For sure, so the positive spin is that the ultra high frequency noise of the wave is very strong evidence for the product existing in some form, you wouldn't see a wave like that from anything else. So that counters the most extreme negative perception of the product - that it's a scam and they haven't made anything.
We can't be sure how recently the video was made, and how recent a version of the system the video was showing, so as you say it's hard to take concrete conclusions on the current state of the product from the audio analysis. The best we can take away is the displayed audio has some quite severe distortion issues, and then I hypothesise that the distortions are the reason for no demo yet.
It is plausible that they do indeed need to produce devices at scale to resolve these distortion issues - manufacturing at scale with expensive equipment has a lot of benefits for accuracy.
So I don't think it's a big leap to take a guess at the current state of things for the business based on this evidence, which explains some of their odd behaviour / delays:
- The prototypes weren't making progress. They were unable to get the combined waveform to match the source signal enough to be a viable product, plus secondary issues around low frequency noise when the waveform changes rapidly, plus some skewing on the low frequency wave.
- After trying everything they could think of to resolve the issue, they were not able to get the prototype to meet the level of quality they're aiming for.
- They convince a manufacturer to start producing the chips even though the prototypes aren't viable products, as they believe they can achieve a higher level of quality with the more advanced manufacturing processes available from scale.
- They are forced to make a deal with a lesser known manufacturer, because none of the larger manufacturers will put in so much effort to tool up for this specialised production, when the first run might be the only run if it doesn't achieve the level of quality needed to sell to consumers
This is obviously just conjecture, but if I'm right on this then they're probably entering or already in a cycle of produce, test, refine, repeat. The manufacturing process normally needs to be refined anyway, so the first few runs you kinda throw them away as you calibrate things, but in this case there's significantly more risk given achieving their target level of quality may not be possible with their technical specs.
Some more transparency from the business would be good, but I suspect if they were transparent about the above the market cap would tank and their ability to fund further development in cap raises would be damaged - so it's actually legitimately in the shareholders best interests to not be transparent.
(20min delay)