What you're talking about is nothing more than publishing the data and findings to gain wider acknowledgement (and correction/critique)
That doesn't have much to do with science. The science inside your paper and research doesn't change.
When all those findings are being excepted, it becomes widely excepted science.
As for use in languages. The word "science" is often more abused than used correctly.
Especially in English.
Often used as in some kind of religion. "Do you believe in science".
That sentence doesn't make any sense even.
I'd start with the ancient Chinese, Babylonians, and Greeks, notably Aristotle and Socrates, but I'm afraid we're drifting off topic.
In conclusion, a general remark: be very suspicious of any kind of institutionalization!
Last edited:
belief system?
Let me put it this way. Depending especially where you live, but there is a possibility that other scientists don't accept your findings. Not because it is not scientifically sound, but because they have another (often political) agenda.
So what do we call science than?
btw, there is a little misunderstanding here, because academia often also refers to people who just follow an academic study.
Which is often but certainly not always true for those who review new scientific papers.
It's all about observation transcending belief systems.
This takes time, requires (life) experience and many other things, but above all awareness, also of your own tendency to bias.
Hi Ro, it's a nice horn. I'm surprised it hasn't attracted some favorable attention. It was the horn Peter Morris built his original design with. The XT1464 came from folks clamoring for being able to scale up to 2 boxes that arrayed well. (Which was ok, but not optimal since the PM90/60 were rectangle boxes to accomplish the mid-low horn loading design., and couldn't splay real well tight packed. (Tis why I built the modular rig..... to tight pack splay ....and used all the same drivers and 60 deg horn.)
Maybe the HF950 has never gained traction because it's poly and has vanes in it.. i dunno...but i likes it .
edit: I realize i didn't answer your questions about how it compares...
Indoors, i prefer the XT1464 for it's narrower pattern, and it's simply a clean sounding horn.
Outdoors, and certainly for live-sound using just one box, I prefer the HF950 for smooth even wider coverage.
The XR1496C ? I don't feel I have enough time with it to make valid comparisons. My quick and nasty gut take hearing comparisons, was to stick with what i knew, from using the PM90/60's. (they remain awesome boxes imo)
Last edited:
Yikes! that's as wrong as wrong can get imo.
Academia is quite often politics extraordinaire....ego's grand central station.... (i've been there, I'm not ranting from a distance)
ASR posted an interesting example of such politics from a few years back:
https://www.audiosciencereview.com/forum/index.php?threads/history-of-ohms-law.35921/
b-Force (cool name), I agree with everything you say except for the word "imply" above should be "prove". A a significant correlation would certainly "imply causation."
One more. To me the word "science" should be changed to "Engineering". "Science", again, to me, is purer than that. It doesn't care about "importance." That's not for it to say.
For small (= undeveloped) egos
98 times out of 100 people speak of a 'big ego', when they actually mean a 'small ego' (ignorant of Jung's interpretation).
Last edited:
Yes @gedlee, confusing science with engineering is at the root of all this and most people use the term interchangeably without consideration.
What I sense here are engineers vigorously asserting the superiority of their field but I’m not debating peoples emotions regarding the state of academia or some grand theories on the history of science. As a matter of fact my first post on the subject was a critical view on the strict rigors placed on scientific pursuit (!).
These two articles will probably better explain the points I am trying to make:
https://www.bu.edu/eng/about/dean-lutchen/engineering-is-not-science/
https://wiki.cs.earlham.edu/images/5/57/Petroski-science-technology.pdf
What I sense here are engineers vigorously asserting the superiority of their field but I’m not debating peoples emotions regarding the state of academia or some grand theories on the history of science. As a matter of fact my first post on the subject was a critical view on the strict rigors placed on scientific pursuit (!).
These two articles will probably better explain the points I am trying to make:
https://www.bu.edu/eng/about/dean-lutchen/engineering-is-not-science/
https://wiki.cs.earlham.edu/images/5/57/Petroski-science-technology.pdf
Last edited:
For small (= undeveloped) egos
98 times out of 100 people speak of a 'big ego', when they actually mean a 'small ego' (ignorant of Jung's interpretation).
When we don't refer to a specific discipline, definitions are flying, as in, changing a lot, and all over the place. The blending of disciplines leads to progress but people hate change or the people changing things....I try to lead discussion towards definitions and can be cited posting definitions of words, many times in this thread. I am also easily the most poetic in word choices (3: having or expressing the qualities of poetry (as through aesthetic or emotional impact)...Things also start to get very abstract in the more complicated sciences. Any way, Engineering is an Applied Science....Like sorta like Nursing lol.
or
Scientific method is used to build a database of organized knowledge. The best... knowledge is used to progress the leading edge, of the Application. At the leading edge of Application is Engineering
In that, I guess I am agreeing that "Science" is purer. Its also true that Engineering only a few steps removed from it....I've never thought about it much until now but would you agree that Engineering is literally Applied Science, as in, Science, Applied?
But what about a Science Engineer?
"An engineer scientist applies scientific principles and practice to engineering. They work in biotechnology, construction and manufacturing, chemistry and environmental science.Jan 3, 2022"
Whats the difference between an Engineer and a Science Engineer lol......
"What is engineer science degree?
Engineering science is an interdisciplinary field bridging the gap between scientific theory and engineering applications"
You guys aren't doing that already? Wtf, as in....theres a Gap? Scary!
Last edited:
The manufacturer is still finalizing the design. The aim is to produce the first models by the end of the year.
This woofer will probably be used, or a slightly different variant:
The horn is probably a kind of hybrid between Tractrix, OSWG and 'constant directivity', intended for a crossover around 700Hz.
Last edited:
Regarding that woofer in post 10.817: could it be our fellow-member Snicker-is is at work here?
https://www.diyaudio.com/community/threads/the-birth-of-a-15-inch-woofer.341825/
https://www.diyaudio.com/community/threads/the-birth-of-a-15-inch-woofer.341825/
Thanks. I see Boden has referenced the blog for the driver design. I am partial to these classic 2-way designs with 15" woofers and horns, and seeing what can be done to squeek out more performance.
According to some (local) press releases, he is.
The woofer was designed with the parameters of the TAD TL1601 in mind.
So it won't be cheap (though still considerably cheaper than GPA or new TAD units), it's not designed to withstand hours of PA torture/abuse and I still believe that a light cone is preferable for midrange duties (> 500 Hz), but for the intended range this woofer is probably hard to beat.
Preliminary parameters (Le is now even lower):
Last edited: