[Dick Pierce[_2_]]

Gary Eickmeier wrote:
Dick Pierce wrote:
Specific question:
What testable predictions does your model make that an
independent party can test and then examine the outcomes,
determining if that aspect of your theory making the
prediction is supported or refuted by the outcomes?

Simply that my system sounds different from a direct firing speaker system,

I think you will be granted that a priori. THat's not a prediction,
that's a fact.

and the difference is an improvement.

Define "improvement." You can't, it's a personal preference.
Are you saying that YOUR personal preference trumps the
personal preference of those that do not agree with you?

That was tested somewhat in The
Challenge experiment. Most engineers and experimenters know that radiation
pattern and room positioning are easily audible. Dr. Mark Davis has said
that the frequency response and radiation pattern are the major determinants
of the sound of a speaker. I have added room positioning. So the question is
how to optimize those and why. I have proposed a comprehensive model and the
rationale for it, and I listen to the result every day. This is not a
pipedream or hypothesis on whether the idea might work and be an
improvement.

NONE of this is testable. These are personal opinions and
preferences disguised as a "theory."

I see none. Therefore, based on the widely accepted usage of the
term "theory" in the scientific realm, I assert you have no theory.
Again, this is not meant as an insult, but a statement of fact as
I interpret it.

Address the ideas, not the definition of a theory vs a hypothesis. I really
don't care what you call it, just please begin talking to me about it.

No, because you abjectily refuse to treat contrary views to
your opinion as valid crticism, instead you degenerate to
essentially ad hominem attacks.

Specific question:
Under the principles of the scientific method, does your
"model" qualify as a valid theory or not?

Yes.

No. You have failed to provide any objective predictions
that can unabiguously provide results that are independently
testable.

And because you're claims do not have the foundations of a
falsifiable theory, allowing others to independently and
objectively test its predictions, statements YOU have made
like:

"But no, as usual, you haven't explained anything about
my theory,"

incline me to simply dismiss your claims out of hand. You seem
to be utterly unwilling to meet the burden of proof, the burden
that is ENTIRELY yours and no one else's, necessary for your
"thoery" to be taken seriously.

And, I would expect, that is really the reason why the AES
review committee rejected your paper..


Again, and finally, a series of double blind listening tests could refute my
claims.

Refute how? What are you comparing your results to? How would you
construct such a bouble-blind experiment? WHat is being tested?

As you mentioned elsewhere, your "test" would be nothing more than
a preference test, andthe way you have acted heretofore, anyone
expressing a different preference is, in your book, "wrong,"
and someone "who doesn't understand a word you're saying."

In short, Mr. Eickmeier, you've come up with an arrangement for,
whatever personal reasons, you like a lot. That's fine. No one
is objecting to that. Your opinion is that it works well for YOU.
No disagreement from ANYONE is forthcoming on that.

But that's YOUR opinion, YOUR preference. That's IT. That's as far
as you get to go without meeting a MUCH higher standard of proof
that you've been able to muster thus far.

--
+--------------------------------+
+ Dick Pierce |
+ Professional Audio Development |
+--------------------------------+