Please kindly explain, page-29

Thanks for your input BobF,

I'm lucky to be objective at this stage, I'm keenly interested in the technical possibilities, and if that checked out for me I'd look at the valuation.
My quals are that I've been rigging audio since I was 7, sound engineering live performances since 9, studio engineer in my 20s, recorded and produce much of my own music all my life, with great detail to shaping sounds, and I've got a few ideas for revolutionary speaker devices myself which I might probably never develop, and generally walk around mulling on this stuff. I'm a trainer and assessor in a technical institute, so I have a fair attention to detail, critical thinking and evidence. I might still know nothing but it shows I'm keen

My exposure is that I've watched the videos, read the presentations, all links posted in this thread, but are yet to read the patents.

My analysis of the statement from what Michael Klasco said in 2015 was that, the people seem competent, and cut from the same cloth as those who created MEMS microphones amidst doubt. Then his further positive statements are simply about digital sound reconstruction (DSR) generally, and even then he qualifies that with with "...appears to...". What I can take from this is that Audio Pixels have a lab, and there are smart people trying to do good things. I see one of the worlds most qualified people got as close as he possibly could and he wasn't a witness to anything Audio Pixels have achieved. If anyone wants to read this differently or has any other witness accounts, let me know.

My analysis of the technology from what I've digested (see above) is that it can't deliver sound pressure levels in the domestic consumption range in smaller footprint than loudspeakers. As I wrote in the post above, they may be hiding technology or methods to make this possible, but make from that what you will.

My analysis of the quality of the technical information available is that there are holes, things missing, both in documentation, but also evidence provided is needlessly obscured, so there opens a large arena for deception.

My analysis of the people is that Yuval knows his stuff, seems proper genuine, but it would take a big man to not remain passive if a seasoned chairman got creative with the truth, especially if it was gaining traction. I would understand why it might seem alright to remain silent about core mission failure, if there were other things to explore.

My analysis of what's going on currently with missed deadlines and setbacks, in the event of core mission failure would be that they've made some good discoveries, and advanced; possibly they are hoping to continue the work, and of course, there would be many and varied uses for the technology, even though it's not so useful for small form factor domestic audio.

Google Pagerank made sense, nuclear power makes sense, moving pictures makes sense, the automobile makes sense, DSR makes sense, but people continually get the limits of technical ideas wrong. People thought nuclear bombs would probably ignite the atmosphere ending life on earth, people were afraid of the first film shown of a train because it seemed too real, people thought that going 50km an hour (in a car) would take their air making them unable to breathe. DSR is real, but then people think we'll move more air with a chip with the same surface area as a traditional speaker. The roots of the success of this almost billion dollar company is in the technology, it's complex but, people shouldn't have to take this on faith, so if it's real it should be communicated better.

יום טוב
Laurence