|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
71.252.99.39
Please find below the Middle Section of Article by Robert Jahn in Journal of Scientific Exploration:"Thus, at the dawn of the 21st century, we again find an elite, smugly contented scientific establishment, but one now endowed with far more public authority and respect than that of the prior version. A veritable priesthood of high science controls major segments of public and private policy and expenditure
for research, development, construction, production, education, and publication throughout the world, and enjoys a cultural trust and reverence that extends far beyond its true merit.It is an establishment that is largely consumed with refinements and deployments of mid–20th century science, rather than with creative advancement of fundamental understanding of the most
profound and potentially seminal aspects of its trade. Even more seriously, it is an establishment that persists in frenetically sweeping legitimate genres of new anomalous phenomena under its intellectual carpet, thereby denying its own well-documented heritage that anomalies are the most precious raw material from which future science is formed.
Let us turn to these current anomalies and ask what new science they may spawn. The readership of this Journal surely needs no lexicon of these topics. It is precisely the constellation of subjects that the Society for Scientific Exploration has been studying, talking, and writing about since its formation, and comprises all of the subtle and mysterious ways that living creatures perceive, interpret, and influence the world they inhabit. Whether we are investigating anomalous mind/matter interactions, remote perceptions, poltergeists, reincarnations,
UFO phenomena, strange creatures, inexplicable meteorological effects, or alternative healing modalities, we are at some level, explicit or implicit, addressing the role of consciousness in the establishment and behavior of physical reality.And for this intellectual crusade we have very little science
in hand: very little vocabulary, a scant concept base, and few mechanics, assessment criteria, or experimental facilities. Another major intellectual break-out, of a scale, vision, and courage comparable to that of the quantum era, is required to start science rolling forward again.
What should be the character of this break-out? First to be emphasized is that we do not need any destructive revolution that discards sound scientific methodology or threatens systematic scientific logic. Rather, we require an evolutionary broadening and deepening of the scientific venue and perspective, more like its evolution into quantum and relativistic domains of the past century, to extend its intellectual power into study of the full reach of the human mind and spirit. In an earlier article (Jahn & Dunne, 1997), we attempted to define and justify a “Science of the Subjective,” which proposed the following expansions of the scientific paradigm:
o A proactive role for consciousness that would elevate it from a passive observer of the physical world, to a purposeful agent in its behavior.
o Inclusion of subjective experience as well as objective properties in the scientific arsenals of concepts, data, analyses, models, and interpreta-tions.
o The acceptance of teleological drivers in all forms of mind/matter interactions; specifically, the efficacy of intention and resonance, within a context of relevance or meaning, in facilitating physical change.
o Clearer distinction between causality and correlation in both material and mental events.
o Recognition of the interconnectedness of the physical, psychological, and philosophical aspects, leading to greater reliance on transdisciplinary metaphors for representation, interpretation, generalization, and unification of consciousness-related phenomena.
o Relaxation of replicability criteria for complex, multi-statistical physical, biological, and psychological systems and processes.
Clearly, such extensions of scientific perspective and strategy present huge problems in orderly identification, representation, quantification, and interpretation of experiential phenomena, but the potential benefits of this pursuit are even more awesome. For from its success, science could aspire not only to benevolent stewardship of the physical world, but also to productive understanding of the interactions of its living inhabitants with it, and with one another.If this new era of science is to retain the incisiveness and rigor of its immediate predecessor, it must continue to feature a vital dialogue between empirical experience and logical reasoning, i.e., between experiment and theory. The major changes required on both sides of this dialogue will be the inclusion of
the various subjective aspects just mentioned. Incorporation of intuitive, aesthetic, and metaphoric dimensions into research protocols, although largely eschewed by 20th century mainstream science, need not pose insurmountable
tactical problems.To some extent, contemporary research in the family of psychological disciplines has already established some lexicon of empirical concepts and heuristic methods for the evaluation and correlation of subjective aspects with objectively specifiable physical results. But to extend such provincially circumscribed correlations into more universal theoretical formulations representative of the global interplay of mind and matter will require far more expansive and courageous scholarly creativity.
Follow Ups:
HiThe reason I posted the link to this site originally was because of what they represent and to provoke thinking.
They have proven to scientific satisfaction, a number of things about “mind / matter” connections that had long been thought to be imaginary by “main stream science”.
The work I was aware of was mostly in effecting what would normally be random events like a million coin tosses. They found (thru the rigors of blind testing among others) that some people could influence a repeated random even, in a desired direction, to a degree which was not large but exceeds statistical significance.
More weirdly, this effect was not distance or time dependent.
None of these people had thought they had any special talent or ESP.For mainstream science, these folks not only proved the effect is real but its presence and a lack of mechanism opened a new can of intriguing worms, “how the heck does this work?”
Could this explain “lucky” people I wonder, could this still unknown connection mechanism over time and space explain miracles or even God?
I can see why they wax philosophically.I think for hifi, there are at least two implications.
First, for some people, to some degree, ones thoughts CAN influence otherwise random things in the physical world, in a desired direction, to a small yet real degree.
How this is impacting the various elements in the reproduction chain based on your wants is a question as well as the possible cumulative influence of the musicians and engineers on the recording.
This would then make equipment design “for the masses” more complicated to the degree that some users could influence its actual performance in one direction or another.Second, that even something as abstract and intangible as ESP / telekinesis, can be proven to scientific satisfaction by using regular scientific methods like Blind Testing, to remove “prior knowledge” from the tests.
Real fans of hifi (maximizing the listening experience) should not be afraid of exploring where “wishful thinking” and “actually hearing it” diverge, sometimes only observable when there is a lack of prior knowledge.
Best,
...as opposed to merely talking about it.
from the horse's mouth. Draw your own conclusions.
Well this is perfect, it has been a while since I checked out how things were, sounds like a change of winds. It must have been a real blow when in spite of all the effort they went to make the experiments “correct”, that it wouldn’t be replicated nearly as strongly in independent tests.
Sadly, that too is part of being accepted into the “big book of scientific facts”, what ever it is, has to be reproducible when exactly replicated by in an independent test.
Can you say it looks like “Cold fusion” boys and girls (maybe) in a Mr. Rogers voice.Yet, the very phenomena they were researching may have affected the results.
They say
“To borrow a fluid mechanical metaphor, it is as if the influence of the operator intention now was manifesting itself as a structural “turbulence” in the output data of the replication, rather than a more orderly displacement of the data streams as was found in the prior PEAR studies.”So, for some people, sometimes, they seem to be able to influence random events, to a degree which rises above statistical significance.
The replication tests did not show as much human influence as the PEAR tests, much less, yet the PEAR test methodology was mostly proper.So, here is a “what if” that will play well in some hifi places, what if all it takes is having a “skeptic” around to bum out the effect?
This study says at a level just above randomness there is an effect, correlated to what is more of an issue. As applied "full time" Sounds possibly like a very slight anti “Murphy’s law” transform for DSPing all life’s problems away, or a way to amplify Murphy's law types of events.Or, an alternate theory, Lets say all the data is right but the conclusion was wrong.
What if this is a rare gift and actually none of the subjects had any power and only one of the original PEAR staff (who wanted to show this effect) turned out to be the only one having any influence, but, they were not involved (or even pissed off) during the replication test?
What if I stopped, yeah that’s it.
Best,Have a Good Friday to all who subscribe. <> <
Tom Danley
Thank you.
...the contempt and contumely heaped upon the heads of "believers" by those who consider themselves "educated". I refer of course to audio.The line is from T.S. Eliot.
All are interesting possible ways to think about these experiments. These are good experimenters, but there is a lot of work still to be done.
...but will look at this ASAP. TIA.
Quote from Tom Danley "21st Century Science" 5th April 2007.
> > > "The reason I posted the link to this site originally was because of what they represent and to provoke thinking. They have proven to scientific satisfaction, a number of things about "mind / matter" connections that had long been thought to be imaginary by "main stream science". < < <It would be nice if such groups COULD provoke thinking - that is 'provoke thinking' in enough people to make a significant difference !!
We have also Bohm's book "Thought as a system" saying, in effect - "The whole society sharing thoughts - it's all one process". Couple that with Rupert Sheldrake's 'morphic resonance' concept.
Sheldrake is a biologist and obviously trained in conventional biological theories but he had to begin to 'think out of the box' to try to explain anomalies which he had observed in Nature. Where certain behavioural patterns could NOT be explained from within conventional theories but which can begin to be explained by the concept that "if something exists then it has a particular morphic resonance pattern"., "that the more things which are identical strengthen that particular morphic resonance pattern"., "that the things which are identical 'know the existence of each other' and can therefore 'tap into' any acquired knowledge/experience/behaviour'.Bohm, I think, (I am putting this simplistically) sees the whole universe as a giant holograph with everything 'linked' within it. Again, extremely simplistically, I have had to understand Bohm and Sheldrake in my own way - by visualising a huge vegetable soup - with the peas 'knowing the existence of each other', the carrots 'knowing the existence of each other' and so on with us (human beings) also within that huge soup !!!
> > > "Real fans of hifi (maximizing the listening experience) should not be afraid of exploring where "wishful thinking" and "actually hearing it" diverge, sometimes only observable when there is a lack of prior knowledge." < < <
How I wish people (real fans of hifi) WOULD EXPLORE !!! In an extensive discussion I was involved with in the Stereophile Chat Forum (a link to that can be accessed via an article by me - "Myth, Mirth or Magic?" (just published in Positive Feedback Online), I tried to make people aware that their belief in the 'peer group' review process of verifying discoveries was extremely naive. I used the particular story of our work and involvement in attempting to improve the sound of hearing aids. Even after all my 52 years of experience of engineer's and scientist's attitudes I was still amazed (and dismayed) at the attitude(s) I met on this Stereophile discussion forum. I became cross with someone who accused me of being disparaging to the medical profession because 'I should be aware that they are extremely dedicated people', so I suggested that if HE was so convinced that the people he knew of who were involved in work on hearing aids were so dedicated, then why didn't HE tell them of experiments they could carry out on hearing aid batteries for themselves ?
I give below the exchange I had with him !!!!!!************************
Quote from Scooter123 15/11/06I suspect that treatment involved coloring the batteries with specially "blessed" pens, putting a picture of the battery in the freezer, or something similar.
May, the simple fact is that J. Gordon holt's article had absolutely nothing to do with the hearing aid industries lack of interest in your "treatments". These people are hard nosed SCIENTISTS and your "treatments" have absolutely no foundation in Science. That's why they won't explore your treatments, you have no scientific evidence, or theory, to show HOW your treatments work. To be blunt, they have enough to do within the framework of real science that they won't even consider wasting any time on mysticism.
BTW, no I won't approach anyone in the hearing aid industry about experimenting with your treatments. The simple fact is that I am an Applied Scientist and do not believe that your treatments work. Provide some proof within the framework of an accepted field of Science (chemistry, physics, or even quantum mechanics) and perhaps then I will listen.
My Reply To Scooter123.
As Clark Johnsen said earlier "Again - with the Price !!!"
And, I also say "Again - another knee-jerk reaction - with presumptions." Presumptions that, with any of our treatments, there MUST BE something weird and wonderful involved i.e "blessed pens" (at a price) etc.
Don't Professors rap students knuckles anymore when the students make presumptions without knowing the facts ?
The facts are that the technique described is FREE, FREE, ABSOLUTELY FREE.Please can people observe where some of the blockages to progress are ?
If some of you, members of the audio fraternity, are prepared to do some experiments for yourself, to try things without pre judging, what chance is there of progress if a self professed Applied Scientist declares that NO, he is not going to waste time on what he describes as mysticism ?'And, Scooter123, do you REALLY believe that J. Gordon Holt's article had no influence whatsoever ? On anyone ? That it was no discouragement whatsoever to some people who might have been prepared to go further ? That, because of an article such as that, some people kept quiet for fear of being scorned ?
If the researchers into hearing aids are like Scooter123 - what he calls 'hard nosed scientists' - and would not be prepared to do experiments, then how can progress be made ? If the researchers WERE prepared to do some experiments such as freezing the batteries, and they discovered that YES, that technique can give improvements i.e make the sound of the hearing aid less harsh, aggressive, and shouty - then they MIGHT then be prepared to try the freezing technique on the ACTUAL hearing aid !!! WOW - just imagine - that technique might even give further improvements !!
I would never recommend that members of the public should themselves freeze the actual hearing aids - they are too precious and too expensive for people to attempt such things themselves - but surely the PROFESSIONALS - the researchers into hearing aids should be seriously investigating this aspect to see what is effective and what can be done in that area ?
But if Scooter123 as a professed 'Applied Scientist' is representative of the 'hard nosed scientists' working on hearing aids, then I am presuming that NOTHING will be done !! Yet again !!
For people interested in the history of scientific discoveries, then study this episode carefully. You are right in the middle of such a period of history !!
My reply :-
Quote from Scooter123.
"Provide some proof within the framework of an accepted field of Science (chemistry, physics, or even quantum mechanics) and perhaps then I will listen."What Scooter is suggesting is "Present us with all your results, all your research, all your proof - and we will then deign to have a look - until then - keep quiet - don't bother us with concepts, anecdotal examples. We (the scientists) do not want to know until YOU have done all the research you are asking US to do !!
We would all still be in the dark ages if the early pioneers had met that attitude from every one of their contemporaries !!
One of my favourite occurrences from history is what I refer to as the "Dr Hughes Bennett Syndrome" named after the doctor in the Joseph Lister story who said "Where are the germs? Show them to us and we will believe. Has anybody seen these germs ?"
And, Scooter, I would suggest you read my reply to Buddha where I give details of some people's experiences using the freezing/slow defrost technique over a period of 20 years. And, these examples are only the ones I know of. There may easily be many more. How many results, how many anecdotal examples are required before the 'hard nosed scientists' involved in researching into hearing aids are prepared to have a look ?
And, Scooter123, just who IS the onus on to investigate ? I personally would have thought the researchers working on hearing aids !!!!!!!!!
Regards,
May Belt.Quote from 4season 15/11/06
I evaluate audio faith healing..err, esoteric tweaks and political promises in much the same way: I watch where the money is going.
"Treated" hearing aid batteries could've been a particularly fine, high-margin revenue stream, because unlike some other tweaks, they need frequent replacement!
My reply.
Again, with the price !! Again with the mockery. "Audio faith healing to improve the sound of hearing aids OR a simple freezing/slow defrost technique which is FREE "
Which is it 4 season ?
Regards,
May Belt.
****************************I repeat the sentence I said in the Stereophile Chat Forum.
"For people interested in the history of scientific discoveries, then study this episode carefully. You are right in the middle of such a period in the history of scientific discoveries !!"
Regards,
May Belt.
There are objective methods for listening to audio that reduce the possibilities of some important biases (such as expectations bias, and different A-B SPL's creating meaningless audible differences).Objective listening for tweaks:
(1) The listeners are not told what tweak they are hearing.
(2) Listeners attempt to prove they can hear a difference between using the tweak and using no tweak, with a low (under 5%) margin of error.
(3) Only if they can hear a difference should their subjective comments about the tweak be taken seriously (and are very unlikely to be solely the result of overactive imaginations.) Their comments could be grossly exaggerated or not audible to your ears, but proof of audibilty makes a tweak "real", rather than a fantasy.
You and Mr. Belt's so called 'science' merely assumes (1) and (2) above are true simply because a listener merely claims he hears a difference.
That is not science at all.
Nor is it objective.
Since you are claiming to be a "manufacturer" at this forum, it would make sense to assume that your posts could be biased by profits on the products you sell.
Some people claim your products are snake oil that make audiophiles buying them appear to be fools. I am one of them. We may be wrong.
Or we may be right.
.
.
.
.
> > Some people claim your products are snake oil that make audiophiles buying them appear to be fools. I am one of them. < <I agree. You -are- a fool. An incorrigible loud-mouthed fool at that, judging by all the messages I have recently found from you that you have infested many AA forums with. Admitting you're a fool is probably the only true thing you've ever said in your history here. For the record, as a proud Beltist, I would much rather "appear" to be a fool to transparent fools like you, than to emulate you and actually be a fool - moreover, too great a fool to ever realize it. So naturally, being the belligerent and blinkered fool that you are, you're a waste of time debating. The fact that you think this latest loud bait of yours isn't a buck-naked attempt at trolling, says everything about you.
> > We may be wrong. Or we may be right. < <
Alas, you're wrong. But then that's redundant, because, what -aren't- you wrong about? I'm amused to see you straining to try to be a nice boy and carefully avoid making any more of those stupid, nasty, unfounded defamatory allegations you're famous for, after I had your last post on this subject deleted. So here, you get a cracker from me for the effort. I know they say you shouldn't feed the trolls but... .you're such a desperate one, I felt sorry for you. LOL!
Guess you had nothing to say about audio?
Hi MayYou speak of a real phenomena common among most academics I have dealt with, it is the result of an “intellectual purchase”.
At several times at Intersonics, I (not having a formal education) was directing the efforts of a number of scientists and engineers working on new electronics for experimental hardware for NASA.
My old boss used to say an advantage I had in technical problem solving was that I didn’t already know what didn’t work and so I was free to think in any direction.
Highschool was terrible for me, took 5 years to get through taking every shop class I could and while taking a “work study” class that let me work at a TV store.
I had been interested in speakers and electronics since I was little and that was my hobby all my life. I survived foolish young adulthood and at 24 decided I would try to learn more of the scientific parts of things and ugh, some math which was the worst.
I got a Commodore Vic20, taught my self GW basic and how to do some math and the world of LF horns began to open up.
About 12 years later, after doing electronics repair and building speakers, I got the Job at Intersonics.I don’t know if that is true but how Roy Whymark my old boss described the general scheme was dead on most of the time. His perspective was from a WWII acoustician who worked on the Sonar and radar systems at Mullard labs in England.
Anyway, the point is that the act of going to get a formal education gives one confidence in being equipped with the tools and knowledge to deal with nearly anything.
Most people embrace that feeling of confidence and apply it generally to areas they don’t have specific knowledge in and then make reflexive judgments and fail to consider that there are often complications which makes the case not the one considered in the class examples..
Roy loved the idea that out of all the scientists, engineers, 17 out of the 18 Patents the company held, were originated by a 5 year High school grad.
At that point, with the Servodrive speaker division running, I guess I felt like I had finally overcome High school.Anyway, everyone makes intellectual purchases, they invest in some idea or direction and then also become partially blind to the possible minutia which may invert / alter the image.
May, I have read a number of your posts and you are totally serious about sound.
Yet, we are clearly on two different parts of the planet so far as the concept of how things work. Also, nothing I could say to you or you to me will cause us to significantly alter our positions, largely because of the “purchase” we each made getting here but your willingness to respond here shows the door is not nailed shut.I would say the greatest danger anyone interested in all this faces is that most of the technical understanding of how hifi products work, come from the people who make them or help sell them. This places a high probability that this “information” will be shaped or even contrived to most effectively “sell” the product. Those who profit are of course fully able to claim anything and go full BS or reality or anywhere in between.
I don’t know if you were around when the power wars were going on but an old example of manufacturers totally lying by orders of magnitude.Business is math if you make a wood block (or knob) that cost 60 cents to make, 2 dollars to package slickly and sell it for 350 bucks, you don’t have to reach a significant slice of the market to have a profitable cottage business.
Wild improbable claims don’t need to be proven in areas of human perception and discretionary spending and while they only appeal to a small percentage of the whole, that is enough to make money.
Business is a science, it is a plain fact that a dollar spent marketing an image of technology has more return that spending a dollar on real R&D.
Look to the biggest, most profitable audio companies, then think of how there products rank and yes I mean they stink.Sadly, if you really want to know how things work, you have to start with what is known from a science perspective.
As with all areas of science human perception is too weak and subject to influence to trust entirely, removing potential non experiment related influences is the solution seemingly everywhere but hi end hifi.
As with the PEAR labs example, it is possible to do everything right. “prove” a result with blind testing BUT if an experimental proof isn’t universally reproducible, even by people who might not want it to work, it still doesn’t go into the “big book of science”.This is why starting with what is “known” and measuring is a good place to start but keeping in mind, this usually has nothing at all to do with the retail hifi business or magazines say and while science information is mostly complete, has some holes and may have thin coverage in places due to simplifications..
Once you get a good understanding of the principals and have built / measured enough to imagine systems of principals in your head, then you can come up with systems of new things, invention.
Thankfully, what ever you think you hear, it is often possible to remove the knowledge of what your hearing and then one is left to judge with ones ears alone.If anyone selling something or helping to sell things tells you about some cool new thing that sounds improbable, there should be a little robot off the corner of your mind saying “ Danger Danger Will Robinson, its Dr. Smith again and he is smiling”
Keep in mind some things work because of that mental purchase, a non hifi example is the famous Gas line magnetizer.
It has no effect at all on the gasoline or combustion but most people get better mileage. Subconsciously, the act of investing (consisting of both a $ purchase AND putting it on yourself) is a mental message of expectation which then subconsciously alters there driving habits. In audio, dare I suggest the little wood blocks, speaker wire towers, magic chips fall in this category too? That is, they cause a change that is unrelated to the physical operation of any of the gear, that probably would not be detectable in blind test.
Best,Tom Danley
On a clear disk….You can seek forever…
Even NASA, as great as they may be, screws up from time to time, e.g., Challenger disaster (among many others). Sometimes experiments, like Shuttle launches, cannot be "universally replicated" for unseen or unexpected reasons - which is actually one of the conclusions of the PEAR group.
> > > "May, I have read a number of your posts and you are totally serious about sound.Sadly, if you really want to know how things work, you have to start with what is known from a science perspective." < < <
Thank you for your courteousness Tom, but you really should have been more aware about our technical background before giving me a lecture on technical aspects of audio !!
Peter was a radio engineer in the RAF and after that he and I have been involved the world of audio for the past 52 years. 30 of those years involved audio equipment retailing and in manufacturing our own range of moving coil, orthodynamic and electrostatic headphones and loudspeakers !!!!!!!!
You say you have been involved with loudspeakers. I personally worked out and drew out an 8 ohm coil for an orthodynamic diaphragm, ready for etching, to fit the magnetic structure of the Strathearn orthodynamic panel speaker - whilst Strathearn were still cutting a quarter ohm coil - by hand - from aluminium foil and sticking it onto a mylar sheet - by hand !!! And, in addition, they then had to use a step up transformer to get this quarter ohm coil up to 8 ohms to match it into the amplifier !!!!
I have been involved in all aspects of audio, by Peter's side, for 52 years !! From the years of valves only (no transistors) and mono (before stereo).!!!
25 years ago our life changed. This was when Peter SUDDENLY found that he had the best sound he had ever had in his life !!!!! The rest of the story is well known.
So. Tom, in answer to your sentence "If you want to know how things work !!!"
I DO !!! But, thanks again for your courtesy.
Hi May
“So. Tom, in answer to your sentence "If you want to know how things work !!!"
I DO !!! But, thanks again for your courtesy.”Well May, I would have to say I have not reached that level where I can say I know how everything works, in fact, it usually appears that the more you know about something, the more you realize there are things you don’t know.
While I have not worked in the “hifi” market, other than working for Grommes precision in the 70’s (tube amplifiers) in engineering and repair, all of my life has been involved in solving technical / acoustic / electronic problems and I did contribute a few times to the late Audio magazine. My hobby and keenest area of interest happens to be hifi and building loudspeakers and drivers, so yes like I said I work with speakers.I would like to think that the approach of using science and measurement as key elements to design is useful. So far as the obligatory technical penis waving in return, at Intersonics, I designed and built major sections of several experiments flown on the two space shuttle flights and sounding rockets, including the acoustic levitation transducers and power amplifier / control electronics. In addition to NASA work, I worked on projects as weird as measuring the resonance in pecan shells to the thickness of the carbon layer at the bottom of a working blast furnace (with sound) in US Steel in Gary Indiana. I also started the Servodrive speaker division with a loudspeaker I invented, one of which even eventually helped Joyce Poole at Cornell U. establish low frequency elephant communication for National Geographic.
We took on some hard jobs too, I designed a sonic boom simulator of massive proportions and several smaller ones for NASA research. This had to be waveshape accurate, not just ridiculously large.http://pdf.aiaa.org/preview/1993/PV1993_4430.pdf
All of this was in new ground where there was nothing you could look up, when the job is “hard” you run out of ways to do it. Ask your husband, how do you pass 300 Amps through a one turn coil, 3/8 inch id at 12 – 14 MHz, without an ensuing fire. It turns out you can electromagnetically levitate glass a “non conductor” with a 3 phase version.
For the last 9 years I have been designing commercial sound loudspeakers exclusively for a living but we did take on a Military “subwoofer” project recently we called the Matterhorn. While not a hifi speaker, the spec required low distortion, its dimensions may provide a laugh. Click on the construction video link.
http://www.danleysoundlabs.com/matterhorn.htm
This gives an idea what I have been up to in the past
http://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&lr=&client=firefox-a&q="Thomas+j+danley"+patents&btnG=Search
And now where our speaker are used in commercial sound
http://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&channel=s&hl=en&q=danley+sound+labs&btnG=Google+Search
And my solution to the “how to make a time coherent full range horn dilemma” or “how to make a small bass horn with nice response and group delay?”
http://www.danleysoundlabs.com/pdf/danley_tapped.pdf
None of this “new stuff” would be possible for me to conceive or design without using facts from the “book of science” and computer models that count on fixed relationships that “always” happen. .
It is the rare exception when something doesn’t fit when all the fine details are accounted for.
I ask, how much real innovation is there in home hifi?
How often do “new” ways of doing things really come along?
Lacking those, what else can a manufacturer, marketer or salesman do to create demand / sales?
Best,
Tom Danley
...to do with it? Scooter, if you're an "Applied Scientist", apply yourself, man!It's always amusing to behold how, even within the closest groves of "science", that word still is used, although always pejoratively.
TS - None of these people had thought they had any special talent or ESP.They were obviously not Golden Ear Audiophiles, who not only think and believe this, but will be happy to tell you and I about it.
cheers,
AJ
The threshold for disproving something is higher than the threshold for saying it, which is a recipe for the accumulation of bullshit - Softky
Once they discover this place they can put aside "reincarnations" temporarily, and expend some of their "expansive and courageous scholarly activity" figuring out the denizens of PHP. The "metaphoric dimensions" required may not be insurmountable, but they will be heroic.
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors: