I understand to analyze all this stuff could be demanding.
I was wondering if any of you had a similar experience (having its job evaluated by someone at audio enginnering society), just to share experiences.
Also, should Mr Pedersen state the measure works, I would ask some help from your side to better understand what can be done at that stage and what could happen, as this is my first time in the professional audio field.
Thanks in advance to all of you,
Daniele
I would have had an EE professor at a local university check any dense calculations first. Someone with a known math background.
Seeing that you come from a computing background, I would roughly guess that you're capturing a very long stream of digital data from a high precision A/D converter which has its input monitoring a signal, say across the amplifier speaker terminals, or from a microphone in front of the speaker. Do this with a system playing a test piece of music, change what needs to be compared with, and repeat.
You now have two sets of test data which have to be perfectly synchronised, in the computing domain, taking into account slight levels of timing disparities because of clock drift, jitter, rumble, flutter, etc, over the period of the samples. And possibly other issues. This is the tricky bit, plenty of maths involved here! But if you've comprehensively compensated for those factors then you can do a difference of the two results, which should tell you a great deal!
I've certainly contemplated something along these lines, in my daydreaming ...
Frank
You now have two sets of test data which have to be perfectly synchronised, in the computing domain, taking into account slight levels of timing disparities because of clock drift, jitter, rumble, flutter, etc, over the period of the samples. And possibly other issues. This is the tricky bit, plenty of maths involved here! But if you've comprehensively compensated for those factors then you can do a difference of the two results, which should tell you a great deal!
I've certainly contemplated something along these lines, in my daydreaming ...
Frank
A problem here is the stationarity of the air between any two measurements being a limit on repeatability. I think it would factor in before unmeasurability. Averaging of course is available on instruments but listening gets only one chance.
And again I refer folks to Dick Burwen's editorial, if someone gets up and sits in a new seat or leaves the room, the sonic signature is easily measured and these "unmeasurable " things are lost.
And again I refer folks to Dick Burwen's editorial, if someone gets up and sits in a new seat or leaves the room, the sonic signature is easily measured and these "unmeasurable " things are lost.
- Status
- This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.